Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Young earth/dating methods


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
54 replies to this topic

#1
wincam

wincam
  • Members
  • 61 posts

via google just type in [young earth/dating methods] and click and take your pick - also try [young earth/creationism] - wincam



#2
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,236 posts

What's the point of these one-liner posts exactly? I think it's important to point out, that the earth being 4.5 billion years old does not mitigate, in the least, the proposition that God created it all. Either way He did. Nothing is removed from God's omnipotence or glory or sovereignty by thinking that things are older rather than younger. What's a billion years to God?



#3
wincam

wincam
  • Members
  • 61 posts

the absurdity and the non acceptable is that since there neither was nor is millions of years and then to say God created millions of years ago is to make an idiot of God and it doesn't just stop there either but invariably leads on to not accepting that in an instant out of nothing on each of 6 x 24hr days God created everything perfect = no evolution necessary or possible - so in the end it does matter - not only that but we just cannot have a Sabbath or a rest after 6 or more thousands or millions of years of labour - wincam   



#4
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,236 posts

I still don't' see why any of this is of such dire consequence. In the end God is all powerful, He could have created everything completely out of no time at all, or He could have taken a trillion years. Neither way is relevant to God's power over the situation. Either way the creative acts of God are represented in the Genesis creation account, which sets it out in 6 day intervals. It's not necessary to see them 24 hr days in order to understand them as nevertheless ordering sabbath days.



#5
Spock

Spock

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts

the absurdity and the non acceptable is that since there neither was nor is millions of years and then to say God created millions of years ago is to make an idiot of God and it doesn't just stop there either but invariably leads on to not accepting that in an instant out of nothing on each of 6 x 24hr days God created everything perfect = no evolution necessary or possible - so in the end it does matter - not only that but we just cannot have a Sabbath or a rest after 6 or more thousands or millions of years of labour - wincam


Imo, there are So many bad assumptions being made here, I wouldn't know where to start.

#6
wincam

wincam
  • Members
  • 61 posts

of course we cannot here consider what He could have or should but what He did and said He did - wincam



#7
wincam

wincam
  • Members
  • 61 posts

why assumptions, were you there - wincam



#8
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,460 posts

The Truth

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Will Out

 

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8

 

~

 

I think it's important to point out, that the earth being 4.5 billion years old does not mitigate, in the least, the proposition that God created it all.

 

~

 

Beloved, The Fact That God States Otherwise

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

 

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:8-11

 

Does Not In The Least Mitigate The Fact That Men Weren't There

 

Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

 

Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

 

Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him? Job 40:5-9

 

Nor Did They Observe His Creation Acts

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

Nor Did They Measure It

 

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. Jeremiah 10:12

 

Nor Will They Ever Reproduce It

 

The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Job 33:4

 

And Yet Most Men Will Not Recant And Repent Of Their Proposition

 

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

 

You

 

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

 

See

 

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

 

He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12



#9
Spock

Spock

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts

why assumptions, were you there - wincam


Why do you put God in a box? God has been around since who knows when past. To make Earth a recent phenomena is so restricting. Remember, he is the alpha and omega.

#10
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts

 

why assumptions, were you there - wincam


Why do you put God in a box? God has been around since who knows when past. To make Earth a recent phenomena is so restricting. Remember, he is the alpha and omega.

 

Who is putting God in a box???   God said He created the earth in six literal 24 hour days and there is no  way around what the Bible says.  That is not putting God in a box.  It amounts to taking God at His word and believing what He says.

 

You can believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old OR you can believe God when He says that he created the earth in six days.  



#11
Spock

Spock

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts

why assumptions, were you there - wincam


Why do you put God in a box? God has been around since who knows when past. To make Earth a recent phenomena is so restricting. Remember, he is the alpha and omega.
Who is putting God in a box???   God said He created the earth in six literal 24 hour days and there is no  way around what the Bible says.  That is not putting God in a box.  It amounts to taking God at His word and believing what He says.
 
You can believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old OR you can believe God when He says that he created the earth in six days.

I don't have a problem with six literal days. I have a problem with making Earth a young planet, like 10,000 years old.

#12
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts

 

 

 

why assumptions, were you there - wincam


Why do you put God in a box? God has been around since who knows when past. To make Earth a recent phenomena is so restricting. Remember, he is the alpha and omega.
Who is putting God in a box???   God said He created the earth in six literal 24 hour days and there is no  way around what the Bible says.  That is not putting God in a box.  It amounts to taking God at His word and believing what He says.
 
You can believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old OR you can believe God when He says that he created the earth in six days.

I don't have a problem with six literal days. I have a problem with making Earth a young planet, like 10,000 years old.

 

The notion that the earth is old goes back over 200 years to the age of englightenment, long before radiometric dating and long before carbon dating.  Long before there was any science to support the notion of an old earth.

 

Modern science has simply tried to make the evidence fit the assumption that the earth is old.  One reason science needs an old earth is to make room for evolution.   The age of the earth has miraculously gotten older and older the more we learn about the complexity of life in order to make room for evolution.   The evidence is tweaked whenever necessary to be whatever they need it to be in order to fit the assumption.



#13
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
Well one thing for sure, it certainly appears to be a very old universe, unless it was created with apparent age.

#14
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,460 posts

Well one thing for sure, it certainly appears to be a very old universe, unless it was created with apparent age.

 

~

 

For Sure Many Do Not Approve Of His Word Yet It Was His Pleasure

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

To Have Created His Universe Just As It Appears

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

And Yet, Still It Seems It's Man's

 

This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope. It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. Lamentations 3:21-23

 

Free Will To Agree

 

Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created. Psalms 148:1-5

 

Or Not

 

For thou, LORD, hast made me glad through thy work: I will triumph in the works of thy hands. O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep. A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this. Psalms 92:4-6



#15
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts

Well one thing for sure, it certainly appears to be a very old universe, unless it was created with apparent age.

 

Hey Grey Wolf,

 

That begs the question, what would a Young Universe look like?

 

And I agree 100% with Shiloh...it's a backdoor attempt to question the Authority of the WORD of GOD and weasel evolution into the mix.

 

To justify it, they wheel out Radiometric Dating....13th Century Alchemy has more going for it.

 

Also, I went searching where this 4.5 Billion Years came from.....

 

The 4.5 b.y. era started about 1955 with the publication of a classic paper by Patterson et al.
Patterson, C., Tilton, G. and Inghram, M., Science 121:69, 1955.

The 4.5 Billion Year Estimate relies heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods.  They estimated the age of the Earth by substituting the lead isotope ratios of certain meteorites in the Holmes-Houtermans equation.  These values they assumed were based on the lead isotope ratios observed for three meteorites.  Big sample size, eh? Moreover, later... it is even more surprising to learn that the lead isotope ratios chosen by Patterson et al were found not to be representative of the majority of meteorites.-----Faul, H., Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars, McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 75, 1966

THEN, in 1972, Gale et al dropped a LEAD "Isotope" ANVIL on all of the 13th Century Alchemy......

“ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established.

“This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition.

“It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.”

Gale. N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R., Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972

 

Appears nobody got Gale et al memo.

 

Moreover....

 

Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand erupted from 13 May 1954 to 10 March 1955.  In 1996, Rock samples were collected and sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston.  No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the Lab.

The Potassium Argon date for the 30 June 1954 flow was 3.5 Million years old!!  The rocks were 42 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!

Snelling, AA., The cause of anomalous potassium-argon 'ages' for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and inmplications for potassium-argon 'dating', In: Walsh, R.E. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 503–525, 1998

Look @ that, My Home Town  :)

"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."
Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29.

Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years.  A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years.
Question:  Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years?

Lucy has some splainin to do!



#16
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
Well, I'm not an authority on dating. I went on a couple in high school.
A younger earth... How would it look? Maybe fewer ocean life fossils in the mountains indicating that it was once a seabed. Maybe less contrast between the Rockies and the Appalachians. Maybe S. America and Africa would be closer. Maybe shorter stalactites and stalagmites? Fewer light years between us and distant stars. Perhaps fewer extinct forms of life. What do you think?

#17
enoob57

enoob57

    Royal Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,665 posts

Well one thing for sure, it certainly appears to be a very old universe, unless it was created with apparent age.

 
Hey Grey Wolf,
 
That begs the question, what would a Young Universe look like?
 
And I agree 100% with Shiloh...it's a backdoor attempt to question the Authority of the WORD of GOD and weasel evolution into the mix.
 
To justify it, they wheel out Radiometric Dating....13th Century Alchemy has more going for it.
 
Also, I went searching where this 4.5 Billion Years came from.....
 
The 4.5 b.y. era started about 1955 with the publication of a classic paper by Patterson et al.
Patterson, C., Tilton, G. and Inghram, M., Science 121:69, 1955.

The 4.5 Billion Year Estimate relies heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods.  They estimated the age of the Earth by substituting the lead isotope ratios of certain meteorites in the Holmes-Houtermans equation.  These values they assumed were based on the lead isotope ratios observed for three meteorites.  Big sample size, eh? Moreover, later... it is even more surprising to learn that the lead isotope ratios chosen by Patterson et al were found not to be representative of the majority of meteorites.-----Faul, H., Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars, McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 75, 1966

THEN, in 1972, Gale et al dropped a LEAD "Isotope" ANVIL on all of the 13th Century Alchemy......

“ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established.

“This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition.

“It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.”

Gale. N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R., Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972
 
Appears nobody got Gale et al memo.
 
Moreover....
 
Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand erupted from 13 May 1954 to 10 March 1955.  In 1996, Rock samples were collected and sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston.  No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the Lab.

The Potassium Argon date for the 30 June 1954 flow was 3.5 Million years old!!  The rocks were 42 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!

Snelling, AA., The cause of anomalous potassium-argon 'ages' for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and inmplications for potassium-argon 'dating', In: Walsh, R.E. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 503–525, 1998

Look @ that, My Home Town  :)

"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."
Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29.

Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years.  A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years.
Question:  Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years?
Lucy has some splainin to do!

If Ricky's an evolutionist He will just pile more data into this to hide this fact! :24: and we will rename him ricky retardo ...

#18
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts

Well, I'm not an authority on dating. I went on a couple in high school.
A younger earth... How would it look? Maybe fewer ocean life fossils in the mountains indicating that it was once a seabed. Maybe less contrast between the Rockies and the Appalachians. Maybe S. America and Africa would be closer. Maybe shorter stalactites and stalagmites? Fewer light years between us and distant stars. Perhaps fewer extinct forms of life. What do you think?

 

"Well, I'm not an authority on dating. I went on a couple in high school."

 

Too funny.

 

 

"Maybe fewer ocean life fossils in the mountains indicating that it was once a seabed."

 

That's a Pre-Supposition.  Didn't GOD say that all the Mountains were covered by a pretty good depth during the Flood?

 

 

"Maybe less contrast between the Rockies and the Appalachians."

 

Not Following

 

 

"Maybe S. America and Africa would be closer."

 

Why?

 

"Maybe shorter stalactites and stalagmites?"

 

Do we know that the rate of deposition has always been constant or are we assuming again.

 

 

"Fewer light years between us and distant stars."

 

I've heard some whispers that that may not be as much as a constant as we would believe.  It's outside the realm of Empirical/Operational Science like a majority of "so-called" science today.  I am not making any claims with it.

 

"Perhaps fewer extinct forms of life."

 

Not following



#19
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
Are you telling me that all those fossils got there not to mention those in the Ohio valley as a result of a deluge that lasted only a short time? All those sedimentary layers?
The Appalachian mountains are more worn down foremost. South America and Africa obviously used to be attached.
I'm just puzzled by all the extinct life forms in the fossils.

#20
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts

Are you telling me that all those fossils got there not to mention those in the Ohio valley as a result of a deluge that lasted only a short time? All those sedimentary layers?
The Appalachian mountains are more worn down foremost. South America and Africa obviously used to be attached.
I'm just puzzled by all the extinct life forms in the fossils.

 

 

"Are you telling me that all those fossils got there not to mention those in the Ohio valley as a result of a deluge that lasted only a short time? All those sedimentary layers?"

 

yea

 

 

"The Appalachian mountains are more worn down foremost"

 

"worn down",  is that an Industry term?

 

 

"South America and Africa obviously used to be attached."

 

They're still attached....just remove the water.  My Geology isn't that strong and I'd like to forget my Geography Acumen but the "Obvious" attachment is not so obvious to me.

 

 

"I'm just puzzled by all the extinct life forms in the fossils."

 

Worldwide Flood?.......Maybe?






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network