Science and Exegesis

Tristen · August 19, 2014

Carbon dating a living organism should theoretically yield an age of ~0, i.e. little to no evidence of C14 decay from the environmental ratio. So any deviation from that ‘age’ represents a failure in the assumptions underlying the “principles behind carbon dating”.

I advise you to read up on the reservoir effect. It would explain the reading. Is this another example of creationists not using a tool properly and then claiming it doesn't work? Finding limitations in a tool does not invalidate the tool.
http://www.radiocarbon.com/marine-reservoir-effect.htm

BTW, it wasn’t me that carbon dated these organisms. The living tree example was presented to me as evidence that the earth must be more than 6000 years old.

I didn't assume you carbon dated anything, trust me on that.

One might use dating material of known age as an experimental control.

I'm aware that dendrochronology is used to help double check radio carbon dates but I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to.

At least you are consistent in your strategy of avoiding arguments through casting unsupported aspersions on your opponents.

It's not unsupported. As shown above, the findings you report are bogus because they don't mention the reservoir effect...they just claim the tool doesn't work.

Your initial criticism in this post regards your contention that there is no difference between the historical and operational methods. I have provided an argument containing the simple logic justifying the distinction. You have ignored my argument and proceeded to make insinuations about my supposed lack of understanding. You resort to ridicule rather than rational response.

I didn't state that there weren't any differences, I stated that I don't buy this claim that one is inferior to the other. You've failed to support this. I gave radiometric dating as an example of how we CAN make claims about the past and while the measurements are't 100% accurate [time ranges] we can be very confident in our conclusions. I even agreed that certainly there are cases when there is so little data, we only have hypothesis as to what may have happened, but that's not to say that we can't make any hard claims of the past using scientific instruments. You want to chalk up any study of the past as amounting to story telling or subjective interpretation and that's false.

Once you address the logic of my presented argument, I’ll be happy to assess any research you wish to provide supporting your position – or you can start a new post and we can go thoroughly through each dating method; separating the facts from the theory and examining all the research (including the supposedly “wrong” dates yielded by these methods).

I don't see the logic in your argument, that's the issue. Measurements of known processes are not interpretations, and we indeed can justify confidence in the date ranges. I certainly don't assert that the data is unquestionable or that we have absolute certainty, but confidence? Absolutely. I can see why someone would reinterpret or reject biblical scripture based on scientific evidence.
P.S. It would be great if you provided the research behind the claims you were making about the carbon 14 dating inaccuracies. Rather than outright reject the claims, I'd like to see the research behind them.

Hey again Bonky, you said, “I advise you to read up on the reservoir effect. It would explain the reading. Is this another example of creationists not using a tool properly and then claiming it doesn't work? Finding limitations in a tool does not invalidate the tool.

http://www.radiocarb...voir-effect.htm”

I wonder if you read the introduction; “The basis of radiocarbon dating includes the assumption that there is a constant level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere and therefore in all living organisms through equilibrium … It is also assumed that there is equilibrium between carbon 14 formation and its decay, thus there is a constant level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere at any given time in the past up to the present … There are several factors that need to be considered because they affect the global concentration of carbon 14 and therefore that of any given sample for radiocarbon dating”

So then, your own resource acknowledges that the method is premised upon “assumption”. It also acknowledges that we have discovered external factors that affect C14 concentrations. I think these claims reinforce my position rather than countering it.

The article goes on to say; “There are many factors to consider when measuring the radiocarbon content of a given sample, one of which is the radiocarbon content of the plant or animal source when it was alive and its local environment”. So in order to derive a carbon ‘date’, we also have to make assumptions about the starting conditions of the tested material – i.e. conditions which were not observed. “Another factor to consider is that the magnitude of the marine reservoir effect is not the same in all locations” – but then how can this be established for each sample if the specific conditions were not observed? The only solution offered by the article is to compare the ‘dates’ against other C14 dates or the ‘dates’ derived from other methods utilising the same fundamental assumptions.

I have no problem with this article because it readily acknowledges the underlying assumptions of the method. The same assumptions apply to all dating methods. C14 dating is made more complex than other methods by varying environmental carbon contexts.

And I’m not sure why you attribute any of my examples to creationists – apart from your obvious strategy of ad-hominem in order to avoid engaging in actual arguments.

One might use dating material of known age as an experimental control.

“I'm aware that dendrochronology is used to help double check radio carbon dates but I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to”

No. Dendrochronology alone also relies upon the same set of unverifiable assumptions (unless the specimen is already of known age with a verifiable context). You initially asked why C14 dating would be applied to a living creature. In a living creature, you don’t have to make assumptions about the starting carbon context of the material. Therefore, the collected material provides a suitable experimental control for the C14 method.

“It's not unsupported. As shown above, the findings you report are bogus because they don't mention the reservoir effect...they just claim the tool doesn't work”

I didn’t provide a report. I didn’t even claim that the “tool doesn’t work”. In material collected from a living creature, the carbon context is known – so there is no logical reason to appeal to any reservoir effect.

So again, rather than consider the logic, your whole strategy revolves around painting creationists as dishonest or inept.

“I didn't state that there weren't any differences, I stated that I don't buy this claim that one is inferior to the other. You've failed to support this”

To quote myself, “It really is pretty basic logic – if multiple stories about the unobserved past can account for the same currently available facts, then both should be considered reasonable explanations of the facts. One can make arguments about the quality of each argument with regards to the facts – but both arguments warrant objective consideration”

And more specifically, “The historical method is different from the operational method; and logically inferior in several aspects – namely 1) the claims themselves can never be subjected to observation, 2) therefore the claims can only be tested indirectly – through comparing the current evidence to the formulated models (i.e. unobserved stories about what might have happened in the past), and 3) since the claims themselves can never be tested through experimentation (only the models can be tested), no legitimate scientific confidence can be attributed to the claims without committing the logical fallacy Affirming the Consequent. Operational science does not suffer these logical weaknesses”

“I gave radiometric dating as an example of how we CAN make claims about the past and while the measurements are't 100% accurate [time ranges] we can be very confident in our conclusions”

Some vague appeal to “radiometric dating” does not qualify as an argument. We have to examine the logic underpinning the method. We have to separate the facts from the theoretical and analyse the underlying assumptions of each method. And since there are an abundance of methods, it’s not good enough to just say “radiometric dating - case closed – nah nah n’ nah nah”

You can only be “very confident” in your claims about the past if you assume that your unverifiable assumptions are correct – i.e. if you apply faith to the process. To claim such scientific confidence in past claims is to Affirm the Consequent. It requires a series of non-trivial ‘ifs’ – If we assume to know the initial chemical conditions of the rock, if we assume constant decay rates unaffected by outside forces over billions of years, and if we assume an effectively closed system over that same time period, if we assume a purely naturalistic context – then we can further assume the dates derived from these methods to be accurate. But scientifically, if any of these assumptions are called into question, then the method is rendered unreliable. The actual “measurements” are very accurate. It is the conversions of these “measurements” into ‘ages’ that is questionable.

“that's not to say that we can't make any hard claims of the past using scientific instruments”

I have no problem with the instrument measurements. This again comes back to the fundamental scientific distinction between the empirical and theoretical. The empirical is not being disputed.

“You want to chalk up any study of the past as amounting to story telling or subjective interpretation and that's false”

All interpretation is subjective – no facts are interpreted in a logical vacuum.

I never claimed that secular models can’t be supported by evidence. My claim has always been that the evidence doesn’t necessarily, exclusively support the secular models. There is more than one way to interpret the available facts. It is absolutely “story telling” – and necessarily so - since observing the claims is impossible. I never claimed the secular models or arguments for an old earth to be irrational, only that there is another rational position that warrants objective consideration. (I have admittedly labelled the secular tendency towards arbitrary dismissal of other positions as irrational – but that’s a different issue).

“I don't see the logic in your argument, that's the issue”

Then the objective, rational response is to demonstrate where my logic has failed – not to further perpetuate unsupported innuendo about my ineptitude.

“Measurements of known processes are not interpretations, and we indeed can justify confidence in the date ranges”

The instruments do not measure “date ranges”. The “date ranges” are derived from the application of assumptions upon the measurements. The measurements themselves say nothing about the ‘age’ of the material until subjected to interpretation. Therefore, any confidence in “date ranges” is reliant upon faith – confidence beyond what can be verified in any scientific sense.

“Absolutely. I can see why someone would reinterpret or reject biblical scripture based on scientific evidence”

More accurately – 'based on the popular, secular interpretation of the available facts'. However, neither a reinterpretation or rejection is justified; given an objective logical analysis of the facts and arguments.

“P.S. It would be great if you provided the research behind the claims you were making about the carbon 14 dating inaccuracies. Rather than outright reject the claims, I'd like to see the research behind them”

Which would you like to look at first – C14 found in samples that are theoretically far too old (according to secular history) to contain measurable amounts of it, or just general C14 ‘dates’ that are rejected because they don’t conform to the secular history story, or maybe a couple of examples of C14 dating materials into the future? These examples are readily available in the secular literature (less-so since labs started requiring geological context before releasing results – but there are still many).

Tristen · August 19, 2014

So why give science any influence at all – why not just say “let’s try to be objective in our examination of Genesis, let’s make an effort to lay aside all our preconceptions and read Genesis anew”? What do you think we would find? If we examined Genesis 1 & 2 without any preconceived ideas, only relying on the context itself, do you think we would find your vague “God created the universe in His temple” idea, or would we discover the gap theory, or some other form of theistic evolution, or would we find the young-earth creation account?

I have no problem ‘re-examining’ the text. Many scholars have done so on countless occasions. But it has to be an honest examination; free from the influence of outside ideas and motives.

Any time you consult a commentary on a Biblical passage you are allowing "outside" ideas and motives influence you. We interpret in a community. Again, when we look at the historical context of the Bible, at documents derived from archaelogy, or how language was used outside the Bible, we are allowing influence of outside ideas and motives. When I pick up a Greek Bible, I am allowing the ideas and motives of text criticism, employed by scholars, to influence my reading of the Bible.

And yes, I would find a temple motif; and no, I would not discover the gap theory. No, I certainly would not discover any form of evolution, except perhaps in the very limited sense that Adam is described as "evolved" from dirt, and eve from a rib.

Yes, I would discover that the 7 days was a literary structure.

Yes, I would conclude that the Bible makes no comment on the age of the earth; that was not the point of the 7 days.

clb

Hey CLB, you said, “Any time you consult a commentary on a Biblical passage you are allowing "outside" ideas and motives influence you”

Commentaries do not hold the authority of scripture. Any claim in a commentary is subject to scripture – not the other way around. No responsible interpreter would ever suggest that scripture doesn’t mean what it says because some commentary said so.

“We interpret in a community. Again, when we look at the historical context of the Bible, at documents derived from archaelogy, or how language was used outside the Bible, we are allowing influence of outside ideas and motives”

These are issues relating to direct textual context. We allow them to influence our understanding because they speak directly to the intent of the author. That is consistent with the requirement of scripture to “test all things” and to use reason in defence of our faith. These represent internally consistent “motives” - consistent with the endeavour of ascertaining the intent of the author. They are internal because they focus our understanding of scripture. Whereas scientific claims about history do not speak to the direct context of scripture. They cannot broaden our understanding of the author’s intent. They are external sources of information – hence their influence over scripture would count as eisegesis.

“And yes, I would find a temple motif”

Not if you had truly set aside your preconceptions you wouldn’t. Or if I’m wrong – show me where in these passages the concept exists (without appealing beyond these passages).

“I certainly would not discover any form of evolution, except perhaps in the very limited sense that Adam is described as "evolved" from dirt, and eve from a rib”

And you are seriously contending that you would even consider such a link if you had truly separated all preconceptions? – I am highly sceptical.

“I would conclude that the Bible makes no comment on the age of the earth; that was not the point of the 7 days”

Why would you conclude anything of the sort based on these two chapters? The age of the earth wouldn’t enter your mind until you started to go through the very specific age claims made of the pre-flood patriarchs –describing how long the person lived, at what age they had their children, and how long those children subsequently lived etc. That is a very specific structure enabling accurate age derivations.

Bonky · August 19, 2014

Edited August 19, 2014 by Bonky

Enoch2021 · August 19, 2014

I'm aware that there are assumptions and no I reject your claim that "all methods" suffer from the same assumptions. Not all dating methods are affected by amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, 239U and other alpha-decaying radionuclides are unaffected by the physical state. We can see from supernovae [hundreds or millions of lightears away] the decay rates are no different than what we see here on Earth. The U-Pb method gives us two independent decay chains[235U and 238U]. So I can see why creationists focus so hard on carbon dating.

=================================================================================================

Your entire position is predicated on the Unobservable Past. It's not only logically incoherent, it's in Direct Contradiction with Validated Scientific Experiment via Quantum Mechanics:

The act of a conscious observer creates the existence of Matter (Particles) and the objects they entail, Instantly! A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist! Experimentally Validated, Repeatedly; SEE:

Double Slit Experiment

A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdf

Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf

"Who deserves to trust their intuition more than Einstein; and Einstein's intuition told him, like everyone's intuition tells them, that things are really there when you're not looking at them. Well, he was Wrong! That intuition is Incorrect."

Seth Lloyd, Professor of Mechanical Engineering MIT

And "Light Years" is not a measure of Time.....it's a measure of Distance.

a-seeker · August 20, 2014

Hey CLB, you said, “Any time you consult a commentary on a Biblical passage you are allowing "outside" ideas and motives influence you”

Commentaries do not hold the authority of scripture. Any claim in a commentary is subject to scripture – not the other way around. No responsible interpreter would ever suggest that scripture doesn’t mean what it says because some commentary said so.

You’ve missed my point. You asked why I should let science even prompt me to reexamine Scripture. My point is, if I pick up a commentary, it will give an explanation of a certain passage, and that very fact means it has an influence on my reading of Scripture. Perhaps I will reject the interpretation, perhaps I will accept it. But it prompted my rethinking.

“We interpret in a community. Again, when we look at the historical context of the Bible, at documents derived from archaelogy, or how language was used outside the Bible, we are allowing influence of outside ideas and motives”

These are issues relating to direct textual context. We allow them to influence our understanding because they speak directly to the intent of the author. That is consistent with the requirement of scripture to “test all things” and to use reason in defence of our faith. These represent internally consistent “motives” - consistent with the endeavour of ascertaining the intent of the author. They are internal because they focus our understanding of scripture. Whereas scientific claims about history do not speak to the direct context of scripture. They cannot broaden our understanding of the author’s intent. They are external sources of information – hence their influence over scripture would count as eisegesis.

I agree. I don’t think I have said anything to contradict this. To reexamine Scripture because the sciences say the earth is very old is acceptable. When YECs attack the scientists, they are, indirectly, allowing them to influence their reading of Scripture. There is nothing controversial in what I have proposed. What I have challenged is the a priori assumption that any new interpretation discovered, prompted by scientific claims, is merely an accommodation to the sciences and devoid of any substantial evidence. That is illogical.

“And yes, I would find a temple motif”

Not if you had truly set aside your preconceptions you wouldn’t. Or if I’m wrong – show me where in these passages the concept exists (without appealing beyond these passages).

That is rather bold to say what I would or would not find. Now, when you say, “without appealing beyond these passages” are you saying that I cannot consult the rest of Scripture? Or ancient documents outside of Scripture? That is rather restrictive. After all, Scripture interprets Scripture, right? Pick up your Josephus and he will tell that the temple was, in all its features, intended to lead the mind to contemplate creation. That alone should warrant at least the curiosity in seeking temple motifs in the creation account, and creation elements in the Jewish temple. So let me know if I am allowed to consult the rest of Scripture, ancient documents, and, depending on your answer, I will provide evidence for the temple motif.

“I certainly would not discover any form of evolution, except perhaps in the very limited sense that Adam is described as "evolved" from dirt, and eve from a rib”

And you are seriously contending that you would even consider such a link if you had truly separated all preconceptions? – I am highly sceptical.

No. I suppose I was talking with “tongue in cheek”. I do find it amusing when Christians denounce evolution as threatening to the imago dei, when the imago dei was created out of dirt! As if monkeys were a less respectable material cause than dirt. But no, I was certainly not deriving the theory of evolution from Adam’s creative process.

“I would conclude that the Bible makes no comment on the age of the earth; that was not the point of the 7 days”

Why would you conclude anything of the sort based on these two chapters? The age of the earth wouldn’t enter your mind until you started to go through the very specific age claims made of the pre-flood patriarchs –describing how long the person lived, at what age they had their children, and how long those children subsequently lived etc. That is a very specific structure enabling accurate age derivations.

Now come on. I am addressing issues arising in a thread that has touched upon the age of the earth. I thnk you are being too hard. And again, you are (or seem to be) demanding that I interpret Genesis 1 and 2 without consulting the rest of Genesis! Why? I really don’t get your point. I am saying that the ages mentioned later should not be added to the seven days of Genesis 1 (or the one day of Genesis 2) to give an age for the earth.

clb

Tristen · August 20, 2014

I wonder if you read the introduction; “The basis of radiocarbon dating includes the assumption that there is a constant level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere and therefore in all living organisms through equilibrium … It is also assumed that there is equilibrium between carbon 14 formation and its decay, thus there is a constant level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere at any given time in the past up to the present … There are several factors that need to be considered because they affect the global concentration of carbon 14 and therefore that of any given sample for radiocarbon dating”

So then, your own resource acknowledges that the method is premised upon “assumption”. It also acknowledges that we have discovered external factors that affect C14 concentrations. I think these claims reinforce my position rather than countering it.

The article goes on to say; “There are many factors to consider when measuring the radiocarbon content of a given sample, one of which is the radiocarbon content of the plant or animal source when it was alive and its local environment”. So in order to derive a carbon ‘date’, we also have to make assumptions about the starting conditions of the tested material – i.e. conditions which were not observed. “Another factor to consider is that the magnitude of the marine reservoir effect is not the same in all locations” – but then how can this be established for each sample if the specific conditions were not observed? The only solution offered by the article is to compare the ‘dates’ against other C14 dates or the ‘dates’ derived from other methods utilising the same fundamental assumptions.

I have no problem with this article because it readily acknowledges the underlying assumptions of the method. The same assumptions apply to all dating methods. C14 dating is made more complex than other methods by varying environmental carbon contexts.

And I’m not sure why you attribute any of my examples to creationists – apart from your obvious strategy of ad-hominem in order to avoid engaging in actual arguments.

I'm aware that there are assumptions and no I reject your claim that "all methods" suffer from the same assumptions. Not all dating methods are affected by amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, 239U and other alpha-decaying radionuclides are unaffected by the physical state. We can see from supernovae [hundreds or millions of lightears away] the decay rates are no different than what we see here on Earth. The U-Pb method gives us two independent decay chains[235U and 238U]. So I can see why creationists focus so hard on carbon dating.

No. Dendrochronology alone also relies upon the same set of unverifiable assumptions (unless the specimen is already of known age with a verifiable context). You initially asked why C14 dating would be applied to a living creature. In a living creature, you don’t have to make assumptions about the starting carbon context of the material. Therefore, the collected material provides a suitable experimental control for the C14 method.

So if this is truly your goal, why would you carbon date something that is known to cause dating issues due to this KNOWN reservoir issue?? It sounds like a dishonest tactic considering the people reading these articles probably aren't aware of this.

I didn’t provide a report. I didn’t even claim that the “tool doesn’t work”. In material collected from a living creature, the carbon context is known – so there is no logical reason to appeal to any reservoir effect.

So again, rather than consider the logic, your whole strategy revolves around painting creationists as dishonest or inept.

I absolutely have every reason to question these claims from creationists. I don't know how many rebuttal articles I've read where someone went over the procedures undertaken by a creation "scientist" only to find out they didn't follow proper guidelines. The polonium halo report from Robert Gentry is an example [talk origins].

To quote myself, “It really is pretty basic logic – if multiple stories about the unobserved past can account for the same currently available facts, then both should be considered reasonable explanations of the facts. One can make arguments about the quality of each argument with regards to the facts – but both arguments warrant objective consideration”

And more specifically, “The historical method is different from the operational method; and logically inferior in several aspects – namely 1) the claims themselves can never be subjected to observation, 2) therefore the claims can only be tested indirectly – through comparing the current evidence to the formulated models (i.e. unobserved stories about what might have happened in the past), and 3) since the claims themselves can never be tested through experimentation (only the models can be tested), no legitimate scientific confidence can be attributed to the claims without committing the logical fallacy Affirming the Consequent. Operational science does not suffer these logical weaknesses”

Okay sure we don't have a time machine to go back and take measurements and verify 100%, nobody is claiming 100% accuracy. We don't have 100% accuracy or confidence in anything at all, even reality. We could be brains in a vat!

Just recognize that many many years before radio metric dating was around people were suspecting long ages after what they saw in their field research [James Hutton et al]. Later on radio metric dating confirms these vast ages albeit not with 100% accuracy. The RATE group's answer to all this radio decay in a 6000 year old Earth was "God must have done something with it" [essentially]. Do creationists have any dating method that consistently comes up with "young" ages? Or anything outside scripture?

Some vague appeal to “radiometric dating” does not qualify as an argument. We have to examine the logic underpinning the method. We have to separate the facts from the theoretical and analyse the underlying assumptions of each method. And since there are an abundance of methods, it’s not good enough to just say “radiometric dating - case closed – nah nah n’ nah nah”

You can only be “very confident” in your claims about the past if you assume that your unverifiable assumptions are correct – i.e. if you apply faith to the process. To claim such scientific confidence in past claims is to Affirm the Consequent. It requires a series of non-trivial ‘ifs’ – If we assume to know the initial chemical conditions of the rock, if we assume constant decay rates unaffected by outside forces over billions of years, and if we assume an effectively closed system over that same time period, if we assume a purely naturalistic context – then we can further assume the dates derived from these methods to be accurate. But scientifically, if any of these assumptions are called into question, then the method is rendered unreliable. The actual “measurements” are very accurate. It is the conversions of these “measurements” into ‘ages’ that is questionable.

Okay, so in what ways are these decay rates supposed to vastly vary and by what source? We also have radio decay methods for open systems, I mentioned one above. You don't find it odd, that every single metric we have consistently shows vast ages? They're not all susceptible to the same variables mind you. It's not like the Bible predicts a 4 billion year old earth, the common age I hear is 6000 - 10k years! What are the chances that all these dating mechanisms are THAT far off?

I have no problem with the instrument measurements. This again comes back to the fundamental scientific distinction between the empirical and theoretical. The empirical is not being disputed.

So you agree with the vast amount of decay we detect. How do you account for that in such a young earth? The RATE group used divine intervention.

All interpretation is subjective – no facts are interpreted in a logical vacuum.

I never claimed that secular models can’t be supported by evidence. My claim has always been that the evidence doesn’t necessarily, exclusively support the secular models. There is more than one way to interpret the available facts. It is absolutely “story telling” – and necessarily so - since observing the claims is impossible. I never claimed the secular models or arguments for an old earth to be irrational, only that there is another rational position that warrants objective consideration. (I have admittedly labelled the secular tendency towards arbitrary dismissal of other positions as irrational – but that’s a different issue).

Sure, I'd be interested in looking at support for the creation model rather than spending so much time talking about wild hypotheticals in how the secular model might not be 100% accurate.

Then the objective, rational response is to demonstrate where my logic has failed – not to further perpetuate unsupported innuendo about my ineptitude.

Due to observed patterns/behaviors in the present we can make judgments about the past. I do however agree that not with 100% certainty. In the case of radiometric dating, I think it's well supported considering that there are many atomic clocks that are not susceptible to the same known possible issues. A 10k year old earth doesn't appear to be well supported in light of this.

The instruments do not measure “date ranges”. The “date ranges” are derived from the application of assumptions upon the measurements. The measurements themselves say nothing about the ‘age’ of the material until subjected to interpretation. Therefore, any confidence in “date ranges” is reliant upon faith – confidence beyond what can be verified in any scientific sense.

It is verified in a scientific sense, I mentioned the gamma ray decay rates were the same as observed in several supernovae. This lends credibility to the idea that the decay rates weren't different in the past.

More accurately – 'based on the popular, secular interpretation of the available facts'. However, neither a reinterpretation or rejection is justified; given an objective logical analysis of the facts and arguments.

Maybe not to you but to others it is justified. I myself would reject the biblical model before trying to balance the biblical and secular model.

Which would you like to look at first – C14 found in samples that are theoretically far too old (according to secular history) to contain measurable amounts of it, or just general C14 ‘dates’ that are rejected because they don’t conform to the secular history story, or maybe a couple of examples of C14 dating materials into the future? These examples are readily available in the secular literature (less-so since labs started requiring geological context before releasing results – but there are still many).

I'm curious about the reading from volcanic material that you mentioned.

Hey Bonky, you said “I'm aware that there are assumptions and no I reject your claim that "all methods" suffer from the same assumptions”

In order to establish an age for something whose age was not observed, assumptions about the initial conditions and systemic rates and systemic integrity are required. Some methods require additional assumptions, but all rely on these basic ones. they provide the foundational logic for each method.

“Not all dating methods are affected by amounts of carbon in the atmosphere”

Are you being silly on purpose? Carbon in equilibrium is an additional assumption of the C14 dating method.

“239U and other alpha-decaying radionuclides are unaffected by the physical state”

Just because they are not affected by the atmosphere, doesn’t mean we can assume them to be unaffected by any external force. You should be asking yourself (and looking into) whether or not decay (even alpha decay) can be impacted by pressure, temperature, … even obscure possibilities such as exposure to neutrinos, gravity etc. The atmospheric carbon assumption only applies to the C14 method that claims to ‘date’ living creatures that exchange carbon with their environments.

“We can see from supernovae [hundreds or millions of lightears away] the decay rates are no different than what we see here on Earth”

Do you need me to break down the logic of that claim for you so that we can distinguish between what we actually “see”/observe, and what we are assuming? Explain to me the actual evidence, and what you think it means.

“The U-Pb method gives us two independent decay chains[235U and 238U]. So I can see why creationists focus so hard on carbon dating”

Is that what I’m doing? Should I take this innuendo to mean that you now understand the complexity of the assumptions associated with carbon dating – so that we can move on to discussing the U-Pb method (or alpha decay methods, or isochron methods – which are my personal favourites to discuss. You should look into isochron methods – they claim to have mathematically done away with one the assumptions I raised).

“So if this is truly your goal, why would you carbon date something that is known to cause dating issues due to this KNOWN reservoir issue?? It sounds like a dishonest tactic considering the people reading these articles probably aren't aware of this”

The “reservoir issue” is no “issue” at all if you can measure the reservoir.

Even if it was, it only applies to creatures in marine environments, not terrestrial. I think you are straying from the context of my response. You asked why one would carbon date something of known age – I said as an experimental control. I don’t see why you would have a problem with this – apart from the problem that it has shown to yield some ‘wrong’ ages (and I didn’t claim that anyone has done this – I just provided a valid answer to your question).

“I absolutely have every reason to question these claims from creationists”

I have no problem whatsoever with you questioning any claim. My issue is that you cast aspersions on creationists without providing supporting arguments. You expect standards of creationists that are beyond what is found in secular science journals. So you’re not actually considering arguments – but disparaging creationists prior to such consideration. That demonstrates a lack of objectivity.

“I don't know how many rebuttal articles I've read where someone went over the procedures undertaken by a creation "scientist" only to find out they didn't follow proper guidelines. The polonium halo report from Robert Gentry is an example [talk origins]”

I don’t know how many you’ve read either. But one unsupported assertion from an explicitly biased website does not justify this logically fallacious strategy. My encouragement is, and has always been, don’t just take sides and believe the side that agrees with you – think for yourself; examine the arguments, separate the facts from the theoretical etc. – i.e. think critically about all arguments, not just the ones that suit your confirmation bias. Most of the issues we are discussing can be traced back to faith – so you can never be logically obligated to surrender your position – and therefore should not fear objectivity.

“Okay sure we don't have a time machine to go back and take measurements and verify 100%, nobody is claiming 100% accuracy. We don't have 100% accuracy or confidence in anything at all, even reality. We could be brains in a vat!”

Many people do claim these methods to be beyond question, or even as "absolute dating". But in reality, we don’t even have a time machine allowing us to verify anything to even half of a percent.

Even from an operational science perspective, where we implicitly trust observation, we can never claim certainty – simply because logic must make allowances for imperfect knowledge; i.e. we don’t know what we don’t know. Maybe some future discovery will undermine knowledge which we have derived through experimentation up to that point. But in contrast, historical claims require the filling of a further, massive logical gap with unverifiable assumption. And that gap in the logic warrants a necessary mitigation of all scientific confidence in all past claims.

“Just recognize that many many years before radio metric dating was around people were suspecting long ages after what they saw in their field research [James Hutton et al]”

Yes – James Hutton expressed both naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions in his work – and was one of the first to do so. That may very well be the birth of the naturalistic paradigm’s influence over modern science. But this in no logical sense undermines the claim that these unverifiable assumptions continue to influence scientific interpretations today.

“Later on radio metric dating confirms these vast ages albeit not with 100% accuracy”

More accurately, “radio metric dating [is interpreted to support] these vast ages”.

“The RATE group's answer to all this radio decay in a 6000 year old Earth was "God must have done something with it" [essentially]”

Is that what they said, or is that what talkorigins told you they said? Have you examined their arguments for yourself, or just examined criticisms of their position? Is this the only solution they offered, or has it been cherry-picked from a range of offered solutions for the purpose of disparaging their research and thereby avoiding argument?

Can you understand why such an unsupported claim has no meaning to any thoughtful person?

“Do creationists have any dating method that consistently comes up with "young" ages? Or anything outside scripture?”

The problem with all dating methods is the same for creationists – the reliance upon unverifiable assumption. Yes, there are many evidences that point to a young earth, but those all depend on making assumptions about the initial conditions, the systematic rates and systematic integrity of the facts used. Creationists acknowledge these assumptions. Find an older (2009) summarized example list here;

< http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth>

“You don't find it odd, that every single metric we have consistently shows vast ages?”

I find it “odd” that anyone who has examined the data would continue to make claim this – but we can get to that as we go through each method and its discrepancies in the literature.

In my own research it is common for me to set aside bad data. But in my case the bad data means unreliable signalling. I can tweak the protocol to get a better signal next time (i.e. repeatability). In radiometric dating, bad data means results that don’t agree with expectations. So what do you suppose happens to a radiometric 'age' when it disagrees with expectations (beyond the quantified error) – is that even a possibility in your mind? How much of that ‘wrong’ data do you think gets published? And what affect do you think that would have on the outward impression of the method’s overall reliability?

“So you agree with the vast amount of decay we detect. How do you account for that in such a young earth? The RATE group used divine intervention”

Except – the instruments don’t actually detect decay, they detect absolute amounts. “The vast amount of decay” is interpreted into these amounts based on unverifiable assumptions.

“I'd be interested in looking at support for the creation model rather than spending so much time talking about wild hypotheticals in how the secular model might not be 100% accurate”

And yet in other conversations, I have demonstrated the creationist interpretations of evidence you provided – and you were dismissive; without argument. There was a secular interpretation, and that’s all you were concerned with. You don’t need to consider any other position. So if I simply give you some random evidence that I interpret to support creationism – you will simply dismiss it because there is a secular interpretation of the same evidence . What does that achieve?

So we have to go back a step and address the logic used to justify each claim – otherwise you won’t be able to give objective consideration to our position. As I stated above – there is no risk to you. Realising that an opposing position is rational doesn’t make it right – and therefore doesn’t require the surrender of your own position.

Consider your “might not be 100% accurate” statement. It implies that science has brought to a place of all-but certainty about these past claims. It’s purely innuendo that has no rational justification in logic or the scientific method. You have to be able to get past that bias before you can consider our position objectively.

Nothing I say can ever force you to stop believing the secular story of history; because no matter how well my story can be supported by facts, it wasn’t observed scientifically – therefore any confidence in my story is reliant upon faith. But you don’t understand that the same is true of the secular story. And so – before I can get you to even consider my position, I have to dig through all the ‘creationists are ignorant, evidence-ignoring, unscientific, science-hating, religious, dishonest etc.’ nonsense propaganda. I have to break through this indoctrinated propensity to defend the secular position with religious zeal and resorting to logical fallacy. I have to break down the logic of each claim in order to demonstrate that the levels of confidence expressed in these models are not supported by either logic or the scientific method. Until I get through all that nonsense, you’ll never be able to see the issue through my eyes – i.e. you can’t be objective until you are prepared to consider the issue in the context of my faith premise.

“It is verified in a scientific sense, I mentioned the gamma ray decay rates were the same as observed in several supernovae. This lends credibility to the idea that the decay rates weren't different in the past”

So what exactly has been measured in the past? Break down the logic for me. Bold unsupported claims don’t cut it – explain to me why and how these observations in the present demonstrate what happened in the past.

I actually am encouraged by your measured language here; i.e. “lends credibility” – no more ‘confirms’ or ‘verifies’ or ‘almost 100% certainty’ nonsense. You might say that these facts can be interpreted to support the assumption that decay rates remained constant in the distant past. But we’ll see how well that claim holds up to scrutiny as we go through it.

More accurately – 'based on the popular, secular interpretation of the available facts'. However, neither a reinterpretation or rejection is justified; given an objective logical analysis of the facts and arguments.

“Maybe not to you but to others it is justified”

Disagreement can be justified – but not outright rejection of consideration.

“I myself would reject the biblical model before trying to balance the biblical and secular model.”

Yes – outright rejection of consideration, prior to hearing arguments, demonstrates a faith allegiance. It’s not a reasonable strategy – and certainly not a scientific one.

“I'm curious about the reading from volcanic material that you mentioned”

Well let’s start with Dalrymple (1969) found here;

http://www.toriah.org/articles/dalrymple-1969.pdf

Dalrymple is an excellent example because he is unequivocally anti-creationist - and has subsequently, vigorously defended his research against its use by creationists. Yet the data explicitly supports the creationist claim that the assumption of a known initial condition cannot be considered reliable. Around 1/3 of the 26 samples demonstrated anomalous argon36 levels; which resulted in “apparent” ages that contradicted the known ages of the samples. Therefore, when dating material of unknown age, we can never be certain that our assumptions regarding the original condition of the material is correct. This find undermines the logical and scientific legitimacy of this method.

Tristen · August 20, 2014

Hey CLB, you said, “Any time you consult a commentary on a Biblical passage you are allowing "outside" ideas and motives influence you”

Commentaries do not hold the authority of scripture. Any claim in a commentary is subject to scripture – not the other way around. No responsible interpreter would ever suggest that scripture doesn’t mean what it says because some commentary said so.

You’ve missed my point. You asked why I should let science even prompt me to reexamine Scripture. My point is, if I pick up a commentary, it will give an explanation of a certain passage, and that very fact means it has an influence on my reading of Scripture. Perhaps I will reject the interpretation, perhaps I will accept it. But it prompted my rethinking.

“We interpret in a community. Again, when we look at the historical context of the Bible, at documents derived from archaelogy, or how language was used outside the Bible, we are allowing influence of outside ideas and motives”

These are issues relating to direct textual context. We allow them to influence our understanding because they speak directly to the intent of the author. That is consistent with the requirement of scripture to “test all things” and to use reason in defence of our faith. These represent internally consistent “motives” - consistent with the endeavour of ascertaining the intent of the author. They are internal because they focus our understanding of scripture. Whereas scientific claims about history do not speak to the direct context of scripture. They cannot broaden our understanding of the author’s intent. They are external sources of information – hence their influence over scripture would count as eisegesis.

I agree. I don’t think I have said anything to contradict this. To reexamine Scripture because the sciences say the earth is very old is acceptable. When YECs attack the scientists, they are, indirectly, allowing them to influence their reading of Scripture. There is nothing controversial in what I have proposed. What I have challenged is the a priori assumption that any new interpretation discovered, prompted by scientific claims, is merely an accommodation to the sciences and devoid of any substantial evidence. That is illogical.

“And yes, I would find a temple motif”

Not if you had truly set aside your preconceptions you wouldn’t. Or if I’m wrong – show me where in these passages the concept exists (without appealing beyond these passages).

That is rather bold to say what I would or would not find. Now, when you say, “without appealing beyond these passages” are you saying that I cannot consult the rest of Scripture? Or ancient documents outside of Scripture? That is rather restrictive. After all, Scripture interprets Scripture, right? Pick up your Josephus and he will tell that the temple was, in all its features, intended to lead the mind to contemplate creation. That alone should warrant at least the curiosity in seeking temple motifs in the creation account, and creation elements in the Jewish temple. So let me know if I am allowed to consult the rest of Scripture, ancient documents, and, depending on your answer, I will provide evidence for the temple motif.

“I certainly would not discover any form of evolution, except perhaps in the very limited sense that Adam is described as "evolved" from dirt, and eve from a rib”

And you are seriously contending that you would even consider such a link if you had truly separated all preconceptions? – I am highly sceptical.

No. I suppose I was talking with “tongue in cheek”. I do find it amusing when Christians denounce evolution as threatening to the imago dei, when the imago dei was created out of dirt! As if monkeys were a less respectable material cause than dirt. But no, I was certainly not deriving the theory of evolution from Adam’s creative process.

“I would conclude that the Bible makes no comment on the age of the earth; that was not the point of the 7 days”

Why would you conclude anything of the sort based on these two chapters? The age of the earth wouldn’t enter your mind until you started to go through the very specific age claims made of the pre-flood patriarchs –describing how long the person lived, at what age they had their children, and how long those children subsequently lived etc. That is a very specific structure enabling accurate age derivations.

Now come on. I am addressing issues arising in a thread that has touched upon the age of the earth. I thnk you are being too hard. And again, you are (or seem to be) demanding that I interpret Genesis 1 and 2 without consulting the rest of Genesis! Why? I really don’t get your point. I am saying that the ages mentioned later should not be added to the seven days of Genesis 1 (or the one day of Genesis 2) to give an age for the earth.

clb

Hey CLB, you said “My point is, if I pick up a commentary, it will give an explanation of a certain passage, and that very fact means it has an influence on my reading of Scripture”

I don’t think any commentary should in any sense override an individual’s responsibility to examine the text for themselves. That would not be considered good interpretation practice. If the commentary makes a claim about a passage of scripture, the reader is responsible to the higher authority of the Bible – not the commentary. That is, the claims of the commentary must be justified in scripture. So it may “influence” the reading, but it has no authority in terms of interpretation.

Here you use the term “influence” and in your OP you use “question the intended meaning”. That is a different construct to simply prompting a re-examination of the text. But the important point is the structure and quality of such re-examination. If a commentary tells us something that contradicts our current understanding of scripture, then we go to the scripture to see if that’s what it really says. If secular historical models tell us something that contradicts our current understanding of scripture, then we go to scripture to see if that’s what the scripture says.

Secular history tells us that the universe and earth is massively ancient – stemming from a Big Bang/historical inflation/abiogenesis/Common Ancestor story of history. The Bible tells me that the universe arose through the special creation of an eternal Deity. And through measuring the specific information provided in the Bible, I am able to conclude that the creation is roughly 6000 years old. These are not compatible accounts of history. They are self-evidently, contrary - so one has to give way to the other. So the question becomes – whose meaning do we question? The natural response of a believer would be to trust the scripture and question the secular accounts. Those (even believers) who feel somehow obligated to secular history (or indoctrinated to believe that the secular account is the only rational, valid account) will try to make the Bible fit that account.

“Perhaps I will reject the interpretation, perhaps I will accept it. But it prompted my rethinking”

I have no problem with being “prompted” to rethink. But the outcome of that rethink has to be rationally justified in the context of the premise that the Bible is the highest authoritative communication from God to humanity. Disregarding what the scripture actually says – in deference to an outside influence doesn’t qualify as acceptable interpretation methodology. It is inconsistent with the premise of divine inspiration, Biblical inerrancy and the divine shielding of essential doctrine.

“When YECs attack the scientists, they are, indirectly, allowing them to influence their reading of Scripture”

Do we really “attack” them, or do you mean ‘when YECs have the gal to scrutinise scientific claims about unobserved history’? Any suggestion that any scientific claim is immune to scrutiny is a standard of faith – not science.

I’m not really sure how they are “allowing them to influence their reading of Scripture”.

“What I have challenged is the a priori assumption that any new interpretation discovered, prompted by scientific claims, is merely an accommodation to the sciences and devoid of any substantial evidence”

From a Christian perspective, any “new interpretation” of scripture has to be justified in argument and evidence; within the premise that the Bible is God’s Word. The further you deviate from that authority, the less quality a Christian is going to afford any “new interpretation”. Any attempt to mitigate what is actually written in scripture is going to be viewed with rational suspicion by a Christian. No human system has the right to mitigate any of God's Word – not Christian commentaries, not preachers or theologians, and not secular historical claims.

If the “new interpretation” mitigates what is actually written in the Bible because of some outside influence, then it is rational to assume that the Bible is being made subject to the authority of that outside influence – namely because that is exactly what is happening.

The danger we must be vigilant to avoid is the propensity of interpreting scripture however we want. Permitting such nebulous interpretation methodology mitigates the authority of scripture to conform to human opinions – which is unacceptable for any sincere believer. The tendency to write-off uncomfortable scriptures as somehow symbolic is one of the methods commonly applied to undermine what is actually written. That is why claims of symbolism must be justified in the text itself. This is the safest way to establish and preserve the author’s original intent.

“That is rather bold to say what I would or would not find. Now, when you say, “without appealing beyond these passages” are you saying that I cannot consult the rest of Scripture? Or ancient documents outside of Scripture? That is rather restrictive”

The aim of the exercise was to read the text anew – setting aside all preconceptions (including those from previous studies of scripture). We are trying to figure out the author’s intent without appealing to influences outside of what we are reading – i.e. so we can avoid reading anything into the text that isn’t actually there. Genesis is the natural starting point in the Bible – so there is no antecedent information required. As with all communication, the best way to establish the author’s intent is by reading what it says. Along the way we can examine the clues from the text itself – e.g. are there obvious clues for symbolism (e.g. metaphors or similes, or prophetic context, or lyricism etc.), or is it written as an historical narrative? God intended the Bible for humans; to be understood by human readers. These clues should be recognisable by all readers. It was not written by the Riddler – only to be comprehended by those with some kind of special knowledge. That form of interpretation is called Gnosticism – and is considered a heretical methodology by Christians (because once again, the authority of scripture is subjected under this special knowledge).

Under these conditions I can confidently claim that you will only find what is written in the text.

“So let me know if I am allowed to consult the rest of Scripture, ancient documents, and, depending on your answer, I will provide evidence for the temple motif”

My response was to you reducing your argument to allow secular claims to prompt a re-examination of Genesis – and no influence beyond that prompting. In response I proposed a simple re-examination of Genesis without any preconceptions whatsoever (which I would consider to be a valuable exercise for all of scripture). If we were dealing with Exodus, then we would need to consider the context of Genesis, but Genesis (the book of beginnings/origins) has no antecedent information. Though, Genesis 2 has to consider the context of information provided in Genesis 1 (i.e. in the two chapters we are considering; only preceding verses provide information pertinent to the author’s intent). As a rule of typology, additional information about what is meant is only valid if it is explicitly stated in later scriptures.

“I am addressing issues arising in a thread that has touched upon the age of the earth. I thnk you are being too hard. And again, you are (or seem to be) demanding that I interpret Genesis 1 and 2 without consulting the rest of Genesis! Why? I really don’t get your point”

Again – I am responding to your reduced claim that secular claims exert no more influence over scripture than to prompt a re-examination. My proposal is that an objective re-examination (free of any outside influence) is a better solution – i.e. clean the slate of all preconceptions and just read it as you would any other document. I consider that the safest way to establish the author’s intent.

“I am saying that the ages mentioned later should not be added to the seven days of Genesis 1 (or the one day of Genesis 2) to give an age for the earth”

Why not? Is there a reason from the basic reading of the text to assume that the days meant anything other than days? Is there any reason to assume that the Adam mentioned in Genesis 2 is different to the Adam of the very mathematically specific genealogies starting in Genesis 5? I think the text, as written, has the sixth day of the creation week as the first day of Adam’s 930 year life. I don’t see any obvious evidence in the text that the five previous days would mean anything other than days – when considered on their own merit, in their own context.

a-seeker · August 20, 2014

Hi Tristen,

“So let me know if I am allowed to consult the rest of Scripture, ancient documents, and, depending on your answer, I will provide evidence for the temple motif”

My response was to you reducing your argument to allow secular claims to prompt a re-examination of Genesis – and no influence beyond that prompting. In response I proposed a simple re-examination of Genesis without any preconceptions whatsoever (which I would consider to be a valuable exercise for all of scripture). If we were dealing with Exodus, then we would need to consider the context of Genesis, but Genesis (the book of beginnings/origins) has no antecedent information. Though, Genesis 2 has to consider the context of information provided in Genesis 1 (i.e. in the two chapters we are considering; only preceding verses provide information pertinent to the author’s intent). As a rule of typology, additional information about what is meant is only valid if it is explicitly stated in later scriptures.

obviously that will not work. If I tell you I can bench two hundred, and you say prove it, then tie my hands together, you havn't refuted my claim. You've just cleverly changed the rules so that I have to fail. My claim was that science can prompt a reexamination of Scripture; you added what that reexamination can and can't consist of. That was never part of my proposal. Reexamination means using all the tools pertinent to the topic.

You are asking me to treat literature as no literature should be treated, at least to any purpose.

No pre-conceptions!! I cannot return to infancy. Is it a preconception that light typically comes from a luminous source? Is looking at the Hebrew a pre-conception because it is not my native tongue. For that matter, is it a pre-conception to conceive "day" as a 24 hour period? Maybe back then a "day" was much longer. Now we've opened the door to day/age, which I think both of us would reject.

Your entire claim that Genesis should be read without reference ahead is artificial. Who is to say that Genesis was written first? Because it comes first in our Bibles? Then we should say Matthew was written before Mark and all the gospels before Paul. When I open up Exodus the first thing I see Moses writing is the law-covenant. Why should that not be a starting point?

But even so:

Genesis 1 has the world made in 6 days, Genesis 2.4 opens up with it being a day.

Again (but I have been over this so many times), in Genesis 2.18 God declares it is not good for man to be alone. He declares he will make a helper fit for him. What is the next thing he does...makes birds and beasts (not had made, but made).

clb

(I wonder if I should just give it a rest).

Bonky · August 20, 2014

Edited August 20, 2014 by Bonky

Tristen · August 22, 2014

Are you being silly on purpose? Carbon in equilibrium is an additional assumption of the C14 dating method.

Right but I was saying this is irrelevant to other dating methods.

“239U and other alpha-decaying radionuclides are unaffected by the physical state”

Just because they are not affected by the atmosphere, doesn’t mean we can assume them to be unaffected by any external force. You should be asking yourself (and looking into) whether or not decay (even alpha decay) can be impacted by pressure, temperature, … even obscure possibilities such as exposure to neutrinos, gravity etc. The atmospheric carbon assumption only applies to the C14 method that claims to ‘date’ living creatures that exchange carbon with their environments.

I thought they have tried and found only incredibly small impacts on decay rates. Nothing that would make any significant impact.

“We can see from supernovae [hundreds or millions of lightears away] the decay rates are no different than what we see here on Earth”

Do you need me to break down the logic of that claim for you so that we can distinguish between what we actually “see”/observe, and what we are assuming? Explain to me the actual evidence, and what you think it means.

Supernovae produce radioactive isotopes correct? The gamma ray frequencies and intensities produced by the radioactive elements in the supernova remains change in the same predictable way that they do here on earth. So for the supernova SN1987A which is 169,000 lightyears away...we can conclude in this case that the decay rates weren't different 169K years ago. We are looking at the past when we observe stars. I know I know, we don't have a spaceship and a tape measure 169K lightyears long.

“The U-Pb method gives us two independent decay chains[235U and 238U]. So I can see why creationists focus so hard on carbon dating”

Is that what I’m doing? Should I take this innuendo to mean that you now understand the complexity of the assumptions associated with carbon dating – so that we can move on to discussing the U-Pb method (or alpha decay methods, or isochron methods – which are my personal favourites to discuss. You should look into isochron methods – they claim to have mathematically done away with one the assumptions I raised).

I wasn't the one who brought up carbon dating specifically. My understanding is that we have other dating methods that are "immune" so to speak to the issues that arise with carbon dating. I tend to notice that creationists spend much more time criticizing carbon dating because they know in advance that there are known environmental issues that can affect the dating of a sample. They just don't usually tell the audience that scientists are well aware of the limitations and the issues that can arise.

The “reservoir issue” is no “issue” at all if you can measure the reservoir.

Even if it was, it only applies to creatures in marine environments, not terrestrial. I think you are straying from the context of my response. You asked why one would carbon date something of known age – I said as an experimental control. I don’t see why you would have a problem with this – apart from the problem that it has shown to yield some ‘wrong’ ages (and I didn’t claim that anyone has done this – I just provided a valid answer to your question).

That's the point I'm making Tristen! Why did they choose a marine animal knowing full well that we wouldn't have to worry about a reservoir effect with a terrestrial one. It reeks of purposely choosing a method we could predict will cause false dates and then pretending that this isn't what we would expect. To be honest, I don't know first hand what would happen if you carbon date a living mammal for instance. I don't know if the machinery is geared to spit out a measurement of 0 in that case.

“I absolutely have every reason to question these claims from creationists”

I have no problem whatsoever with you questioning any claim. My issue is that you cast aspersions on creationists without providing supporting arguments. You expect standards of creationists that are beyond what is found in secular science journals. So you’re not actually considering arguments – but disparaging creationists prior to such consideration. That demonstrates a lack of objectivity.

Because we have episodes where they do things like carbon date living creatures from the ocean and report *gasp* inaccurate readings.

I don’t know how many you’ve read either. But one unsupported assertion from an explicitly biased website does not justify this logically fallacious strategy. My encouragement is, and has always been, don’t just take sides and believe the side that agrees with you – think for yourself; examine the arguments, separate the facts from the theoretical etc. – i.e. think critically about all arguments, not just the ones that suit your confirmation bias. Most of the issues we are discussing can be traced back to faith – so you can never be logically obligated to surrender your position – and therefore should not fear objectivity.

Wait a minute, did you read the article I'm referring to? I feel that I try to filter through the information that I'm presented with and try not to adopt nonsense. I can recall many times when I've heard an atheist go on about Christianity and I knew their argument was illogical and unsound. I have no interest in believing things that are false I can assure you of that.

“Okay sure we don't have a time machine to go back and take measurements and verify 100%, nobody is claiming 100% accuracy. We don't have 100% accuracy or confidence in anything at all, even reality. We could be brains in a vat!”

Many people do claim these methods to be beyond question, or even as "absolute dating". But in reality, we don’t even have a time machine allowing us to verify anything to even half of a percent.

Even from an operational science perspective, where we implicitly trust observation, we can never claim certainty – simply because logic must make allowances for imperfect knowledge; i.e. we don’t know what we don’t know. Maybe some future discovery will undermine knowledge which we have derived through experimentation up to that point. But in contrast, historical claims require the filling of a further, massive logical gap with unverifiable assumption. And that gap in the logic warrants a necessary mitigation of all scientific confidence in all past claims.

After reading this from you, what I find interesting is that somehow you were able to have assessed the bible as the word of God [which is final authority and unquestionable]. So I'm curious how you were able to attain this level of confidence with historical claims made in the Bible that you have very little [if at all] direct data on. You are so cautious to give credence to historical claims but you managed to determine that the Bible is the word of God??

“The RATE group's answer to all this radio decay in a 6000 year old Earth was "God must have done something with it" [essentially]”

Is that what they said, or is that what talkorigins told you they said? Have you examined their arguments for yourself, or just examined criticisms of their position? Is this the only solution they offered, or has it been cherry-picked from a range of offered solutions for the purpose of disparaging their research and thereby avoiding argument?

Easy there, I got this from ICR's website. Don't be so quite to assume I just parrot something from talk origins.
http://www.icr.org/article/rate-review-unresolved-problems/
Check out the "heat problem".
"The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well."

Can you understand why such an unsupported claim has no meaning to any thoughtful person?

At this moment you aren't being a very thoughtful person. I actually posted this already in this thread once [page 1] and thought you already knew what I'd be referencing.

“Do creationists have any dating method that consistently comes up with "young" ages? Or anything outside scripture?”

The problem with all dating methods is the same for creationists – the reliance upon unverifiable assumption. Yes, there are many evidences that point to a young earth, but those all depend on making assumptions about the initial conditions, the systematic rates and systematic integrity of the facts used. Creationists acknowledge these assumptions. Find an older (2009) summarized example list here;
< http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth>

Item number 1 right away is useless. Once again instead of SUPPORTING the argument for young earth they try to cast doubt on millions of years. Even if true, this doesn't make the Earth "young". I see some other items in there [biological evidences] that try to cast doubt on the ancient dates given to this or that. What does that have to do with the earth being young? I'll peruse through the geological evidences in the near future.

“You don't find it odd, that every single metric we have consistently shows vast ages?”

I find it “odd” that anyone who has examined the data would continue to make claim this – but we can get to that as we go through each method and its discrepancies in the literature.

In my own research it is common for me to set aside bad data. But in my case the bad data means unreliable signalling. I can tweak the protocol to get a better signal next time (i.e. repeatability). In radiometric dating, bad data means results that don’t agree with expectations. So what do you suppose happens to a radiometric 'age' when it disagrees with expectations (beyond the quantified error) – is that even a possibility in your mind? How much of that ‘wrong’ data do you think gets published? And what affect do you think that would have on the outward impression of the method’s overall reliability?

Part of the issue is I don't know what the ratio is of "expected results" vs. "unexpected results". If we often get results that we would predict, [using the logic behind radiometric dating] then I'd say when we come across times when the dates aren't as expected AND we can account for why that would be, we can be confident in the process. I'm told that we can even use two different dating methods on one sample and often see dates that are very similar.

“So you agree with the vast amount of decay we detect. How do you account for that in such a young earth? The RATE group used divine intervention”

Except – the instruments don’t actually detect decay, they detect absolute amounts. “The vast amount of decay” is interpreted into these amounts based on unverifiable assumptions.

Right and what I'm asking is, given the amounts...and the rate at which we observe decay presently, how would you account for this in a young earth?

This is all I have time for now, I have to run! I'll post more later. I do appreciate your time Tristen.

Hey Bonky, you said “I thought they have tried and found only incredibly small impacts on decay rates. Nothing that would make any significant impact”

What constitutes a “significant impact” is subjective. The point is that any impact undermines the assumption that decay rates have been unaffected since the material formed. This logically undermines one of the fundamental assumptions of these dating methods. Remembering that these methods are used to extrapolate ages into billions of years of history – so if we find that the assumptions are non-universal, we can no longer rely on that method. When you logically remove an assumption supporting a claim, the claim becomes meaningless – at least that’s how it works in every other discipline of science and philosophy. Even if it is claimed to work most of the time, the reality is that we cannot determine the difference between a valid and invalid result. We therefore cannot legitimately trust any result.

The scientific integrity of any method requires that the underlying assumptions be correct for every test. Since the assumptions are known to not be universally correct, the method can never be considered reliable. The accuracy of each test can only be established if the age of the material is already known – in which case, the test is redundant anyway (except when testing the assumptions of the method).

“Supernovae produce radioactive isotopes correct? The gamma ray frequencies and intensities produced by the radioactive elements in the supernova remains change in the same predictable way that they do here on earth. So for the supernova SN1987A which is 169,000 lightyears away...we can conclude in this case that the decay rates weren't different 169K years ago. We are looking at the past when we observe stars. I know I know, we don't have a spaceship and a tape measure 169K lightyears long”

So you are not “looking at the past when we observe stars”, you are looking at photons of light as they reach our eyes/instruments, then making assumptions about the history of those photons – based on some assumed properties of light over massively large distances. So at the outset, you are employing uniformitarian assumptions to determine the history of the light back to its source. How is the “change” of the “radioactive elements” determined from this evidence?

Can you source the research so I can have a look at what you are claiming (the research determining the distance of SN1987a and the research measuring the “radioactive elements” from the supernova and comparing them to earth elements)?

“My understanding is that we have other dating methods that are "immune" so to speak to the issues that arise with carbon dating”

Yes – each method has assumptions that are specific to that method. But all dating methods rely on at least the three common assumptions I have mentioned in the previous post – i.e. the initial condition/context of the tested material, the consistent rates of some systematic process, and the integrity of the sample over time since its formation.

“I tend to notice that creationists spend much more time criticizing carbon dating because they know in advance that there are known environmental issues that can affect the dating of a sample. They just don't usually tell the audience that scientists are well aware of the limitations and the issues that can arise”

Well I can only speak for myself. I think the secular scientists are just as guilty of glossing over these “limitations” when dealing with their “audience”. So it is perfectly rational for creationists to point these “limitations” out when big bold claims are being made without mention of these “issues”. And the act of being “well aware” of the “issues” doesn’t mitigate the impact of these “issues” on the claims.

“That's the point I'm making Tristen! Why did they choose a marine animal knowing full well that we wouldn't have to worry about a reservoir effect with a terrestrial one. It reeks of purposely choosing a method we could predict will cause false dates and then pretending that this isn't what we would expect”

I think we need to return to the context of my response. I simply listed data sets that I have observed that have caused me to question the integrity of carbon dating. You have latched on to one example (the marine example) and have gotten carried away with unspecified assumptions about who did the research and their motives and integrity. I think you are experiencing target blindness with this example. The specific example I was referring to I read so long ago that I don’t remember these details. Maybe it was before the reservoir effect was discovered – for all I remember, they may have factored in the reservoir effect – I suppose I can look it up if you need it. But I also provided terrestrial examples with the same issues – which are easily sourced in the literature; and which were absolutely not creationists.

“I don't know first hand what would happen if you carbon date a living mammal for instance. I don't know if the machinery is geared to spit out a measurement of 0 in that case”

Well for starters, the “machinery” doesn’t spit out an 'date'. It measures absolute amounts of chemicals in the sample (it might have some associated software that does the calculations – but if I sent a sample away to a lab, I would need the raw data back).

I have no problem whatsoever with you questioning any claim. My issue is that you cast aspersions on creationists without providing supporting arguments. You expect standards of creationists that are beyond what is found in secular science journals. So you’re not actually considering arguments – but disparaging creationists prior to such consideration. That demonstrates a lack of objectivity.

“Because we have episodes where they do things like carbon date living creatures from the ocean and report *gasp* inaccurate readings”

Is that what I did – have an “episode”? How did you determine this? How do you even know the research was conducted by creationists – or even what research I was referring to? You’re like a dog with a bone – except in this case, there is no bone. This just reinforces my point that you are not even trying to be objective – you’re just overly anxious to latch onto anything that might paint creationists in a negative light.

So where does that leave me? What if I do make a mistake – does that automatically reinforce your perception of creationists as dishonest or inept? That’s not how a rational discussion is supposed to work. It’s certainly not how objectivity works.

“I feel that I try to filter through the information that I'm presented with and try not to adopt nonsense”

I’m glad that’s your goal. Unfortunately, in all our conversations so far, you have demonstrated a propensity for impenetrable confirmation bias. On several occasions, you have refused to subject your own position to the same standards you require of creationists, you have been explicit that you feel no obligation to consider any argument beyond the naturalistic position, you have been dismissive of any attempt to explain the evidence beyond the naturalistic account, you have consistently failed to separate the empirical form the theoretical in your analysis, and you have abundantly resorted to logical fallacy to distract from consideration of arguments. Even the tenor of your previous question resorts to ridiculous measures to mischaracterise creationists – and based on nothing at all.

I think these strategies impede objectivity – if that’s your goal. It’s really not necessary. The same logical weaknesses that I ascribe to the secular position also weaken my own position – so the only risk to you is that you may come to realise that alternative positions can also be rationally justified. You’ll never be forced to give up your position.

“So I'm curious how you were able to attain this level of confidence with historical claims made in the Bible that you have very little [if at all] direct data on”

I have as much data as the proponents of the secular models. In reality, it’s all the same facts – I just interpret those facts differently.

“You are so cautious to give credence to historical claims but you managed to determine that the Bible is the word of God?”

I have no problems attributing my trust in the reliability of scripture to faith. I have consistently acknowledged the role of faith presupposition in arguments supporting my position. It’s the other side’s failure to acknowledge their faith presupposition that leads to logically unjustified levels of scientific confidence.

“I got this from ICR's website. Don't be so quite to assume I just parrot something from talk origins.

http://www.icr.org/a...olved-problems/

Check out the "heat problem".

"The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well."”

I was not questioning your capacity to follow a link from the talkorigins website. I acknowledge that I’m making assumptions, but my assumptions are supported by the quality of your arguments.

I haven’t studied the RATE project in any depth. So according to a cursory search I can ascertain that RATE is a project incorporating 8 years of experimental research producing copious amounts of data culminating in several research articles and scientific convention presentation proceedings. Based on this data, the RATE participants subsequently formulated a creationist model to account for radiometric decay.

Then you come along and ‘find’ a one page (4 paragraph) non-technical article containing a brief summary, acknowledging and addressing in general terms some of the problems associated with their model – you then proceed to take a single line from that resource and use it to question the legitimacy of the entire project and its participants.

This is classic ad-hominem – i.e. find a reason to be critical of the participants in order to justify ignoring their evidence and arguments. You are too eager to grab hold of anything you can find to paint creationists in a negative light; prior to considering arguments. That is why I question your capacity to be objective.

“At this moment you aren't being a very thoughtful person. I actually posted this already in this thread once [page 1] and thought you already knew what I'd be referencing”

I’m not sure how this makes me “unthoughtful”. The original post suffers from the same logical weakness as the latter post.

The problem with all dating methods is the same for creationists – the reliance upon unverifiable assumption. Yes, there are many evidences that point to a young earth, but those all depend on making assumptions about the initial conditions, the systematic rates and systematic integrity of the facts used. Creationists acknowledge these assumptions. Find an older (2009) summarized example list here;

< http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth>

“Item number 1 right away is useless. Once again instead of SUPPORTING the argument for young earth they try to cast doubt on millions of years. Even if true, this doesn't make the Earth "young".”

This again speaks to objectivity. The secular model separates the origins of the universe/earth and the origins of life, whereas the Biblical model considers the two to be part of a single creation event. So we are comparing the evidence against competing models. In this example, the most obvious interpretation of the facts is that the dinosaur lived less than 100,000 years ago. This is more consistent with the creationist model than the secular model which has these dinosaurs becoming extinct millions of years ago. The facts can be interpreted to support the creationist model which incorporates a young earth – ergo these facts can be interpreted to support a young earth.

“Part of the issue is I don't know what the ratio is of "expected results" vs. "unexpected results"”

That’s the problem – we can’t know the real ratio because much of the “unexpected” ‘ages’ don’t make it to the literature.

“If we often get results that we would predict, [using the logic behind radiometric dating] then I'd say when we come across times when the dates aren't as expected AND we can account for why that would be, we can be confident in the process”

Well my first question would be; ‘What constitutes “often”?’ Different methods likely have different strike rates. Is 30% enough, or 60 or 80 or 99%? Even at 99% - think about what that means in terms of absolute numbers of anomalies. In any other discipline, any anomalies have to be accounted for before the process can be considered reliable – why is radiometric dating immune to this logic?

My second question is, ‘How can we “account for” anomalous ‘ages’ without the capacity to make the observations?’ Is there any experimental way to test the “account” of the anomaly – or is it just a matter of another “maybe” story? i.e Maybe the sample was contaminated by older rock or maybe some subsequent heating event messed with the isotopes. And what do we do when the derived ‘ages’ are outrageously beyond expectations? Well maybe there was some other form of contamination involved; before or since the sample’s formation, or in the collection or lab process – either way we can disregard it because we ‘know’ it can’t be right.

Now if we disregard all of the ‘bad dates’, what are we left with? Check it out – we have universal agreement in the data. So we can now claim that all of the data points to the reliability of the method.

In reality, until an anomaly can be experimentally accounted for, the existence of any anomaly undermines the logical integrity of the proposed method (at least in every other scientific discipline).

“I'm told that we can even use two different dating methods on one sample and often see dates that are very similar”

That happens. There are also many examples of differing dating methods giving different results. So can this calibration method be considered reliable when multiple methods sometimes agree and sometimes disagree? And how do you decide which method to use? Different methods are useful for different presumed ages. So you wouldn’t, for example, carbon date something that you presumed to be millions of years old – because you know that it’s a waste of time, because according to the fundamental principles of carbon dating, there will be no measurable C14 left in the sample after all that time. So even the chosen method demonstrates bias and introduces bias into the process.

“Right and what I'm asking is, given the amounts...and the rate at which we observe decay presently, how would you account for this in a young earth?”

I would incorporate assumptions about what happened in the past (i.e. theorize) into my model – then test the plausibility of those assumptions. I believe that’s what the RATE project did. Should we have a look at waht they found?

Sign In

Join Worthy Christian Forums today!

Science and Exegesis

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

a-seeker

mikeecsedy

Tristen

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members