Evidences for Young Earth Creationism

[Queller]

Evidence being found worldwide of early agriculture:

AEvidence of Ancient Farming in Iran Discovered | Fertile Crescent

IOW Evidence of Ancient Farming Prior to the Formation of the World Discovered in Iran.

 

[EternalDragon]

If all materials are younger than two million years, then the lab should not be able to find a single rock that is over two million years. Guess what? Tons of rocks are found to be much, much older than two million years.

To use an analogy, you are saying that the scales used to weigh semi trucks are not valid because you can't accurately measure the weight of a feather on those same scales.

That is another lie that creationists are telling you. There should be background 14C in every measurement due to contamination. That is why 14C is only used out to 50,000 or less, even though it theoretically could be extended up to 100,000 or more.

Where did the rock come from the formed the Earth and can you give me documentation as to the exact starting ratios? Like the test results from the beginning.

 

[46AND2]

Where did the rock come from the formed the Earth and can you give me documentation as to the exact starting ratios? Like the test results from the beginning.

As you've been told before, we don't need to have tested the initial ratios. They can be determined...by several methods, in fact. Isochron plots, for example.

 

[RickG]

Where did the rock come from the formed the Earth and can you give me documentation as to the exact starting ratios? Like the test results from the beginning.

There are over 40 different isotopes used in radiometric dating and only in a few cases is there a possibility where excess daughter isotope(s) can occur.

One is in extrusive volcanism where atmospheric Ar can permeate still unsolified lava exposed to the atmosphere. This does not happen with intrusive volcanism. Also, occasionally Uranium because it is partially soluble can leach through ground water. But regardless of that, the isochron method eliminates any excess daughter. And contrary to what the YEC literature claims, geochronologists do not assume there is no excess daughter. That however, does not prevent samples sent to a lab from being misrepresented, whether through inexperience, ignorance, or deliberately.

 

[46AND2]

Ok, now that work is out of the way for the day, I can get back to this:

I'm aware TalkOrigins claims Austin misapplied the method because "Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old." However if YECs are correct that all fossils are younger than that to begin with, then all laboratories would be incorrectly dating younger material, so that argument doesn't work.

CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

No. What would most likely happen if EVERYTHING was too young to date accurately is that IF we were able to get a reading at all, like Austin did, it would be right around lower limits of the method we were using. This is because there is a certain amount of "noise" in the readings that comes from residue in the tools, and the preparation process which gives a minimal reading in the results. This is accounted for in the "error bars" that are given when quoting an age for a rock.

Now, the reason this is significant is that different isotopes have different minimum ages they can measure (because of the length of their half-lives/decay rate). So, if you measured the same rock with both the Rb/Sr method and with the K/Ar method, you would get two different dates, since they would both test right around the lower limit of the respective method.

What this means is that we would virtually NEVER see concordant dates between multiple methods. In fact, we see concordant dates greater than 90% of the time.

The only way to explain this is if the sample is sufficiently old to date using each of the methods, such that there has been enough decay to get an actual reading.

Secondly, there is evidence of an ancient eruption within the sea killing the dinosaurs.

Ancient Volcanic Eruptions Caused Global Mass Extinction -- ScienceDaily

That's nice. There are several hypotheses about how the dinos went extinct. The vast consensus, however, is that it was due to the meteorite that hit the earth in Mexico 65 million years ago.

Thirdly, Carbon 14 from dinosaur soft tissue fossils has been discovered, even though it shouldn't still exist according to the theory of evolution. Of course, soft tissue wasn't supposed to exist either.

C14 dinos - creation.com

I've already touched on this in a previous post, but I'll add a few things. The "soft tissue" that exists, while surprising, is not as "soft" as creationists would like it to be. It has to be rehydrated, contains no DNA, no carbon 14 (despite claims by the same dude who sent a shellacked dinosaur bone to get tested a couple decades earlier; shellac contains carbon), no collagen, etc.

Secondly, even if, and that's a big if, the C-14 dates were legit, it still does YEC no good. The numbers that the guy came up with are near the upper limits of the carbon dating method. What this means is that it is TRACE amounts of C14. If the earth was only 6000 years old, there should be a full HALF of the carbon content remaining. So where did the rest of it go, if it didn't have time to decay?

Fourth, they do suffer from similar limitations. They rely on the assumption that the daughter isotope levels are known,

First of all, I'm going to assume (because your statement makes no sense if I don't) that you mean that the INITIAL daughter concentration levels are assumed to be zero. Because the PRESENT daughter amounts are actually measured.

But that's ok. We absolutely don't assume that the initial concentration is zero. In fact, it usually is not (although, it is often very close to zero), and WE DON'T NEED IT TO BE. You know why? Because we can DETERMINE what the initial concentrations were. That's the lovely thing about mathematics. Given the values for enough variables, we can figure out the unknown variable. And it just so happens that we can measure all the variables needed to find unknown variable of initial concentration. They do this by plotting a graph, called an isochron.

And we've been able to do that for decades.

that a closed system occurred without variation in the decay process,

We don't assume this at all. In fact, we know that it is often not the case. But guess what? They have developed procedures that can check for that, too. Remember that isochron I told you about? It's a straight line on a graph with its slope representing the age. If the system has not remained closed, the samples WON'T FORM A STRAIGHT LINE.

But that is just one method. Using concordia/discordia graphs with the Pb dating system, we can also check for closed systems. In the Ar/Ar method, we use an age spectrum.

This is actually a great help for geologists because it allows us to even measure metamorphic rock and determine how long ago different geologic events occurred.

and that equally flawed dating methods can crosscheck them.

Oh, but how are they all "equally flawed" in VASTLY different ways to all arrive at the same ages?? How can dendrochronology be wrong in one way, speleothems in another, coral bands in another, icecores in another, C14 in another, lake varves in yet another and all wind up agreeing with each other?

These are all very different methods, with different environmental pressures, in many different parts of the world. Ok, so they are all flawed? Yet, miraculously all flawed DIFFERENTLY, so that they get the same wrong answer. That's one deceptive, trickster god you believe in.

 

[EternalDragon]

As you've been told before, we don't need to have tested the initial ratios. They can be determined...by several methods, in fact. Isochron plots, for example.

So basically your are telling me that if God made an apple, we can tell by the size and growth of the seed/apple how old it is. So by that test we see that the apple is possibly 34-90 days old. But in reality it was just created a second ago.

So we are back to scientists making assumptions about how old the earth is by testing isotope ratios and ignoring a possible creation event. Again you are still making assumptions about the starting ratios.

P.S. Is it correct that Mars is almost exactly the same age as the earth?

 

[lasthero]

So basically your are telling me that if God made an apple, we can tell by the size and growth of the seed/apple how old it is. So by that test we see that the apple is possibly 34-90 days old. But in reality it was just created a second ago.

An apple that's been around for months is going to have things like abrasions and diseases from its environment, simply by being out so long. Would a recently made apple have things like that?

 

[Split Rock]

So basically your are telling me that if God made an apple, we can tell by the size and growth of the seed/apple how old it is. So by that test we see that the apple is possibly 34-90 days old. But in reality it was just created a second ago.

So we are back to scientists making assumptions about how old the earth is by testing isotope ratios and ignoring a possible creation event. Again you are still making assumptions about the starting ratios.

Show us one of these seed/apples created just a second ago. Otherwise you are just making stuff up and saying, "see... you would misdate this."

 

[Dizredux]

For those who want their data from Christian sources only, here is a good article that might be of some use and is well written for those without a background on the subject.

Radiometric dating from a christian prospective

Radiometric Dating


Dizredux

 

[EternalDragon]

An apple that's been around for months is going to have things like abrasions and diseases from its environment, simply by being out so long. Would a recently made apple have things like that?

I've been to the supermarket and most of the apples look unblemished to me. I highly doubt you could easily spot any differences between the two. I've also seen many without stems.

We are talking about testing the age of something by it's makeup or isotope ratios.

 

[EternalDragon]

Show us one of these seed/apples created just a second ago. Otherwise you are just making stuff up and saying, "see... you would misdate this."

I can show you a rock created just thousands of years ago and you would miss date it.

 

[lasthero]

I've been to the supermarket and most of the apples look unblemished to me.

So?

I highly doubt you could easily spot any differences between the two.

Apples get bacteria, ED. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Would a newly made apple have bacteria already infecting it? If not, we should be able to tell the difference between the two.

Besides that, apples are affected by things like temperature. They have little bumps in them from beings stored. They're affected by their environment in ways that you wouldn't expect a newly made apple, too.

By the way, nice work ignoring Rick and 46AND2's posts.

 

[florida2]

P.S. Is it correct that Mars is almost exactly the same age as the earth?

Yes, all the planets are around 4.5 billion years old as they would have formed at roughly the same time during the formation of the Solar system. (took me all of 10 seconds to google)

 

[RickG]

I can show you a rock created just thousands of years ago and you would miss date it.

Only if one uses YEC methods, which dating laboratories don't.

 

[Split Rock]

I can show you a rock created just thousands of years ago and you would miss date it.

I'm not a geologist, but go right ahead.

 

[Naturalism]

So basically your are telling me that if God made an apple, we can tell by the size and growth of the seed/apple how old it is. So by that test we see that the apple is possibly 34-90 days old. But in reality it was just created a second ago.

Here is the error in this assumption. If you assume a god exists and that it made things (an apple), you're not going to really know how it made it (how do you or can you know if you lack any evidence?), or how old the apple is (since gods are asserted to be entities that can do anything it wants it could misleadingly make an apple out fully mature but really only be a day old).

This is precisely why "a god did this" is never used in a science explanation as it's not falsifiable or testable and thus not knowable.

So we are back to scientists making assumptions about how old the earth is by testing isotope ratios and ignoring a possible creation event.

There is not a lot to ignore when you don't have testable evidence for a creation event, that is your problem.

 

[Naturalism]

I've been to the supermarket and most of the apples look unblemished to me. I highly doubt you could easily spot any differences between the two. I've also seen many without stems.

Fail. Go to an apple orchard, there you will see the many of the apples that are not even fully ripe and have evidence of being older than a few seconds. They have abrasions and evidence of insects eating at them.

You see, when you go to the supermarket to buy your apples, you're buying generally the optimal ones the orchards could sell to the supermarket as the supermarket is not going to buy beat up product that they inturn cannot sell.

 

[Naturalism]

I can show you a rock created just thousands of years ago and you would miss date it.

How would you know the rock is thousands of years old in the first place?

 

[Loudmouth]

So basically your are telling me that if God made an apple, we can tell by the size and growth of the seed/apple how old it is. So by that test we see that the apple is possibly 34-90 days old. But in reality it was just created a second ago.

First question.

Do you think the Earth was created with fossils already in the ground?

 

[Loudmouth]

I can show you a rock created just thousands of years ago and you would miss date it.

I can show you that a forensic scientist would match DNA to the wrong person. All I need to do is claim that Leprechauns planted DNA at the crime scene that is indistinguishable from the suspect's DNA, and I have made the same type of argument you have.

If you were on a jury, would you throw out DNA evidence because it is possible that leprechaun's planted DNA at the crime scene, especially given the fact that no on can disprove leprechauns? If you wouldn't throw out the DNA evidence, then why would you throw out radiometric dating simply because someone can claim that it was magically poofed into being with fake evidence of being old?