Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Brightmoon]

And this one...oh my. ( snip)

This kind of dishonesty is all too common with apologists. When I was still a practicing Christian I was horrified when I started trusting secular papers more than Christian ones. I began by checking the sources of secular papers, and trusting, sight unseen, the few citations apologists provided. Gradually, I started checking apologist sources, and found that the few things they did cite didn't match their actual claim. Sometimes the paper wasn't even the same topic of discussion! *cough*Hovind*cough*

I was so offended by Snelling playing games with the error bars in a paper that I simply refuse to read anything coming out of his creationist employer with his name on it . I already know he deliberately uses deception to try to convince scientific illiterates that the earth is young

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This is just dishonest at best. No, they did not find readings higher than background, nor does the paper suggest such.

You just seem unable to admit that you're wrong.

The reality is that you suggested that C14 had been found in diamonds and fossils of millions of years in age.

But this is just not true and the paper does not suggest such.

Can you admit to this?

Yes i am saying c-14 has been found in diamonds and fossils millions of years old. I gave the other references here is some for diamonds.


J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

9 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A lie that I did not read his ignorant and lying source (that is how I know the source is ignorant and lying!)
I already knew that the sources were ignorant and lying in general because I have seen these YEC claims before and they have been debunked for decades. My post lists specific lies in a creation.com article.
6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Replies to working science with articles containing delusions and lies from creation.com

so in other words you have no response.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

You have since the beginning misunderstood 90% of my arguments and this is not a surprise as you showed recently, you have yet to read my op.

@Tolkien R.R.J
You cant explain how the angular unconformity I described could be created by a global flood or in any brief amount of time beyond millions of years.

You cant explain why your formation needs millions of years as has been show and thus i have nothing to respond to. It was based on your false assumptions of the floods ability to produce hard rocks and your false assumptions from old earth training. That is why despite being asked multiple times, you wont point to anything in your formation that needs long time to form since it is built on assumptions and not observation. Further i linked you to an article from a flood geologist exspaling it in layman's terms as you are well aware.

You claimed that naturally occuring C14 was found in fossils and diamonds that are suggested to be millions of years old, this is not true.

I said c-14 has been found in diamonds that should have long ago decayed away if they were as old as the evolutionist believe.

Now you're suggesting that C14 was found above background levels in diamonds and fossils, which again, is not true.

The problem with this is it is true. Sources have been provided above.

And you are mislabeling zircon inclusions as contamination, which just demonstrates that you are unfamiliar with science.

I have heard evolutionist geologist call inclusion contamination in pert review. So dont get to excited about my choice of words. Had one read my op it would be clear what i meant by contamination. Wrong choice of words? ok maybe, i can accept that. To a lay audience, i dont think its a big deal especially had they read my op unlike you who chose to not do that.

You also made some broken argument about polystrate fossils, even though these fossils are isolated to individual sections of strata, ie they dont actually span long periods of geologic time.

only hundreds of thousands of years.

You suggested that strata of the grand canyon has been folded and must have been wet, but I gave you a map showing faults running through the same grand canyon strata, thereby demonstrating that they were indeed solidified at the time of their deformation. The faulting is perpendicular to the direction of continental motion

That is why I said the argument applied to those areas that folded while wet with multiple examples when you asked for them.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

9 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A blatant "supports a young earth" lie.
That is a blatant lie because the paper he cites measured apparent C14 ages of ten times that of a young Earth.

Agreed. And that is more than should be there, and it shows it is not a lie but confirms young age of diamonds. Also it shows you have no idea what your saying here.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Please explain how say 400,000 dark layers in ice cores were deposited in the last 6000 years.

Thanks and great question. Due to time I will link you some articles.

https://answersingenesis.org/enviro...e-cores-show-many-tens-of-thousands-of-years/
https://creation.com/greenland-ice-cores-implicit-evidence-for-catastrophic-deposition
https://creation.com/the-lost-squadron
https://creation.com/ice-sheet-age

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

paraconformities have never been an issue for geologists. Erosional surfaces do not have to be jagged or uneven. Indeed, bedding planes which have undergone erosion are more often than not, flat. So it should be no surprise that there are flat unconformities in the earth in which deposition has occurred over flat bedding planes.

I've looked at plenty of these features and I've never perceived them as anomalous, nor have any other geologist i know. Only young earthers who want to make something out of nothing.

I know, only an issue for evolutionist. So no depistion or erosion or any sighs of millions of years and you see no issue? at best the millions of years is based on pure fantasy, at least creationist stick to the rocks and observation.


“A puzzling characteristic of the erathem boundaries and of other major stratigraphic boundaries is the general lack of physical evidence of subaerial exposure. Traces of deep leaching, scour, channeling, and residual gravels tend to be lacking, even when the underlying rocks are cherty limestones … these boundaries are paraconformities that are identifiable only by paleontological evidence.”-paleontologist Norman Newell -Newell, N.D., Mass extinction: unique or recurrent causes? in: Berggren, W.A., Van Couvering, J.A., (Eds.), Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 115–127

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

You just seem unable to comprehend the concept of inclusions. Take time to read about them. Note that inclusions such as zircons are always older than the rock matrix (the granite) which contains them. This is like geology 101, literally.

You keep asking how it is that the rock can yield different ages, without acknowledging that the rock is not homogenous.

It can yield different ages because it is made of different parts that are different ages. Its that simple. There are no tricks up my sleeve, it's just that simple.

Your argument would make sense if you picked a homogenous rock (like basalt for example or something aphenitic) without zircon inclusions. And there are countless homogenous rocks on earth that could be dated. But of course your young earth sources seem to be ignorant if fundamentals of science and decided that it would be a good idea to pick a rock that is heterogenous, phaneritic and made of multiple different aged parts with zircon inclusions.

Or you could simply just date the granite multiple times (which I'm sure they did on their end) without dating the inclusions, and if the methods were yielding different ages, then you would have a case.

The worst part of this though, is that the authors of the source, probably knew this, but decided to make the argument anyway. Because the reality is that they don't care about science or truth. They don't care about honesty, or credibility. And they don't care if they misinform people. People like you.

In a supposed 20 million year old granite received a uranium thorium lead date 97 million years and a zircon dat of 1,483 million years
- r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450



And what of the various ages given to the granite? I am not sure how you are getting this. If the zircon is dated at that age what of the other two methods? This is what happens and often, I gave many examples of the same rock being dated by various methods and producing different results. Had you read my op you would have known that.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Guess I better get in before page 20.

I asked you to reply in your own words because I want to be sure that you even understand my argument. Which you clearly don't. As none of those links even approaches the topic I was discussing. Please do not use links AS your argument. Use them in SUPPORT of your argument. But make the argument yours.

I also asked you not to use quotes, as they are meaningless to me.

Please have a little integrity and confidence in your arguments, and refrain from using such poor discussion tactics.

Not my area and is the reason i linked. They all use each other and are calibrated based on the standard of each other its circular reasoning. From Snellings layers of assumptions


"So scientists don’t rely on visual comparisons. They use radiocarbon (14C) dating of growth rings to obtain their approximate age.

"Then they match this information to the associated pattern of rings in the master tree-ring chronology. However, ironically, radiocarbon dating is calibrated and corrected using tree-ring chronologies. So conclusions about tree-ring ages depend on radiocarbon dating, which depends on tree rings, which depends on radiocarbon dating. Neither tree-ring counting nor radiocarbon dating is conclusive alone.


As we saw earlier, tree-ring dating depends on subjective visual cross-dating, augmented by radiocarbon dating. So tree-ring dating relies on radiocarbon dating, while radiocarbon dating has been corrected using tree-ring dating! In the world of logic, that is called circular reasoning—a person uses one assumption to prove another assumption, but neither has an unimpeachable, independent basis of measurement. "


Furthermore, scientists sometimes find vast, contradictory results among their own dating methods. Scientists have pursued a long-term, extensive study of places with “varves” in Sweden and North America—each with a few hundred laminae—to create comprehensive varve chronologies. But they have run into trouble. Based on counting varves, they first estimated a chronology of 28,000 years for North America. But the same data was reinterpreted as only about 10,000 years based on radiocarbon dating.

Think about what this means. Counting varves is supposed to be more reliable than radiocarbon dates, which are usually corrected by varve and tree-ring counts! So is varve dating reliable? Absolutely not. There is no guarantee that alternating laminae are indeed genuine measurements of yearly sediment build-up. Instead, they could easily be multiple rhythmites deposited during storms or other events. And varve counts even fail when they’re cross-checked with radiocarbon dating. Varve dating is not independent of radiocarbon dating, but depends on it. Furthermore, radiocarbon dating is calibrated, or refined, against tree-ring dating, which is calibrated by radiocarbon dating!"



Really shows in this photo the logic and assumptions used

Further they are not exact chronologies and "layers" have been shown to form rapidly. There is clear evidence these are not annual layers as interpreted and than used for calibration.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

I find it funny that you use BOTH arguments, that decay rates could have been much faster before than they are now, AND that we find carbon-14 in fossils. If the decay rate was faster before, there SHOULDN'T be ANY carbon-14 in anything buried prior to the decay rate event, as it would have all rapidly decayed away in that event. You refute one of your own arguments by claiming we find c-14 in fossils.

Unless of course the earth is young.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

And this one...oh my. He makes so many claims about what scientists have done, but doesn't use citations in the entire piece! And I know that he is quite aware of just how egregious this is, because he's actually published in legit journals (using standard radiometric dating results, which have hacked off plenty of Christians, btw). He knows that he should be citing papers any time he makes a claim about what scientists have done wrong. But he doesn't. Do you know why? Because it isn't written as a legitimate rebuttal to the science. It's apologetic fluff. He knows you wouldn't check his sources, anyway, to find out if they actually did what he claims they did. He doesn't care. Because he makes money off of people like you who just want to be reassured, rather than actually trying to advance science.

This kind of dishonesty is all too common with apologists. When I was still a practicing Christian I was horrified when I started trusting secular papers more than Christian ones. I began by checking the sources of secular papers, and conversely trusting, sight unseen, the few citations apologists provided. Gradually, I started checking apologist sources, and found that the few things they did cite didn't match their actual claim. Sometimes the paper wasn't even the same topic of discussion! *cough*Hovind*cough*

well than this seems more a rant and admittance to the faulty logic used. If you see an issue i can email him for you. i am told he is out on a project but will be back soon. But by all means show why this is not how it is done, with sources.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

I don't need faith. I have evidence.

Here's just one: hundreds of thousands of layers of snow-ice in arctic ice cores.
That's hundreds of thousands of winter summer cycles.

That fact alone, already completely demolishes the idea of a young earth.

https://answersingenesis.org/enviro...e-cores-show-many-tens-of-thousands-of-years/
https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/ice-cores-vs-the-flood/
https://creation.com/greenland-ice-cores-implicit-evidence-for-catastrophic-deposition
https://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Look like i am done as page 20 looks finished. Sorry I really lost interest the last week or so. I will be doing a future thread and this subject will be brought up once more as part of a larger topic.


Thanks all for posting.

 

[46AND2]

Not my area and is the reason i linked. They all use each other and are calibrated based on the standard of each other its circular reasoning. From Snellings layers of assumptions


"So scientists don’t rely on visual comparisons. They use radiocarbon (14C) dating of growth rings to obtain their approximate age.

"Then they match this information to the associated pattern of rings in the master tree-ring chronology. However, ironically, radiocarbon dating is calibrated and corrected using tree-ring chronologies. So conclusions about tree-ring ages depend on radiocarbon dating, which depends on tree rings, which depends on radiocarbon dating. Neither tree-ring counting nor radiocarbon dating is conclusive alone.


As we saw earlier, tree-ring dating depends on subjective visual cross-dating, augmented by radiocarbon dating. So tree-ring dating relies on radiocarbon dating, while radiocarbon dating has been corrected using tree-ring dating! In the world of logic, that is called circular reasoning—a person uses one assumption to prove another assumption, but neither has an unimpeachable, independent basis of measurement. "


Furthermore, scientists sometimes find vast, contradictory results among their own dating methods. Scientists have pursued a long-term, extensive study of places with “varves” in Sweden and North America—each with a few hundred laminae—to create comprehensive varve chronologies. But they have run into trouble. Based on counting varves, they first estimated a chronology of 28,000 years for North America. But the same data was reinterpreted as only about 10,000 years based on radiocarbon dating.

Think about what this means. Counting varves is supposed to be more reliable than radiocarbon dates, which are usually corrected by varve and tree-ring counts! So is varve dating reliable? Absolutely not. There is no guarantee that alternating laminae are indeed genuine measurements of yearly sediment build-up. Instead, they could easily be multiple rhythmites deposited during storms or other events. And varve counts even fail when they’re cross-checked with radiocarbon dating. Varve dating is not independent of radiocarbon dating, but depends on it. Furthermore, radiocarbon dating is calibrated, or refined, against tree-ring dating, which is calibrated by radiocarbon dating!"



Really shows in this photo the logic and assumptions used

Further they are not exact chronologies and "layers" have been shown to form rapidly. There is clear evidence these are not annual layers as interpreted and than used for calibration.

If it isn't your area, how do you know their arguments are correct? If you can't understand the argument, why do you bring it up?

You have still yet to address the problem. What mechanism do you propose caused thousands of tree rings to grow in a year, AND thousands of layers of diatoms to deposit in Lake Sujitsu in a year (in equal amounts, I might add) AND cause thousands of cycles in ice cores to deposit in a year, and so many other things.

Yes, these multiple rings, cores and varves CAN happen. But 1. Not to the extreme extent that is required for a 6000 year old earth and 2. EVIDENTLY didn't happen (to any significant degree) in the particular species of trees, lakes, and cores we use. Because they all result in the same answer.

How can so many methods all accidentally end up with the same wrong results?

 

[46AND2]

Unless of course the earth is young.

No, that doesn't make sense. First of all, if the earth was young, then ALL fossils would contain MUCH more carbon than the trace amounts that creationists claim. Unless, the decay rate of carbon was vastly faster than it is now. If it was fast enough to account for a young earth, then there would be ZERO carbon in the fossils, because it would decay away so quickly.

You must choose. Either decide that the decay rate was different, or decide that there is carbon in fossils. You can't have both, because they directly contradict each other.

 

[46AND2]

well than this seems more a rant and admittance to the faulty logic used. If you see an issue i can email him for you. i am told he is out on a project but will be back soon. But by all means show why this is not how it is done, with sources.

"with sources"

LMAO.

How ironic.

Here's a quote for you:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Christopher Hitchens

 

[46AND2]

Look like i am done as page 20 looks finished. Sorry I really lost interest the last week or so. I will be doing a future thread and this subject will be brought up once more as part of a larger topic.


Thanks all for posting.

Oh darn, but you ignored the post where I directly refuted your apologists lie that we assume a constant atmospheric carbon concentration. Pity.

 

[46AND2]

Look like i am done as page 20 looks finished. Sorry I really lost interest the last week or so. I will be doing a future thread and this subject will be brought up once more as part of a larger topic.


Thanks all for posting.

You lost interest because you were getting your Arsenal (Ars3nal) handed to you.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes i am saying c-14 has been found in diamonds and fossils millions of years old. I gave the other references here is some for diamonds.

10 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth" reference lie.
That is a creationist lying about the calibration of AMS instruments by measuring the C14 count from the instrument and lab using diamonds that cannot contain any C14.

This is close to PHYS 101 though I recall the actual experiment was in a third year physics course. Say that you want to measure the radiation level from a source, e.g. C14 from an organic sample. You know that there is radiation from the building, the atmosphere and maybe even the instrument. You calibrate the instrument. You make sure that the instrument works by using a reference sample that has been independently tested. You account for the background radiation by measuring the background radiation using a inactive sample or no sample. You now have a radiation detector that can measure the C14 emission from a sample starting at 0 with at least 1 calibrated non-zero level.

I suspect that the AMS instrument calibration uses diamonds containing no C14 to account for any effects from the samples themselves (shielding of the instrument below them?).

One last time in the probably vain hope that you will stop lying about this, Tolkien R.R.J.

• Diamonds form underground where there is no C14 (I allowed for the tiny possibility of transport from the surface in a previous post). C14 forms in the atmosphere. Diamonds form 100's of kilometers below the surface of the Earth.
• Diamonds are transported to the surface in rock that is hundreds of million of years old. Their minimum age is hundreds of million of years old.
• Other radiometric dating techniques date diamonds as billions of years old.

 

[RealityCheck01]

so in other words you have no response.

10 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "so in other words you have no response" lie when I have responded.
9 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A lie that I did not read his ignorant and lying source (that is how I know the source is ignorant and lying!)
6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Replies to working science with articles containing delusions and lies from creation.com