Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science and a Young Earth - Evolution Vs Creationism Christian Perspective on Science
Best Syndication ^ | July 31, 2006 | Babu Ranganathan

Posted on 07/31/2006 8:33:32 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the Earth? Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The simple answer is "no".

Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the Earth's age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.

For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the Earth's atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.

Complicated as the subject of the Earth's age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the Earth will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age.

Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure, so that their bones, remains, and imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure their remains will decay rather than become preserved or fossilized. Most of the many billions of fossils in the Earth are found in rock that has been affected by water (Sedimentary Rock). Therefore, most of of the billions of fossils in the earth were formed as a result of the animals and plants being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure.

Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over a period of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth's crust. This is only one view.

Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth. Obviously, if it was one world-wide flood that deposited these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth it would not have taken very long. But, if the fossils were caused by local and limited geographical floods then it would, indeed, have required many millions of years before such local floods could have produced the billions of fossils and deposited them in various layers all over the Earth.

There are many problems, however, with the local flood theory as the cause behind the fossils. Even today local floods are not known to be able to generate the type of tremendous pressure and force necessary to fossilize creatures in rock. Among other arguments, it is difficult to explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks, now and then, over millions of years was capable of performing such a feat!

The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the Earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the Earth's past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth.

Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms describe God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of fossils.

The fossils in the Earth are found to exist in various layers of the Earth's crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in various parts of the Earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.

Furthermoree, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain (circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves!

Besides the many assumptions involved, there are other problems with this view. First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting of these layers. Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.

Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years old because it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the Earth. This is assuming that the stars, galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.

Highly respected sientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the Earth's magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

According to evolutionists, the Moon is nearly as old as the Earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the Moon's surface over billions of years, there should have been many feet of lunar dust on the Moon. But, when we landed on the Moon we discovered only a thin layer of dust. The Moon has no atmosphere to burn up such meteors as the earth does so such collection of dust was a major concern for scientists before the astronuts landed there.

There is much more to say on this subject, and there are many positive evidences for a young earth and universe not covered in this article. Excellent articles and books have been written by highly qualified scientists, including geologists, who are creationists showing scientific evidences for a young earth and universe. M.I.T. scientist Dr. Walt Brown provides considerable information on the topic at his site www.creationscience.com. Also, considerable information on the subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research at www.icr.org.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. He has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author has a website at: www.religionscience.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: afoolandhismoney; bewarefrevolutionist; buymybooks; commonscold; creation; creationism; creationist; creationists; crevo; crevodebates; crevolist; enoughalready; evolution; evolutionist; foolishness; frevolutionist; geology; id; idiocy; idiot; intelligentdesign; mythology; pavlovian; pigignorant; scam; science; sendmemoney; spam; trash; videosforsale; wasteoftime; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-343 next last
To: DaveLoneRanger
For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

I was quite interested in this, so I went online to find the Science article. The abstract of the paper seemed to have nothing to do with lava flows, but was about carbon fourteen dating of mollusk shells. Ah, poor old HayekRocks thought to himself, but it might mention lava flows in the body of the article. So he used his credit card to purchase access to the full article, only to find he was on the errand of a fool. There is no mention of potassium argon dating in the article, or of lava. It is about shells incorporating carbon dioxide from decaying humus.

May I humbly suggest that articles that claim a 'Christian perspective' and contain demonstrable incorrectness do little to advance Christianity.

101 posted on 08/01/2006 8:24:56 AM PDT by HayekRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
See Hawaii rocks dating.
102 posted on 08/01/2006 8:30:17 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The earth hasn't moved any significant amount out of it's orbit in my lifetime.

Perhaps some day you will apply your new found skills to the word "creation."

103 posted on 08/01/2006 8:32:39 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks, now and then, over millions of years was capable of performing such a feat!

On this point the author is ignorant to the point of disbelief. Either the author knows no geology, or he's lying.

Here's a simple (and somewhat ironic) description of what geologists believe.

104 posted on 08/01/2006 8:48:25 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
...the most reasonable assumption we can make is that they arrived here via impact events long after the Earth had solidified...

Ted, have you considered the possibility that the heavier elements were brought to the surface through such things as volcanism and the movement of continental plates? You do realize, of course, Mr. Holden, that researchers have actually considered your position, tested it against reality, and found it wanting?

105 posted on 08/01/2006 8:48:48 AM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Ok, finding the signature of quick reversals captured in rock, ...

That's "allegedly captured" until it's been peer reviewed. There is independent corroboration, isn't there?

106 posted on 08/01/2006 8:55:46 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Highly respected scientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the Earth's magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

This assertion has been discredited so many times that it's unusual to even see creationists bring it up any more.

Dr. Barnes work was based on his assumption about a young earth. Then he was forced to try to fit the facts to his assumptions. So he just left them out.

A discussion is here.

107 posted on 08/01/2006 8:57:45 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
According to evolutionists, the Moon is nearly as old as the Earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the Moon's surface over billions of years, there should have been many feet of lunar dust on the Moon. But, when we landed on the Moon we discovered only a thin layer of dust.

More 30-year-old gibberish. Maybe the author should have referenced Jules Verne. He was famous.

A discussion of this fallacy is here.

108 posted on 08/01/2006 9:04:27 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN; MHGinTN
Ok, finding the signature of quick reversals captured in rock, doesn't absolutely prove the evo's "generalized" rule of long slow flips wrong. It does prove that flips don't always occur long and slow. And it is evidence that matches a prediction of a creationist model, corroborating the creationist model, and once again rebutting the false claim of evo's that creationist models never predict anything.

The prediction of the 'creationist model' would be, that if rapid pole reversals of the type Barnes produces were true, that there should be correlated global reversals of this nature in magnetic materials, not just a few localized instances. These correlations do not exist.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html:

"Barnes also spends some effort to refute the notion that the Earth's magnetic field has ever reversed its polarity. Jacobs' book [2] gives a good review of the subject, so I won't go into extensive discussion. However, I will point out that here, too, Barnes has managed to construct a remarkably weak argument. Sections III-E through III-H, pages 46-49 are devoted to a one-sided discussion of the known phenomenon, that some rocks will self-reverse their own remnant magnetism. As far as Barnes is concerned, that is enough to label the field reversal "hypothesis' as false, or at least unsupportable. However, at no time does Barnes ever talk about what the real data are. He never mentions the extensive strips of oppositely polarized sea floor sediments in the Atlantic ocean, nor the extensive drill core data from the continents, nor that fact that all of these data sets, from continents and sea floors all over the world, are correlated. This clearly does not happen if all of these reversals are local in nature, as in rocks self reversing, as opposed to global in nature, as in the real field reversing. Barnes' ignoring of the global systematic nature of the data renders his limited objections quite weak. There is an excellent review article, written for the non-specialist, on the current status of the study of geomagnetic field reversals, in light of recent advances in dynamo theory, in the September-October, 1996 issue of American Scientist [9]. Finally, I also note (as described later in this report) that creation scientist D. Russell Humphreys has accepted the reality of field reversals, though he thinks they happened on much shorter time scales than do main stream physicists."

Anyone who has possessed a good number of bar magnets over a period of years knows that localized N-S pole reversal is a commonly known phenomenon. The correlated measurements of Earth's magnetic field, which statistically account for such localized deviations, show no field reversals of the type Barnes is talking about. The prediction utterly fails. (I'd love to see some information that shows correlated changes in the Earth's magnetic domains that supports your contention, if you know where it exists, though...)

The late Prof. Barnes is not a very good scientific source, by the way. His magnetic theory was not the only nutty idea he was associated with. He does show us a good lesson, though, that in order for creation science to work, one must make some strange perversions across all fields of science (in this case basic physics and statistics), not just evolutionary biology.

109 posted on 08/01/2006 9:14:51 AM PDT by Quark2005 ("Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." -Matthew 7:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"Perhaps some day you will apply your new found skills to the word "creation."

Evolutionist arguments rejecting creation have not moved out of their orbit in my lifetime.

110 posted on 08/01/2006 9:15:01 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Not ready yet, I see.


111 posted on 08/01/2006 9:19:17 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: qam1
When you die, do you really believe Jesus is going to be happy with you for telling lies in his name?

Dave has been taught that it is acceptable to lie to the infidel.

112 posted on 08/01/2006 9:21:39 AM PDT by steve-b ("Creation Science" is to the religous right what "Global Warming" is to the socialist left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal

The title would be more correct had it not implied that all Christians believe the same way in regards to science.

This crowd doesn't think you are a Christian unless you are a YEC....unless, of course, they want cite the number of Christians there are in the country, or world, to lend weight in numbers to whatever religiously based argument they might be making.

113 posted on 08/01/2006 9:55:49 AM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Reverend Bob

I know a bit about marine sediment formations; took a course in historical geology at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, under Prof. Loudon, a little more than a half century ago, and glacial geology under Prof. Thwaites, as part of my soil science major. But I do not know where in our contemporary oceans marine sediments (e.g., limestone, sandstone, shale) are being formed today, right now, in 2006. And where are marine organisms now undergoing fossilization?


114 posted on 08/01/2006 10:22:53 AM PDT by Elsiejay (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal

Surely you don't mean to suggest that marine sedimentary formations of the areal extent of the St. Peter sandstone, or the Dubuque limestone, are products of river delta accumulations. River deltas consist predomantly of silt-size sediments.
Moreover, the stupendous number of trilobites (Wisconsin's state fossil), millions of them seemingly buried quickly as witness their bodily intact preservation, and over vast areas of a sea bottom, surely were not buried in river deltas.
Where is anything remotely similar to this occurring today?


115 posted on 08/01/2006 10:31:01 AM PDT by Elsiejay (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: js1138
After all, the Bible says the earth does not move.

And that would be your interpretation of what verses?

116 posted on 08/01/2006 10:50:39 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

117 posted on 08/01/2006 11:02:54 AM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Why would you need to interpret a clear declarative sentence. It's like interpreting Jesus' instructions for obtaining eternal life. There are no ambiguities and no wiggle room.


118 posted on 08/01/2006 11:05:32 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

We'll hear all the back-words masking on all those beatles' albums!


119 posted on 08/01/2006 11:14:03 AM PDT by mdmathis6 (Proof against evolution:"Man is the only creature that blushes, or needs to" M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Elsiejay
Where is anything remotely similar to this occurring today?

They're called landslides. They still do happen today.

120 posted on 08/01/2006 12:22:19 PM PDT by Quark2005 ("Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." -Matthew 7:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

Does that mean we'll have to listen to them again ... I'm getting too old to enjoy the noise like I did when a young teen. I wonder what Pachabel's Canon in D would sound like backwards? Or The Bells of St Agnes! I know, let's play Handels Hornpipe symphony backwards ... that might even sound organized.


121 posted on 08/01/2006 12:22:43 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro
Actually two invalid tests. Carbon 14 is also quite inaccurate when aging things over several millenia old. Can you tell me of an aging system that has not been shown to be inconsistent?
122 posted on 08/01/2006 3:16:06 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

To be honest, both premises are flawed due to a couple of facts. One, the aging systems that we use today are inaccurate after only a few thousand years. Two, written history only spans about the last four thousand years of our existence, and writing of history was not formalized until about two thousand years ago. So, there is no conclusive evidence to show whether the earth is 4 billion or 40,000 years old. In respect to creationism and chaos theory of creation, it's mostly educated speculation.


123 posted on 08/01/2006 3:26:25 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Carbon 14 is also quite inaccurate when aging things over several millenia old.

This is incorrect. I can only think of one place for you to get such erroneous information, and that is a creationist website. They play awful fast and loose with the truth when it comes to dating techniques.

I have been doing this for over 25 years now, and have not noticed any inaccuracies showing up after just a few millenia.

Here are some links; read and learn:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.


124 posted on 08/01/2006 3:33:00 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I didn't get my information from a creationist website. wikipedia says it is accurate to about 60,000 years. And on this site radiocarbon dating was used to date an event at 30,000 years, which the scientists involved disputed and put the date at 21,000 years, a discrepency of 9,000 years. Far more than the stated correction of carbon dating. So tell me, why is that even scientists on occassion dispute the accuracy of radiocarbon dating? Likely because it is inaccurate and therefore not valid for dates beyond 20,000 to 30,000 years due to error.
125 posted on 08/01/2006 3:46:12 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

Even at a 20,000 year limit it still stands as physical evidence against the YEC 6000 year mark.


126 posted on 08/01/2006 3:52:42 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
I didn't get my information from a creationist website. wikipedia says it is accurate to about 60,000 years. And on this site radiocarbon dating was used to date an event at 30,000 years, which the scientists involved disputed and put the date at 21,000 years, a discrepency of 9,000 years. Far more than the stated correction of carbon dating. So tell me, why is that even scientists on occassion dispute the accuracy of radiocarbon dating? Likely because it is inaccurate and therefore not valid for dates beyond 20,000 to 30,000 years due to error.

OK, your statement about a few millenia had me thinking in the 4-6,000 year range.

The current upper range for most labs is in the 50,000 year range. In the past this limit it was lower because of older and poorer detection equipment. There are some labs experimenting with the 80,000 range, but that's not ready for prime time yet.

One potential source of error is atmospheric variation. This is increasingly being accounted for based on updated calibration curves. I note one of the papers discussed in the article you cited was from the 1980s; great progress has been made in calibration since then. Using tree rings and glacial varves, among other techniques, the calibration curve is getting quite good.

It is true though that radiocarbon dates in the upper end of the range (say 35-50,000 years) are more problematical because of several factors, including contamination. The levels of 14C are getting so small, groundwater and other sources of contamination can be significant. That's why you can get a date from dinosaur bone--but it doesn't mean anything.

So, for samples in this age range I certainly would use a lot more care with both sample selection and interpretation, but I wouldn't agree that the radiocarbon technique is "inaccurate and therefore not valid for dates beyond 20,000 to 30,000 years due to error."

127 posted on 08/01/2006 4:05:18 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
That's why you can get a date from dinosaur bone--but it doesn't mean anything.

Wrong, what it means is dating becomes educated guesswork and conjecture. RCD has a +-40yr error for every 5740 years, so the error at 80,000 is going to be about 700 years, not a great deviation, but enough to obviously concern some scientits who put little faith in the system. I really don't understand some scientists preoccupation with accuracy on ages of things so old. It is really not the focus IMO, it is the study of the artifact that is important. I realize that scientists have made dating predictions by using sedimentary layers, but I am not familiar with how accurate that method is.
128 posted on 08/01/2006 5:23:02 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Why would you need to interpret a clear declarative sentence.

I gather you wish not to present this sentence. I can understand. Typical of evos, declare and fail to supply supporting evidence.

129 posted on 08/01/2006 5:34:42 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
That's why you can get a date from dinosaur bone--but it doesn't mean anything.

Wrong, what it means is dating becomes educated guesswork and conjecture. RCD has a +-40yr error for every 5740 years, so the error at 80,000 is going to be about 700 years, not a great deviation, but enough to obviously concern some scientits who put little faith in the system. I really don't understand some scientists preoccupation with accuracy on ages of things so old. It is really not the focus IMO, it is the study of the artifact that is important. I realize that scientists have made dating predictions by using sedimentary layers, but I am not familiar with how accurate that method is.

Actually, anyone who relies heavily on the one sigma range (the ±40 years you cited) is going with low odds; that is about a 66% reliability. If you go with two sigma (±80 in this case) you improve the odds to about 95%.

You write, "...it is the study of the artifact that is important." Can't agree with that. What is important in the kind of archaeology I do is information about the past, and that can come from a wide variety of materials and methods. Pollen and macrofloral analyses can tell a lot about the climate, as can analysis of animal and fish remains.

I prefer to do lots of dates on a site and see where they fall. I am not interested in trying to get down to five or ten year accuracy, as that's a fool's game with radiocarbon dating. Back around 6,000-7,000 years, if I am within 150 years or so that is just fine with me.

For my most recent site report I did 31 dates, and got a range from 200 to 7150 years BP (before present, defined as AD 1950).

Dating using sedimentary layers is not something I do. In parts of the country you can date layers by volcanic ash, as some eruptions are easy to characterize and are well-dated. You can also use artifacts to date layers. If you find a Clovis site, you immediately think many thousand years ago.

130 posted on 08/01/2006 5:38:24 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You write, "...it is the study of the artifact that is important." Can't agree with that. What is important in the kind of archaeology I do is information about the past, and that can come from a wide variety of materials and methods. Pollen and macrofloral analyses can tell a lot about the climate, as can analysis of animal and fish remains.

You say you disagree, but your statements tend to lend credence to my opinion. Things such as environment, climate, flora, and fauna are much more interesting, and IMO relevant focuses than timelines. Yes, it would be nice if we knew just when somethings happened, but it's not very important. I mean honestly what does it really matter if something happened two million years ago, or twenty thousand years ago? Both are so far in the past that it becomes quite irrelevant to the here and now. I would also like to know how much aging information on evolution, climatology, and anthropology comes from observing present events and using these "standards" as a baseline rather than using speculative aging methods.
131 posted on 08/01/2006 5:44:40 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Mark: 17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

19 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[d]"

20 "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


132 posted on 08/01/2006 5:44:58 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: js1138

And the point of the Bible passage was ?????


133 posted on 08/01/2006 5:52:06 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

It's rather clear to me. Are you calling Jesus a liar?


134 posted on 08/01/2006 5:53:42 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
You write, "...it is the study of the artifact that is important." Can't agree with that. What is important in the kind of archaeology I do is information about the past, and that can come from a wide variety of materials and methods. Pollen and macrofloral analyses can tell a lot about the climate, as can analysis of animal and fish remains.

You say you disagree, but your statements tend to lend credence to my opinion. Things such as environment, climate, flora, and fauna are much more interesting, and IMO relevant focuses than timelines. Yes, it would be nice if we knew just when somethings happened, but it's not very important. I mean honestly what does it really matter if something happened two million years ago, or twenty thousand years ago? Both are so far in the past that it becomes quite irrelevant to the here and now. I would also like to know how much aging information on evolution, climatology, and anthropology comes from observing present events and using these "standards" as a baseline rather than using speculative aging methods.

All of the items I mentioned are important in relation to time. Not everything happened at once; migrations went in one direction or the other depending on where people were at a specific point in time. The Bering migration could be in either direction if you don't have dates; with dates, you can tell both the direction and the progress of that migration.

A more recent tool is combining mtDNA and radiocarbon dating. By analyzing the specific haplogroup and haplotype, and assigning a time depth, a lot of the world's migrations can be unwound. This is a very new field, but already it is providing interesting results.

You write "Yes, it would be nice if we knew just when somethings happened, but it's not very important. I mean honestly what does it really matter if something happened two million years ago, or twenty thousand years ago? Both are so far in the past that it becomes quite irrelevant to the here and now." To an archaeologist it is critically important to know when things happened! If you think 20,000 and 2 mya blend all together in the far distant past you aren't an archaeologist!

Archaeologists specialize in dealing with the past, and certainly take things beyond "speculative aging methods." Your mistrust is ill-founded. What do you think we're doing, for 35 or 50 years of our lives? And why do you think your skepticism and disbelief, from the outside, has any informed meaning?

Study this up for a few decades and get back to me.

135 posted on 08/01/2006 6:03:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: HayekRocks

The article had some strengths and weaknesses to it. Some of these I post for discussion. Frevolutionists and others enjoy assuming I write and/or endorse every word, and personally trash me for what another author said.

This is not exactly the case with you, and in fact, I'm glad you were willing to spend even your personal resources to debunk this article. I recommend you contact the author with this objection. Perhaps (for his sake, hopefully) a mistake, although I wouldn't be too sure.


136 posted on 08/01/2006 6:06:56 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Good guys" aren't always "nice guys".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Not too sure placemarker.


137 posted on 08/01/2006 6:11:09 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; ...
Thank you for pointing this out. As I recently posted, not every point in the article was legitimate. Not every word of every article I post is specifically endorsed or championed by yours truly, and I think some frevolutionists should get past their eager willingness to make this assumption and then proceed to jeer me. Perhaps it would have been instrumental to point out what you say if I'd had loads of time earlier.

For clarity:
Moon-dust argument no longer useful.
138 posted on 08/01/2006 6:14:55 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Good guys" aren't always "nice guys".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Study this up for a few decades and get back to me.

This is exactly the attitude that I have been discussing. Because you've been doing this for thirty years, it is your undeniable opinion that it is accurate and valid. And I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I do disagree with is your attitude that it is so infallible. It is faulty, has been shown to be faulty on many occasions, yet your going to tell me that it is my ignorance that proves that you are right and I am wrong. Please, I may be ignorant, but I am certainly not stupid. I have done some reading on the subject. I haven't written a thesis or done any doctoral work, but I have done enough of my own reading to believe that dating systems used today are not effective at all for ages past 50k or 60k. And because of this, I am not going to just believe that the earth is billions of years old. I won't necessarily disbelieve it either. I am not going to tell people that I have any idea how old the earth is, because I don't know. And to be quite honest, neither do you. Nor does any present or past scientist for that matter. Sciences such as paleontology, anthropology, climatology, and others that study events in the distant path are speculative on the issue of dates. They are not just not exact, there are so many disparaging opinions on many things that it makes the whole issue almost irrelevant, IMO. You may be preoccupied with when things happened, because that is what you were taught was important. I tend to disagree with you on that point. What is more important is that something happened, what happened? Heck, it's interesting to me to know just the specifics of the event outside of time line. Knowing when things came and went on a the planet is another rather irrelevant issue, IMO. So the Native Americans came from Asia ten thousand years ago, according to some of you. But other evidence suggests they were here, in South America over 30,000 years ago. So, to complete my thought here. The sciences we are discussing, that make assumptions as to the origins of our planet, and the life on it, IMO take too much time trying to prove the irrelevant and not enough trying to tie the pieces together to better understand the central issue. Where did we come from, how did we get here, and hopefully we will eventually understand where we are going. I know that sounds simplistic, but hey, call me a simpleton.
139 posted on 08/01/2006 6:22:41 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
A response would take more time than I have at present.

Perhaps someone else will chip in.

140 posted on 08/01/2006 6:26:46 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Well, you could at least tell me if some of what I wrote has some legitimacy. Seriously, science is not perfect nor many times accurate. We are constantly discovering new things as well as mistakes we have made previously due to advances in science. I am not saying that some day there might be a way to more accurately test for dates. But for now, it is neither accurate nor completely valid.


141 posted on 08/01/2006 6:30:07 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
thank you for plucking those two words out of the context of several that included the words "relevant and conclusive".

OK, please provide "relevant and conclusive" data that refute the Theory of Evolution. There is a ton of data that support it.

ou people really need to brush up on your rhetoric so I don't have to send these rebutals that make you look as stupid as you are ignorant.

I see you walk in Jesus' footsteps. Thank you for another example of Creationist insults and hatred. I'll toss it on the huge stack I already have.

142 posted on 08/01/2006 6:31:18 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
What was false? He submitted a rock to the lab and it came back with an old date.

He did nothing of the kind. Read the article again.

He took a Science article written in 1963 and pulled a factoid out of it.

143 posted on 08/01/2006 6:32:09 PM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Jesus? Why would I do that? I'm agnostic. Also, in none of my posts did I refute the Theory of Evolution. Because it is just that, a theory. The evidence and facts that support it are quite valid and relevant and absolutely ensure that it should be taught and studied. What I don't like, is for our school systems to be so narrow and close minded when it comes to competing theories. There should be a balance to the evidence that supports both theories. Of course, both sides are so far apart on the issue, that coming together and acutally finding common ground seems futile. It is rather amusing from my point of view. Because I subscribe to neither theory, I keep an open mind on the subject. Just thought it would be nice to teach our young people how to do that.


144 posted on 08/01/2006 6:38:48 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Paragraphs are our friends.

This is exactly the attitude that I have been discussing. Because you've been doing this for thirty years, it is your undeniable opinion that it is accurate and valid. And I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I do disagree with is your attitude that it is so infallible.

You seem to confuse (in)fallibility with approach. As data are introduced into the process they are evaluated for their probative value (either in support of or directing away from existing trends).

It is faulty, has been shown to be faulty on many occasions, yet your going to tell me that it is my ignorance that proves that you are right and I am wrong.

Exactly WHAT is faulty? The process? The conclusions? The method for arriving at conclusions?

Please, I may be ignorant, but I am certainly not stupid.

An external observer can't tell the difference. To pontificate on a subject with which you have a passing interest (as opposed to people who DO THIS FOR A LIVING) is the height of arrogance.

I have done some reading on the subject. I haven't written a thesis or done any doctoral work, but I have done enough of my own reading to believe that dating systems used today are not effective at all for ages past 50k or 60k.

So you have read propaganda from Creationists. Your reading is flat-out wrong. There are hundreds of ways that intersect to determine aging, not just one. If something is dated at 10 Million years old and is "actually" 9.5 million years old, we are still in the same ballpark.

And because of this, I am not going to just believe that the earth is billions of years old. I won't necessarily disbelieve it either. I am not going to tell people that I have any idea how old the earth is, because I don't know.

If you are presented with an mountain of evidence and conclusions that pretty much determine the age, then you are just being willfully ignorant.

And to be quite honest, neither do you. Nor does any present or past scientist for that matter. Sciences such as paleontology, anthropology, climatology, and others that study events in the distant path are speculative on the issue of dates. They are not just not exact, there are so many disparaging opinions on many things that it makes the whole issue almost irrelevant, IMO. You may be preoccupied with when things happened, because that is what you were taught was important. I tend to disagree with you on that point. What is more important is that something happened, what happened? Heck, it's interesting to me to know just the specifics of the event outside of time line. Knowing when things came and went on a the planet is another rather irrelevant issue, IMO. So the Native Americans came from Asia ten thousand years ago, according to some of you. But other evidence suggests they were here, in South America over 30,000 years ago. So, to complete my thought here. The sciences we are discussing, that make assumptions as to the origins of our planet, and the life on it, IMO take too much time trying to prove the irrelevant and not enough trying to tie the pieces together to better understand the central issue. Where did we come from, how did we get here, and hopefully we will eventually understand where we are going. I know that sounds simplistic, but hey, call me a simpleton.

You are a simpleton. A dabbler in areas which you have no knowledge and, based on your post, have no desire to learn.

You are entitled to your opinion, ignorant as it may be. But you are NOT entitled to speak to a subject which you have no knowledge of (much less the constellation of subjects you list).

And by disseminating this information to children, you creep into the "dangerous" column.

Bottom line: Run along and leave the hard sciences to the adults in the crowd. "Just 'cause I think so" (the distillation of your rant) doesn't really have much weight.

145 posted on 08/01/2006 6:46:47 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Jesus? Why would I do that? I'm agnostic. Also, in none of my posts did I refute the Theory of Evolution.

You throw insults like a Creationist. I guess I shouldn't have assumed you were one.

Because it is just that, a theory. The evidence and facts that support it are quite valid and relevant and absolutely ensure that it should be taught and studied.

If you don't know what a scientific theory is you cannot be involved in these discussions. Go learn what a scientific theory is and come back. All of these threads have links that will teach you. But you are not qualified to weigh in on subjects in which you are totally ignorant.

What I don't like, is for our school systems to be so narrow and close minded when it comes to competing theories.

Please name a competing scientific theory for TToE.

There should be a balance to the evidence that supports both theories.

"Both?" What is the other scientific theory?

146 posted on 08/01/2006 6:51:25 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Well, you could at least tell me if some of what I wrote has some legitimacy. Seriously, science is not perfect nor many times accurate. We are constantly discovering new things as well as mistakes we have made previously due to advances in science. I am not saying that some day there might be a way to more accurately test for dates. But for now, it is neither accurate nor completely valid.

OK, short form:

This is exactly the attitude that I have been discussing. Because you've been doing this for thirty years, it is your undeniable opinion that it is accurate and valid.

Not just me; tens of thousands of archaeologists around the world, supported by tens of thousands more in the physical sciences who help formulate the dating methods we use.

And I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I do disagree with is your attitude that it is so infallible.

No attitude that it is infallible. Just that, based on current evidence, the various dating methods work pretty well. And, they are improving all the time, so errors get straightened out.

It is faulty, has been shown to be faulty on many occasions, yet your going to tell me that it is my ignorance that proves that you are right and I am wrong. Please, I may be ignorant, but I am certainly not stupid. I have done some reading on the subject.

Dating methods are internally consistent. There are many of them in use, depending on the time depth. Individual dates can be in error, but when three or four different methods agree...

I haven't written a thesis or done any doctoral work, but I have done enough of my own reading to believe that dating systems used today are not effective at all for ages past 50k or 60k. And because of this, I am not going to just believe that the earth is billions of years old. I won't necessarily disbelieve it either.

There are thousands folks who have studied this subject for a long time, from the physical and chemical sciences to geology and paleontology. They all agree things are older than 50,000-60,000 years. Your belief or disbelief is not critical unless you have scientific data to back it up.

I am not going to tell people that I have any idea how old the earth is, because I don't know. And to be quite honest, neither do you. Nor does any present or past scientist for that matter.

Not true. The folks who study the age of the earth have a pretty good idea of how old it is.

Sciences such as paleontology, anthropology, climatology, and others that study events in the distant path are speculative on the issue of dates. They are not just not exact, there are so many disparaging opinions on many things that it makes the whole issue almost irrelevant, IMO.

Not true. When things happened is critical to these studies. If everything happened at once, it would be too confusing. That is what time is for, to spread things out. Dating methods are pretty good at figuring out these details.

You may be preoccupied with when things happened, because that is what you were taught was important. I tend to disagree with you on that point. What is more important is that something happened, what happened?

Not for an archaeologist! One of the first steps of historiography is to arrange data in chronological order. Lots of sciences do this, not just archaeology.

Heck, it's interesting to me to know just the specifics of the event outside of time line. Knowing when things came and went on a the planet is another rather irrelevant issue, IMO.

Archaeologists do not agree.

So the Native Americans came from Asia ten thousand years ago, according to some of you. But other evidence suggests they were here, in South America over 30,000 years ago.

Different migrations it looks like. The Bering migration was not the first. There is now good evidence for an early coastal migration along the west coast. Not sure about the 30,000 year date, but folks are working on those details.

So, to complete my thought here. The sciences we are discussing, that make assumptions as to the origins of our planet, and the life on it, IMO take too much time trying to prove the irrelevant and not enough trying to tie the pieces together to better understand the central issue. Where did we come from, how did we get here, and hopefully we will eventually understand where we are going. I know that sounds simplistic, but hey, call me a simpleton.

For the "here did we come from, how did we get here, and where we are going" try a philosopher or the Ouija board or something. I don't deal with that metaphysical nonsense.

Q. How many metaphysisists does it take to dig an archaeological unit?

A. Nobody knows. None of them have never tried!

I do dirt and rocks and bones and shells, mostly the last 10,000 years. And I do it pretty well. If you have data, present it.

You may not believe the scientists who study the age of the earth, but unless you come up with something more than "a few mistakes have been made in the past" and "your methods are not perfect" I don't much care.

Sorry for the abruptness, but I really am short on time.

147 posted on 08/01/2006 6:51:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

See my 145 when you get a minute.


148 posted on 08/01/2006 6:52:27 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
See my 145 when you get a minute.

Different approach, same bottom line.

Night all!

149 posted on 08/01/2006 6:55:46 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I think I've had something like this posted by you in the past freedumb, and I ignored it then because it is generally just attacking me for not believing in what you are so educated in. I have every right to speak on any subject I choose. Regardless of my ignorance or knowledge of it. To belittle me and call me childish because I point out the arrogance of many scientists is equally arrogant and childish. If I offended you because I made this statement, so be it. I really couldn't care less about your feelings. I will stick to my opinion on the lack of objectivity in most of science today because I observe it constantly. When I am told by someone like you that there is a mountain of evidence to prove something, and the evidence is acutally more cursory than conclusive I have to wonder at your actual motives. What you see as conclusive evidence has been and will continue to be seen by others as disputable. Not just creationists, which I am not, but those who use objectivity and are seeking the truth and not their version of it.


150 posted on 08/01/2006 6:57:11 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-343 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson