History[ edit ] Biblical dates for creation[ edit ] The first major comprehensive draft of Genesis was composed by the Yahwist in the late 7th or the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian captivity , with later additions made by the priestly source in the post-exilic period. The poor world is almost 6, years old. In particular, discoveries in geology required an Earth that was much older than thousands of years, and proposals such as Abraham Gottlob Werner ‘s Neptunism attempted to incorporate what was understood from geological investigations into a coherent description of Earth’s natural history. James Hutton , now regarded as the father of modern geology, went further and opened up the concept of deep time for scientific inquiry. Rather than accepting that the Earth was deteriorating from a primal state, he maintained that the Earth was infinitely old. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for the changes to occur.

No Results Found

There are lots of ways to guesstimate ages, and geologists knew the earth was old a long time ago and I might add that they were mostly Christian creationist geologists. But they didn’t know how old. Radiometric dating actually allows the measurement of absolute ages, and so it is deadly to the argument that the earth cannot be more than 10, years old.

Radiometric methods measure the time elapsed since the particular radiometric clock was reset. Radiocarbon dating, which is probably best known in the general public, works only on things that were once alive and are now dead.

Dating methods used by scientists rely upon the latest, most complete evidence available to them. Dating methods used by creationists rely upon information that is 2, years plus out of date, which is incomplete, occasionally self contradictory and which is supported by no evidence whatsoever.

Stansfield Macmillan, , pp. All quotations are consecutive, except where noted. The quotations are presented here in the order in which they appear in the book; since Patton quotes them out of order, I have inserted notes to help keep track of them. Geologists now assume that most of the water in the oceans was produced by volcanic outgassings. There are now approximately active volcanoes and about 10, dormant ones.

Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0. Since volcanic activity presumably was much greater during early earth history than at present, creationists argue that the age of the oceans would appear to be considerably less than 0. How much water vapor was lost to space during the early warmer stages of geological history is also a big unknown.

Of course, half a billion years is still too long to help young-earth creationists. In this next quotation, Patton ignores inconvenient weaknesses: Under uniformitarian rules, the total concentration of uranium salts of the oceans estimated at less than grams could be accumulated in less than one million years. Again there is no way of knowing if present rates have been operating constantly throughout geological time or if the estimates of rate and total uranium content are accurate.

If the present rate of accumulation of helium has been constant throughout four billion years of the earth’s history, there should be thirty times as much helium in our atmosphere as is presently there. Little is known about how helium escapes from our atmosphere.


Creationist Geologic Time Scale: Should the scientific community continue to fight rear-guard skirmishes with creationists, or insist that “young-earthers” defend their model in toto? Introduction This manuscript proposes a new approach for science’s battle against the rising influence in America of pseudo-science and the Creationist movement. The framework of Creationist Bible-based earth history, focusing on Genesis and the Noachian flood, can be assembled into a single geologic time scale Figure 1 , enlarged by addition of many geologic facts, difficult for Creationists to explain.

Creationist Geologic Time Scale: an attack strategy for the sciences. this article is intended as a “crash-course” introduction to Creationist history, ideas, and methods as well as some factual tools to oppose Creationist claims and a few of the best cartoons to inject a Kulp studied C 14 dating methods with Urey at Chicago and then.

Reference to a case where the given method did not work This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts: First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work.

The question is not whether there are “undatable” objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches. How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth’s oldest rock formations Dalrymple , p. The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these “bad results” are so consistently in line with mainstream science.

Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope. Creationists often attack these requirements as “unjustified assumptions,” though they are really neither “unjustified” nor “assumptions” in most cases. Rates of radiometric decay the ones relevant to radiometric dating are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can “tunnel” out of the nucleus of the atom.

The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Creation Science Rebuttals

The way it really is: Even the way dates are reported e. However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age.

Radiometric dating methods are the strongest direct evidence that geologists have for the age of the Earth. All these methods point to Earth being very, very old — several billions of years old. Young-Earth creationists — that is, creationists who believe that Earth is no more than 10, years old — are fond of attacking radiometric dating.

Young-earth creationism and radiometric dating I received an email from a fellow named Adam recently and thought I’d address it here. Given that last statement, by any definition of the word, these people do not do science. They do Biblical apologetics. A number of years ago now, I was more heavily involved in attempting to refute young-earth creationist YEC arguments the religiously-based set of beliefs that the Earth is 6, or so years old, evolution is false, and Noah’s flood was a real event exactly as described in Genesis.

At the time I thought it was important because of the widespread acceptance of these ideas or some of these ideas by a large portion of Americans and my belief in the importance of science literacy. I’ve since mostly given up. The problem is that refuting these ideas gets you nowhere. It takes time away from real work I’m procrastinating right now as I write this and you end up never convincing anyone.

YEC’s don’t believe the Earth is 6, years old because they’ve studied geology, they believe it because the Bible implies it the age, of course, is nowhere directly stated, it’s obtained through inference. Here’s an interesting article from The Skeptic.

The World: Born in 4004 BC?

Carbon 14 is used for this example: This nullifies the carbon method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10, years old. The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist “facts” can be, let’s do a little research of our own. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon method if it were so obviously flawed.

The methods they use are flawed, but so too is radioactive dating. This is not true, radiometric dating is a well established method in geology. One of the ways to find out whether a certain measurement technique is valid is to calibrate it against other, similar measurement techniques by using the .

Yet, there is no reason to think that the radiometric dating method used to determine the ages of fossils is inherently faulty. Why does Rana qualify his statement this way? I do not believe radiometric dating gives us a reliable picture of the age of fossils. Radioactive substances decay and, at present, they decay with a high degree of regularity and consistency.

There is nothing wrong with attempting to determine the age of fossils by radiometric dating. The problem is that there are several basic assumptions, highly certain to be false, that go into the analysis and calibration of radiometric dating equations. Note well what strident evolutionist and anti-creationist William Stansfield admits about radiometric dating: Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different sometimes by hundreds of millions of years.

The real margin of error due to unknown variables is so great as to negate the dating results. Soft Tissue Survival Rana continues:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

My friends call me Ape Jaw Evan. Click here to read about me and other media myths, frauds, and lies. The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors.

Excellent and exhaustive explanations of the errors in Creationist arguments about dating methods have been given by Stephen Brush (,) and Brent Dalrymple (). My aim in the following brief discussion is simply to hit the high spots.

The Oldest Living Thing: The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4, and 4, years old. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about rings. This is significant since we are told that God literally made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about years before the Noachian Flood described in the Book of Genesis.

In a Bristlecone Pine tree was discovered that has just over 5, tree rings. Helium in the Atmosphere: Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium as it decays into various different elements into its final stable element: As it decays, the helium not only accumulates in the rocks themselves, but also escapes from them and accumulates in the earth’s atmosphere. They also know how much helium is currently in the atmosphere.

If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make: Thus, after several hundred revolutions they disintegrate.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Updated 10 November c Introduction In a related article on geologic ages Ages , we presented a chart with the various geologic eras and their ages. In a separate article Radiometric dating , we sketched in some technical detail how these dates are calculated using radiometric dating techniques. As we pointed out in these two articles, radiometric dates are based on known rates of radioactivity, a phenomenon that is rooted in fundamental laws of physics and follows simple mathematical formulas.

Dating schemes based on rates of radioactivity have been refined and scrutinized for several decades.

Young Earth creationism is most famous for an opposition to the theory of evolution, but believers also are on record opposing many measurements, facts, and principles in the fields of physics and chemistry, dating methods including radiometric dating, geology, astronomy, cosmology, and paleontology.

Even James Ussher , the famous and respected Archbishop of Ireland in the seventeenth century, is today greatly ridiculed for declaring that the world was created in BC. However, this date was widely accepted until people began to believe in ideas such as billions of years of Earth history. In other words, they started trusting in the latest secular findings based on fallible dating methods, instead of the only absolutely reliable method—consulting the history book provided by the Eyewitness account the infallible Word of God.

Ussher also argued that Day 1 of creation was October On the surface, this does seem a bit extreme to suggest such a specific date—but when one studies what Ussher did, one quickly realizes he was a brilliant scholar who had very good reasons for his conclusions concerning the date of creation. He published this 1, page volume in An English translation entitled The Annals of the World was first published in , two years after his death.

The complete work is fascinating.

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 65 Dating Assumptions

Comments are closed.

Hello! Would you like find a partner for sex? Nothing is more simple! Click here, free registration!