Believers, Are We Thinking Clearly About the Age of the Earth?
A Few True Things | 14 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYlqeDZby7g
2:33 For around 1800, it's child's play to find a plethora of tree rings any given series (different species and locations, different series) that extend 50 rings on either side of 1800. Overlapping.
For around 1800 BC, the tree ring samples preserved to us are fewer and smaller. Meaning less overlap.
I would say that back in 1800 BC, the tree ring matches are picked partly for matching the carbon date 1800 BC.
Now, on my carbon 14 tables, a YEC recalibration, close to 1800 BC, we have this:
- 1574 BC*
- 97.392 pmC, dated as 1793 BC
Close to 1700 BC, we have this:
- 1543 BC*
- 98.108 pmC, dated as 1700 BC
In other words, the tree ring dates will be picked so that the series match a 93 year long distance, but that 93 year old distance would have been disproven by longer tree ring series in more samples, as the real time was just 41 years.
1793 to 1700 versus 1574 to 1543 BC.
2:42 "extending more than 10 000 years in some regions"
Except, no single series does this.
Different series are being matched to different other series, with, as mentioned, one kind of tree in one region being a series.
3:03 Let's quote CMI** on Ice Cores:
In other words, the counted annual layers can deviate a little from the first guess, but the first guess constrains the limits of variability. It is like numerical analysis in which a first guess is required to begin and then successive computer iterations change the first guess somewhat to arrive at hopefully the correct answer. For instance, if the first guess concludes that the annual layer thickness at the 2,500-metre depth is around 1 centimetre, annual layer counting will not allow an annual layer thickness of 5 centimetres, let alone about 3 metres as in the creationist model. The variability in the measured parameters and the impact of non-periodic events provide adequate scope to find a preferred fit to the data.
In contrast, in a creationist model, the annual layers in the middle and lower portion of the GISP2 ice core would be subannual layers due to sub-storm, storm or other cycles of weather lasting anywhere from days to months.
3:50 Volcanic markers would tend to be dated by methods either totally unreliable like Potassium Argon or the compressible one of C 14.
So, say there was a volcanic eruption on Thera in carbon dated 1609 BC, the ice core trace would be considered as 1609, whereas that eruption could have been used by God for some of the Plagues of Egypt (with miraculous configurations avoiding Goshen, like wood fires avoided burning a Crucifix) and have as real date 1511 BC, the date of the Exodus in the chronology I'm using.***
4:27 The sediments in Lake Suigetsu, the counting of the lower layers (most) presumes that mud and flower deposits have not been perturbed since the time they touched the lake bottom, otherwise mixing would have and on the Young Earth Creationist view obviously did perturb the number of layers, which obviously increases them.
Did you read a Gish Gallop by an anti-Duane Gish old earth apologist and not digest it?
On the method involving absorption into objects of surrounding elements, I frankly don't know the solution, I'm not really even sure what the method is. However "radiometric dating" I have at least two options, apart from carbon 14 already mentioned, which is my own speciality, namely more of the daughter isotope already present or in some cases, the decay was sped up.
A speeding up of Uranium becoming Lead in Zircons gives a heat problem ... which solves the mud problem on how the ground was dry so quickly after the Flood.
4:47 According to one set of assumptions, they converge on the conclusion the Earth is in the billions.
The meteorites from the beginning of the solar system would be a case of Uranium Lead, and either a meteorite from the Flood had lots of Uranium and heated up lots of the surrounding mud to make it solid ground, or the meteorite simply had more of the Lead isotope that's the result of that Uranium isotope decomposing.
Apart from the question how a half life that big can even be measured. For carbon 14, just take old historic objects. Impossible for the U-Pb method about meteorites "from the beginning of the solar system". C14 taking 5730 years to get to 50 % of original content, fine. U such and such taking millions or billions of years to get to Pb such and such (there are two isotopes and both involve Uranium and have different halflives and involve lead) ... not measured in real time, for sure.
4:58 And Young Earth Creationism, on the level of Creation Science, comes from examining many different lines of evidence, pointing in the opposite direction once you unpack some assumptions and ask if there are alternative Young Earth Creationist ones.
6:30 If scientists have been wrong, the question "what does the evidence say now" isn't answered by "what do the scientists say now" ... especially not in subjects which unlike medicine have no clinical testing (note, not saying all fields of medicine have valid such, psychiatry hasn't a valid one), and which unlike engineering don't involve bad guesses leading to bad results observable in real time and traceable to the engineering mistake.
Speaking of engineering mistakes, a bridge in Genua collapsed a few years ago, killing loads, was the engineering mistake not to replace it earlier, or was it to build that bridge in the first place to have that much car traffick going by?
6:39 For the chronology after Adam "no one was there to see it" is not one I'm using, at any rate.
The post-Flood Palaeolithic, I'm dating it to Noah's remaining lifespan after the Flood, because Noah and his sons precisely were there to see it.
And he called his name Noe, saying: This same shall comfort us from the works and labours of our hands on the earth, which the Lord hath cursed
[Genesis 5:29]
Indeed, after the Flood, there was very little agriculture before Noah died, and when Noah tried and included viticulture, he ended up ridiculed, so the project was postponed to after he died.
Again, when Noah had died and Nimrod built Babel, he eventually had to break off the building of the city. When Peleg was born or about to be born.
What city was abandoned, unbuilt, finally?
Göbekli Tepe.
From 350-ish after the Flood to 401-ish after the Flood, and it is in the right spot to have been reached from the landing place going westward into NW Mesopotamia:
And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it
[Genesis 11:2]
The people who saw it could count the number of years that Noah lived and the number of years that Arphaxad was born and his son Saleh and so on to Peleg. My point isn't "no one was there to see it" but on the contrary, someone was. And I rely more on observers back then than on reconstructors now.
The argument
is good for creation of the Moon, that sort of thing.
7:33 A reliable inference from evidence available today excluding real or purported eye witness from the past is at least epistemically inferior to real or purported eye-witness from the past, including preserved in oral memory.
I need very strong evidence from today's material and non-verbal observations in order to overturn even a Pagan tradition.
In the 1970's someone had found out that the oldest parts of Rome dated to 550 BC. Two hundred years after the "supposed" date of Romulus founding the city.
However, since them I've heard of the Hallstatt plateau. EVERYTHING from 750 to 450 BC carbon dates to 550 BC.
So the carbon date 550 BC as found in the book by Raymond Bloch°, is, after all, perfectly compatible with an actual 750 BC date, like 753 BC, the traditional founding of Rome by its first king Romulus.
7:49 For loads of things, the CMI is providing a viable alternative explanation.
For carbon 14, I am doing so.
Myself as I cited my tables.
For new functions like sight originating in "accumulated small changes" or if we go from genetics to linguistics, human language doing so, the Evolutionists are criticising Creationism or the Biblical account and they are the ones lacking a viable alternative explanation.
8:19 OK, since you are looking for an alternative explanation in those rejecting old earth, when it comes to carbon 14 have you looked at me?
On my youtube channel which has no own videos, you'll find links to my blogs and one of them (directly there or via a blog that is) is "Creation vs Evolution" ...
When it comes to Babel, have you looked at me?
When it comes to Neanderthals, have you looked at me?
When it comes to Distant Starlight Problem, have you looked at me?
When it comes to nearly any
other topic than carbon 14, Babel, Neanderthals, Distant Starlight, have you looked at CMI? creation dot com.
9:02 "Just as willing to question our own assumptions."
Not necessarily, being willing to test them is enough.
But have you seen Creation Ministries International test the assumptions opposed to yours? Because you have been on youtube since 18 May 2025 (doing videos) and I have not found Creation Ministries International in the search bar, nor CMI, nor AiG, nor Answers in Genesis.
9:38 If Christianity is true, were there Amorrheans / Amorrhites in Asason Tamar at the event of Genesis 14?
And they returned, and came to the fountain of Misphat, the same is Cades: and they smote all the country of the Amalecites, and the Amorrhean that dwelt in Asasonthamar
[Genesis 14:7]
Because elsewhere Asason Thamar is identified with Ein Gedi. And the only (or at least most recent) layer of habitation in Ein Gedi that could figure is carbon dated to 3500 BC.
1565 years earlier than when I place the event based on Abraham born 2016 BC.
Is Genesis 14 myth? Or was the atmospheric carbon level behind the carbon dated reed mats actually as low as 82.753 pmC? Those are the options. As a firm believer in Melchisedec, I'm highly preferring the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere was lower.
If you were at NASA you may know some Catholics ... wish them a blessed feast!
*
Creation vs. Evolution: Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy
Tuesday 24 Dec. 2024 | Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-joseph-in-egypt-to-fall-of.html
**
Ice cores vs the Flood
By Michael J. Oard | First appeared in Journal of Creation 18(2)
Pages 58 - 61, August 2004
https://creation.com/en/articles/ice-cores-vs-the-flood
***
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What Martyrology, by the way?
Saturday, November 21, 2020 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 5:40 AM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/11/what-martyrology-by-way.html
°
Les origines de Rome, Chapter V, Raymond Bloch, Que sais-je ? 1 Mai 1990 (updated edition after an earlier one in 1946)
