subductionzone to the rescue of Forrest Valkai? Or Keith Levkoff? Deus-Stein?

Forrest Valkai to the Rescue of Radiometric Dating (Or Not?) · L M and Comparative Religion to the Rescue of Forrest Valkai? · subductionzone to the rescue of Forrest Valkai? Or Keith Levkoff? Deus-Stein? · How Carbon Dating is Done, Why My Calibration is Possible

I

subductionzone

One more on carbon dating. Contamination is possible. A very small amount of contamination will give an "old" (for C14) date. The example given was 36,000 years. If fossils were that young we should see the same fossils or at least ones from the same era as having the same date. If it was contamination we would expect to see ages all over the place. One guess to what sort of dates we see from creationist papers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"A very small amount of contamination will give an "old" (for C14) date."

You mean, will give a "young"?

I actually agree. The carbon age for the flood would on my view be 40 000 BP and when Creationists tell of dinos carbon dated to 22 000 BP, I go ... is it contamination (by pre-Flood nuke wars)? ... or is it the dino died in a post-Flood landslide?

"If fossils were that young we should see the same fossils or at least ones from the same era as having the same date."

See my comment on time signature 5:33, please! We have no evidence that the diverse fossils at Karoo (classified as Permian, Triassic and Jurassic) actually come from different eras. They could just have had their habitats side by side. And similarily for other, usually less clustered to each other, finds of land vertebrate fossils of "different eras".

II

subductionzone

Let's not forget estimated minimum ages. That show that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old. For example, just one formation, the Green River Formation has roughly five million yearly layers. People can count them, if they have nothing better to do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Prove the layers are actually yearly?

III

Keith Levkoff

I wanted to add a few comments about radiometric dating...
From what I've learned about the subject it does logically make sense that we might not know the original ratio of parent and daughter isotopes present in some cases.
However, from what I can discern, with several of the various isotopes used, the parent isotopes don't occur naturally in proximity to the daughter isotopes.
So, for example, uranium has a much higher melting point than lead.
So, if you were to find a speck of metal that contained both lead and uranium, trapped in a crystal embedded in ancient lava.
You can be quite certain that they did not end up at the same place in that lava when it solidified.
(So the only sensible conclusion is that the lead you've found came from what was originally pure uranium)

I'm also a little curious about how they found carbon to date in a fossil ammonite...
(A fossil as old as that ammonite would not contain unfossilized carbon... and Carbon-14 dating wouldn't work on carbon that old even if it were present.)

It's also worth noting that, even accepting a rather wide range of error in some cases, the basic argument remains intact.
For example, if our dates were so far off that the Earth was "only" 3 billion years old, there would still be plenty of time for evolution to occur...
(And, as far as I know, we DO have samples of terrestrial samples that can be reliably dated farther back than that.)
(And we have a massive number of things that have been dated by a wide variety of methods to be FAR older than the time frame claimed in the Bible.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"However, from what I can discern, with several of the various isotopes used, the parent isotopes don't occur naturally in proximity to the daughter isotopes."

Ah ... prove it?

"So, for example, uranium has a much higher melting point than lead.
"So, if you were to find a speck of metal that contained both lead and uranium, trapped in a crystal embedded in ancient lava.
"You can be quite certain that they did not end up at the same place in that lava when it solidified.
"(So the only sensible conclusion is that the lead you've found came from what was originally pure uranium)"

Uranium - Lead is meteorites, not crystals trapped in lava. Unless you mean zircons ... CMI considers polonium halos prove accelerated decay (as one gets with lots of radioactivity at a time, see Chernobyl) which would explain the lead in the zircons. But otherwise, U-Pb is mainlky meteorites and the main one from lava would be K-Ar - a method which can be offset by the trapping of surplus Argon (either from air or from accelerated decay).

No refutation on YEC on that line.

"I'm also a little curious about how they found carbon to date in a fossil ammonite...
"(A fossil as old as that ammonite would not contain unfossilized carbon... and Carbon-14 dating wouldn't work on carbon that old even if it were present.)"

What about the idea, the ammonite isn't that old, does contain "unfossilised carbon," or carbon from original tissues not replaced by non-carbon minerals, and the carbon age reflects a low original C14 ratio for the time of the Flood, c. 5000 years ago?

"(And, as far as I know, we DO have samples of terrestrial samples that can be reliably dated farther back than that.)"

I think you mean the meteorites U-Pb dated to 4.5 billion years ago. See above, not reliably.

"(And we have a massive number of things that have been dated by a wide variety of methods to be FAR older than the time frame claimed in the Bible.)"

How many of these things have been dated singly, each of them, with a wide variety of methods to the same age? For one thing, one may have one or other method and perhaps a choice between the results of two different ones.

Keith Levkoff

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Most evidence, including radiometric dating, is based on a LOT of individual results, which reinforce each other. A single result can be in error for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is contamination - not in the lab but in nature (or in the lab). Another is that, because of the decay rates of different isotopes, each can only be used to date things within a certain range of ages. Because of the decay rate of Carbon-14 it can ONLY be used reliably for dating relatively new materials (maybe up to 50,000 years or so). And, WITHIN THE RANGE OF DATES over which it works, it has been proven to be extremely accurate. However, once you get past the maximum limit, there isn't enough material left to do an accurate analysis... and so the odds of contamination affecting the results become unacceptable. (That's why we use Carbon 14 dating to date 20,000 year old fossil wood and other isotopes for ammonites that are tens or hundreds of millions of years old.)

In that case, were those ammonites found in layers of rock that could reliably be dated using OTHER methods? Or were they found UNDER layers of rock that could be reliably dated. (Obviously an ammonite that was found UNDER a layer of rock that is 100 million years old must be older than that layer... unless you can account for how it found its way underneath that layer.)

Not all tests produce a perfect and accurate result every time.
Things go wrong and there are sometimes things that haven't been accounted for.
The reality is that the time period over which ammonites flourished is shown by a MASSIVE amount of evidence and test results.
And, in the case of ammonites, most of this evidence is based on things like the age of the rocks which they are found in, and UNDER.
(As such, if the results of s single test appear to disagree with all the rest, then odds are it is that individual test which is somehow in error.)

I should also point out something else...
Specifically if you're attempting to use that as "evidence" of "a new Earth"...
Do you have ANY evidence that the Earth ISN'T as old as most scientists agree it is...
Again note that most scientists agree that, based on a massive amount of evidence, the Earth is AT LEAST SEVERAL BILLION YEARS OLD.
(And, as we progress, the range is continually being narrowed, and the accuracy of that newer and more acsurate data being reaffirmed.)

Please EXCLUDE any reference to "The Bible"...
(Since, as a single book, it doesn't constitute evidence of anything... at least no more than the latest Harry Potter book does.)
(Unless you have ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the Bible isn't "just a collection of stories, written by a bunch of guys, a long time ago"?)

In science, unlike in story books, we go with what the overwhelming majority of the evidence shows...
And, in this case, we have a LOT of things, dated by a lot of different methods, to a lot of different ages...
Ranging from a few hundred years old to several BILLION years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Keith Levkoff "Most evidence, including radiometric dating, is based on a LOT of individual results, which reinforce each other."

But are most individual results reliable before reinforcing each other?

"Another is that, because of the decay rates of different isotopes, each can only be used to date things within a certain range of ages."

Most notably, all except C14 have a minimal error marging larger than we know recorded history to be, meaning only C14 can be tested against actual history.

"Because of the decay rate of Carbon-14 it can ONLY be used reliably for dating relatively new materials (maybe up to 50,000 years or so). And, WITHIN THE RANGE OF DATES over which it works, it has been proven to be extremely accurate. However, once you get past the maximum limit, there isn't enough material left to do an accurate analysis... and so the odds of contamination affecting the results become unacceptable. (That's why we use Carbon 14 dating to date 20,000 year old fossil wood and other isotopes for ammonites that are tens or hundreds of millions of years old.)"

Yeah, the other isotopes you use for ammonites cannot be tested.

But, a minimal test would be, the C14 in an ammonite should be depleted.

You speak of odds of contamination becoming unacceptable, but it is more like quantities left would be undetectable.

"In that case, were those ammonites found in layers of rock that could reliably be dated using OTHER methods? Or were they found UNDER layers of rock that could be reliably dated. (Obviously an ammonite that was found UNDER a layer of rock that is 100 million years old must be older than that layer... unless you can account for how it found its way underneath that layer.)"

There simply is no such thing as a reliable test giving a rock 100 millions of years.

"Not all tests produce a perfect and accurate result every time.
Things go wrong and there are sometimes things that haven't been accounted for."

R i g h t ...
Now, carbon dating things from "million of years old" rocks has repeatedly given C14 quantities that were detectable and therefore ages that would on the assumptions of C14 dating be reliable. I take an age of near ten halflives, 56 000 years, and I get the warning : "This date is getting close to the limits of present accuracy (55000 to 60000 years)" - and note, the carbon dated materials are 50 000 years or younger. Systematically.

"The reality is that the time period over which ammonites flourished is shown by a MASSIVE amount of evidence and test results. And, in the case of ammonites, most of this evidence is based on things like the age of the rocks which they are found in, and UNDER.
(As such, if the results of s single test appear to disagree with all the rest, then odds are it is that individual test which is somehow in error.)"

Like, the ammonite layer from the Flood, at GC, is at least a few weeks older than the layers with no more ammonites in them? Sure. But before you get into zircons or K-Ar, the idea of millions of years is supported by no evidence, and that includes the million year results of non-carbon radiometric, since they aren't evidence. There are simply too much that can go wrong with those ones. Everytime.

"I should also point out something else...
"Specifically if you're attempting to use that as "evidence" of "a new Earth"...
"Do you have ANY evidence that the Earth ISN'T as old as most scientists agree it is..."

Yes, Genesis 2 - 11, even on a purely historic level. Adam would have known fairly well the world he came to was a young one, especially as his children met no other men to marry, anywhere. Posit Eden as somewhere between Mediterranean and Persian Gulf, and posit Nod to be somewhere like Persia or India, a fairly large area to roam without finding persons who aren't from your own family.

And the chapter length or if you prefer unitary story length (Genesis 11 is one chapter, but two stories) is so short that it can be accurately preserved even over language changes and even over 3000 years from Adam to Abraham, with the long and multiply overlapping generations, especially before the Flood. Abraham would have been sixth in a minimal overlap of generations, and this reinforced by multiple complementary overlap.

"Again note that most scientists agree that, based on a massive amount of evidence, the Earth is AT LEAST SEVERAL BILLION YEARS OLD."

Science posing as reconstructing history is mostly pseudo-history.

"Please EXCLUDE any reference to "The Bible"... / (Since, as a single book, it doesn't constitute evidence of anything... at least no more than the latest Harry Potter book does.)"

You are already wrong when you say "a single book" ... Biblia may be singular feminine in Latin, but in Greek it is plural of the neuter gender. We have no community of Harry Potter readers who take Harry Potter as actually evidenced history. We do have massive amounts of Harry Potter readers who think the Bible is in the same position, though.

"(Unless you have ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the Bible isn't "just a collection of stories, written by a bunch of guys, a long time ago"?)"

History is a collection of stories written or otherwise redacted so long ago they could observe when they happened, or had access to earlier stories that were so redacted.

I presume you mean "just a collection of made-up stories, written by a bunch of guys, a long time ago" and my actual evidence is the obvious lack of ancient audience delighting in the talents for making things up as we delight in the talents of Tolkien (my taste) or Rowling (your taste).

"In science, unlike in story books, we go with what the overwhelming majority of the evidence shows..."

And the overwhelming majority of historic evidence goes against the world being millions of years old. Not just Biblical, but Pagan as well. Egyptians stretched world history to sth like 40 000 years back, but even they didn't pretend to millions of years. And yes, there is a hieroglyphic numeral for "one million" so it is not for lack of the concept. Sumerians went longer, but even they didn't touch half a million years. Apart from Egyptians and Sumerians and Hindoos, nearly all Pagan mythological histories are shorter than the Biblical one.

"And, in this case, we have a LOT of things, dated by a lot of different methods, to a lot of different ages..."

Yes, and with most of the methods being totally worthless.

IV

Deus-Stein

6:29 "It sure seems they're putting a lot of faith in something they can't actually test through direct observation" That's rich coming from someone claiming the bible is the absoulte truth and the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It would seem the majority of the Bible is at least purported history.

As a Catholic, I sorted Bible books into historical and the other types (prophecy, doctrine). Note, while Daniel counts as prophetic, I counted it as historical, and same with all of Exodus, Leviticus, despite lots of chapters actually on moral / legal doctrine. With this rough shod approach, I got a slightly higher number of chapters for history than for the other genres put together. I also took Job and Jonah as historical, despite claims from some they were doctrinally motivated fictions, but that's not rough shod, it's traddy.

Now, if a text is purported to be history, this doesn't just mean the text itself designates itself as history (which would make LotR or Silmarillion historic, "at least purported history"), it actually means, a community of readers or listeners are (unlike those of LotR or Silmarillion) accepting it as historic.

I have never seen any good explanation why an audience which took a text for a nice fiction would shift to one taking it as literally happened history, so I have no reason to believe Genesis was originally a piece of fiction. I do however see at least one good explanation why history could from some audiences be taken as fiction, namely overreliance on scepticism.