Ussher II

James Ussher in Catholic Apologetics · Ussher II · Ussher III · Ussher IV

Q

I was in a class today, and one of my teachers cited the John Ussher estimation of the age of the Earth, according to what he found in the Bible, which places the age of the Earth at around 6,000 years. More so indirectly defying this, they said that the Earth was billions of years old, which I think I believe. Is there something I am missing? Was John Ussher incorrect in his assumption in any way? How should I have responded? FYI this is a throwaway account.
https://catholicapologetics.quora.com/I-was-in-a-class-today-and-one-of-my-teachers-cited-the-John-Ussher-estimation-of-the-age-of-the-Earth-according-to-wh-17

Hamp F

Sojourner

Jun 12 2023

Here’s how I have responded in the past.

Ussher used the best information he had. He was wrong, but he acted in good faith.

He didn’t have access to the fossil record as we have it. While it’s impossible to say what he would have concluded if he did, it’s at least plausible that he’d accept the scientific estimates for what they are.

Given the scientific evidence we have a, young earth theory is only plausible if you assume that God created new stuff and made it appear to be billions of years old. That creates an ethical quandary for the nature of God (i.e., why does God create something that appears to be one thing, but is actually another—if I did that, you’d call it deceptive).

There’s also the issue that the science we use to make estimates of the age of the universe and our planet comes out of quantum physics. Quantum physics also tells you how to make a computer out of dirt (silicon). So the young earth theories have to explain why the quantum theory works to make computers, but doesn’t let you estimate the age of rocks using radioactive decay.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.VIII.2023

“So the young earth theories have to explain why the quantum theory works to make computers, but doesn’t let you estimate the age of rocks using radioactive decay.”

In order to explain it, how about stating there is a difference between what physics can tell us about decay and the dating methods, namely, the physical facts about decay don’t (usually) provide information (as in any at all) about the original quantities of parent and daughter elements of any given sample.

Your faith in dating methods is like someone saying “we know how Luke got the facts about Jesus’ life, so we can of course trust Ussher’s facts about the universe!”

Both leave out too many intermediates.

But in fact, Moses getting most of Genesis (beyond the 6-day account) from the ones observing the events via traditions they left is very much more like Luke giving us the road to Emmaus than K-Ar dates are related to computers.

Hamp F

26.VIII.2023

Not at all. The quantum theory also predicts that a photon just left the surface of the sun opposite the earth. That’s also not a claim that can be measured directly. The quantum theory does make experimentally verifiable claims, and that increases everyone’s confidence in it.

Young earth theories don’t make unique claims that can be experimentally verified. Their proponents seem to have the need to make a non-scientific understanding of the world around us to reconcile with a scientific one.

If you’d like to argue against the theory of radioactive decay and propose a new model, please do.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.VIII.2023

You are STILL conflating the theory of radioactive decay with the radiometric dates.

“The quantum theory also predicts that a photon just left the surface of the sun opposite the earth. That’s also not a claim that can be measured directly.”

But whatever may be true about the existence of photons, we do know light comes from the visible light source (note I didn’t say “body”) which is referred to as the Sun. That is observed directly.

Hence, your “parallel” really isn’t one. We do not have any parallel certitudes for original amounts in K-Ar, at all, and if we do have it for C-14, very indirectly, it is because the carbon of the atmosphere can be considered one giant sample, which can change or preserve C-14 content by usually very slow processes:

• radioactive production of new C-14 (in the high atmosphere or by contamination)
• decay of already existing C-14.

However, while this gives us some relative info about the C14 content (it doesn’t go from 0 to 200 pmC in one day, nor the reverse, hence a carbon dated and historically dated object can serve as valid calibration), this is nowhere sufficient to get beyond the Biblical chronology, except perhaps for the post-Flood era in Ussher’s chronology.

For K-Ar, consider as elementary a circumstance as this one, totally outside the laws of decay, but very relevant for whether they can be applied for dating purpuses:

• the method presumes no argon from the air or from decay prior to eruption is trapped in the sample, because all argon present in the lava is expelled by heat before it solidifies
• the facts show it can sometimes solidify well before such expulsion, so that the argon measured for the method is nowhere near mainly from decay from the potassium. AND the more the lava is cooled by water, the likelier this is to happen. A rule of thumb : if a lava flow says “millions of years” think “Flood cooled lava quickly”

The famous meteorites used to date earth, prove that no Pb-206 was present before the U-238 started to decay, if you can.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.VIII.2023

“Young earth theories don’t make unique claims that can be experimentally verified.”

My YET about carbon dates actually does.

Take a look at it:

New Tables

The closest calls at archaeological refutations of these claims (people dying too close to the then recent Flood) actually are from areas where the reservoir effect is plausible.