A swimming race illustrates the simple principles involved in measuring time. This swimmer is competing in a 1,500 metre race and we have an accurate, calibrated wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1,500 metre race?
When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously and said, “Starting time?” You cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Without the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible.
Actually, knowing the starting time is still not enough. During the race you have to watch the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you know that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to make sure he touches the edge at the end of each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you need at least two, sometimes three judges to measure the time of the race to the standard needed to enter the record books.
It would make no difference how accurate or high-tech the wristwatch was. You could talk about the tiny quartz crystal and the piezoelectric effect used to provide a stable time base for the electronic movement. You could describe the atomic workings of the quartz oscillator and how it resonates at a specific and highly stable frequency, and how this is used to accurately pace a timekeeping mechanism.
But without reliable witnesses the accuracy of the watch makes no difference. You can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more qualified eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish.
This illustrates the whole problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they omit discussion of the basic flaw in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
If you check this educational page by the US Geological Society you will see that they spend all their time talking about the technicalities of radioactive decay. But they do not even mention the basic problem that you cannot know the radioactive concentrations that existed in the rock in the past.
In other words, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up an assumed geological history for rock depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab (see Dating secrets).
An illustration I use to explain the assumptions made in terms of the age of the earth:
Imagine I take a jug to fill a glass of water, and somebody enters the room just as the last few drops fall into the glass. I then ask the person how long it took me to fill the glass. That person then starts counting the seconds between the drops falling into the glass, measuring the volume of the glass, and makes the ASSUMPTION that the rate at which the last few drops fall into the glass is the constant rate at which I have been filling the glass all along. He then tells me according to ’scientific calculations’ it took me so many months to fill the glass. Sounds absurd? Well it’s the same with the age of the earth. We arrive on the scene late, measure certain rates of deposition/erosion of sediments and ASSUME that the rate is constant, then proceed to calculate millions of years for the age of the earth according to ‘geological evidence’.
Is there even a single dating method that shows the earth is 6000 years old? If evolution was shown to be wrong, somehow, that does not mean creationism is right.
What evidence do you have that time was NOT constant in the past? It’s time creationists came up with original experiments and evidence.
Sanjay: Yes there is. How do you know your age? Based on eyewitness account and written record. How do we know the date of the Battle of Waterloo? Again, by eyewitness report and written record. That also is how we know the age of the earth.
However, you probably have in mind the so-called sceintific dating methods. As this article demonstrates, none of these methods is objective; all depend on assumptions.
But if you are looking for one example, have a look at this article reporting about the RATE research, which is an example of original evidence and experiments. See the item in that article about helium diffusion from zircons that gives an age of 5680 (+- 2000 years). Also, this article lists 101 evidences for a young earth.
People who do not like these young-age results will argue against the assumptions, which of course is arguing about something that can never be checked. The only reliable method is one based on direct eyewitness evidence, and that is what the Bible provides in its accounts of history and recorded chronogenealogies.
I read your “astronomical evidence for a young earth” with interest.
There are many arguments which are obviously on very shaky ground. For example:
1)Recession of moon from Earth.
I did this calculation in an astronomy class. 400,000Km divided by 4cms per year gives 10bn years.
2)Magnetic fields around mercury, the outer planets, io. europa etc. These objects should be long cooled down etc…
This argument ignores the energy from radioactive decay internal to the planets, and graviatational tidal effects in jupiter’s moons. The same mistake was made in the 1800s when an attempt was made to calculate the age of the Earth by simple cooling.
3) Volcanic activity on Jupiter’s moons
Tidal heating again. This is a well-established cause
4) Faint young sun paradox
There is no paradox. The sun’s energy output is increasing with time, but your figures are seriously incorrect.
This argument also relies on current scientific views on the way the sun has evolved, which would require time scales hugely longer than 10,000 years
5) Giant planets radiating more energy than they receive from Sun (so they must be young and still cooling).
This is simply radioactive heating again
6) The number of type 1 supernobae remnants in our galaxy….
This is a very interesing point, which i looked into more closely. Your argument is weakened by the fact that you haven’t calculated that we could only see less than about 1% within our galaxy. Also, that they fade with time, and their effects become immeasurable (the energy is lost in the background galactice radiation. Allowing for these factors, the number of remnants would be pretty well CONSTANT, independent of the age of the galaxy.
There are many other flaws in the arguments, but these are the most obvious.
On another issue, one of the biggest problem for creationists is that radiocarbon data agrees with tree-ring data (and ‘absolute’method of dating) well back to 10,000 years ago, so nullifying all arguments that radio-carbon dating is fundamentally flawed.
I have not seen any evidence for an Earth that’s only 5,000 -6,000 years old other than “it says so in the Bible”
Phil, you said:
The 101 Evidence article.
As you say, these are arguments, not measurements, as is every age calculation. Every age quoted is based on assumptions. When you say they are “obviously on shaky ground” I simply take that as code for, “I don’t agree with the assumptions.”
The recession rate varies according to the sixth power of distance and would be much faster if the moon was closer (see footnote 8 here). The calculated maximum age, assuming the moon was initially in contact with the earth, is 1.37 billion years, which is 70% less than its generally accepted age of 4.6 billion years. Creationists would assume the moon was created at approximately the distance it is now.
If you follow some of the links you will see that these effects have not been ignored. And the earth’s heat balance is not in equilibrium which means that the age of 4.6 billion years is too old (see Lord Kelvin and the age of the earth revisited).
Tidal heating is one of the ideas scientists have floated to try to solve all the anomalous information about the moons. Other ways are postulating different methods of formation of the moons and different histories. Saturn’s moon Enceladus is a good example that is discussed in the latest issue of Creation magazine and worth looking at.
It’s not just that the sun is getting warmer but that it would have been cooler in the past. In which case the earth would have been too cold to have liquid water and allow life to survive.
Young-age arguments use the assumptions that the uniformitarian scientists make and show that the calculated age is younger than the currently accepted age. But we don’t accept those assumptions. We just make them as a starting point for the argument. Biblical creationists would assume that the sun was created in its mature condition suitable for life.
Radioactive heating does not explain the anomaly (see The age of the Jovian planets).
The problem for long ages is worse than you think. See this case study on the Cygnus Loop SNR.
I get the impression that you are just inventing ideas with a view to preserving the concept of millions-of-years. This sort of brainstorming is normal for scientists as they attempt to explain their data. But their ideas need to be tested by making predictions and looking for other data. Even that does not prove the position because we are talking about things that happened in the past, and someone can think up a different test that could overturn it.
You are actually proving my point: that no scientist will accept any age if it disagrees with what he thinks it should be. He will simply say the assumptions about the past were wrong and then invent different assumptions to give an age that he likes. It’s 100% subjective.
And your “flaws” have flaws as I have pointed out. We are arguing about unobserved history.
No, it is not a problem. Radiocarbon dating is based on assumptions. Tree ring dating is not absolute but based on assumptions too (This article shows that tree ring dating is based on circular reasoning and note too that bristlecone pines regularly yield multiple tree rings per year).
Just recall that all such dating exercises are driven by the million-year worldview of the researcher.
And how do you know the date of the Battle of Trafalgar? It says so in the history books. What about the date Queen Victoria died? What scientific dating method would you apply to her? The issue is that you don’t believe the Bible. Why not? Don’t dismiss the possibility that the Bible is recording history with flippant one-line secondary hypothesis that pop into your head. At least consider the possibility and think of ways of checking it.
The article you rely on and your own ‘education’ and ‘reasoning’ are laughable to begin with. I can lodge an argument that your bible doesn’t mean what you think it does because you weren’t there to understand the words as they were being written and their meaning has categorically changed over time.
This is no different from the ‘criticism’ you apply to radiometric dating. In philosphical terms this is called Cartesian doubt which, sadly, is able to be cast on anything. This is why court rooms determine guilt on ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ terms. I can say there is a giant purple chicken standing behind you and you CANNOT prove otherwise. If you turn around I can say it teleported somewhere else.
A reasonable view of things is what is required. As I have said in past postings, radiometric dating is supported by multiple measures (multiple times of the same and different elements). These correlate strongly. Message is - the evidence is clear that radio metrics are a reliable and objective measure … unless you are proposing that scientists cheat or that “the devil” makes the radiometrics coincide.
Why would you doubt that tree rings evidence convergence with radiometrics can be disputed by claiming the tree rings don’t represent seasonality. It defies all our experience of the world. Really, grow up.
Give me a break, I’ll comment on your post:
If you are going to use that argument how would you be able to understand anything that was written in the past? How would anyone know anything about history, e.g. about Julius Caesar, Napoleon or Winston Churchill?
The difference is that the Bible records eyewitness accounts and that is how court rooms operate. They call eyewitnesses who are required to report what they saw and heard and not what they think or suppose or what someone else thought.
It is reasonable to accept the historical accuracy of the biblical account. Have you read much about the methodology of radiometric dating? Are you aware that all numbers need to be interpreted. That is, they are made to agree with the prevailing big-picture story. It’s the paradigm that drives the process.
It is well known that trees can form more than one ring a year, depending on the climatic conditions. And anyway, each tree covers just a hundred years or so, which means that the log samples are first ordered by carbon dating. And the two methods do not agree. Tree ring chronologies differ from carbon-14 measurement. This difference is turned into a calibration curve. Again, the whole exercise is driven by the paradigm. It’s not objective like you say.
I am commencing (well now second guessing) a geology degree. It really seems to me that geology is a science heavily influenced by belief systems based on dogma or assumtions. whether the belief system is faithful to the prevailing mainstream indoctrinated dogmatic evolutionary ‘assumption by decree’ or whether the belif system is faithful to a religion that demands a young earth, its got me questioning the whole credibility of the scientific foundations of geologies earth history.
Being an agnostic, well more of a spiritualist, i find myself in no need to defend the young earth theory but it also does not mean i then have to subscribe to the mainstream alternate views of the geological column and such being accurate.
whether they are correct or wrong about the age of earth conforming to their religeous beliefs, Christian geologists have shown many anomolies, contradictions and innacuracies in the methods and concepts that evolutionary geologists widely accept as fact and have used to support their theories! Christian geologists have shown that mainstream geology evolution/geologicial column subscibers support data, theories & methods etc that are questionable to say the least and not water tight.
So although both parties are very talented at proving ones own theory by disproving the oppostion, as is always the case in politics and science, no side of the argument is capable of denying the other with irrefutable evidence!
So as always although it is neccessary to have an opposing stance in terms of the hegelian concepts and to prevent a galileo senario, i feel that belief systems on both side of the fence always seem to ‘get in the way’ of positive collaboration of reviewing and revising on methods, so called facts, scales and times etc. It seems that thesis vs antithesis= thesis & antithesis (instead of synthesis).
But to cut a long winded reply short, i agree with the christian geologists disagreeing that they should accept the mainstream convention of geological timeframes and theories based on the evident number of contradictions and anomolies.
So i suggest both parties (if you havent already) read the wonderfull book by ian taylor called in the minds of men -darwin and the new world order- then once read, see if you can still hold dear your reasoning for upholding particular mainstream conventional beliefs of geology.
Thanks Billy: I hope your course goes well. I’ve read the book by Ian Taylor—as you say it’s a good read. In our search for truth we need to understand where we came from and why we are here. The Bible answers those questions, of course, but is it true? That is where geology is significant. If the world evolved by natural processes over millions of years then we can’t take the Bible as read. But evolution over millions of years is just a story, an assumption, a way of interpreting the evidence. You say, “no side of the argument is capable of denying the other with irrefutable evidence”. You have a point. I think the evidence for catastrophe is overwhelming, but you can’t definitely prove the biblical worldview from the evidence because there are so many possibilities. It’s a worldview issue, and the way you evaluate a worldview is to step inside it for a while. So, we assume that biblical history is true and see how we can interpret the geology through that lens. We find the geological evidence makes sense when view from that perspective.
In short:
This write-up is so wrong that it’s laughable. It may seem convincing to a totally uneducated and ignorant person, only.
(no surprise there)
Widden: It would be nice if you could present some evidence or reason for your opinion.
I disagree with the premise that the “Bible” is based on eyewitness accounts. Who was there when the events of Genesis happened? Did Adam, or Noah, or Enoch script as they were living? Kinda dismisses the whole oral tradition idea, no?
Not even the gospels were written until 30-40 years after the fact. Why? Weren’t the events recognized at the time as important enough to be transcribed, instead of relegated as a task for the next generation? And thereafter subject to any elaboration or flight of fancy that couldn’t be directly disproved?
If it’s reasonable to accept the historical accuracy of the biblical account, it’s also more reasonable and accurate to discount the more fantastic and metaphysical elements in the ancient Jewish accounts, which do not correlate with the reality we now experience.
Ultimately, Tas has the right idea. Accept nothing fully; question everything. The cosmic challenge to logic, and the entire idea of why is life, directs down to the assumption that no one can make any absolute conclusions about anything, given the paucity of evidence proffered. In my opinion.
Hi Androloma: The gospels are much more reliable than you suggest. Matthew was one of Jesus disciples—an eyewitness of many of the events of Jesus life, and friends with all who were involved. Mark was a friend of Peter and Barnabas and he is mentioned many times in the NT. Luke the doctor carefully studied the events (Luke 1:1–4), checking with eyewitnesses. And John was an apostle and eyewitness (John 19:35, 21:24). Other testimony that these are eyewitness accounts are by Paul (1 Cor 15:5–9), Peter (1 Peter 1:16–18), and John (1 John 1:1–2).
A similar case could be made for the reliability of the events of Genesis. Where did you get the idea that they are based on oral tradition? That is an evolutionary speculation assuming that mankind has been gradually improving in intelligence and technical skill over millions of years. However, Noah had the technology to be able to build a huge ocean going Ark. Moses, the traditional author of Genesis to Deuteronomy, was trained in all the skills of educated Egypt, and so was familiar with literature and able to write. Many times we read that he was instructed to write down things.
In other words, there is a good case that the biblical record of historical events is vastly more reliable than the speculations of modern academics who were not there to see what happened and whose conclusions are driven by their secular ideology.
I think ANDROLOMA was challenging the premise that the (entire) Bible is based on eyewitness accounts and to support the statement, points out there was no eye witness to the creation itself, which is completely valid. Tradition would dictate that the creation account was revealed to Moses by God. I suppose if you accept God’s existance, that eye witness account would be … irrefutable… if you do not, then it would be practically useless.
However I believe Tas’ point was more aimed at demonstrating that eye-witness accounts are more reliable then guesswork. An eye-witness acocunt of a historical event, such as the battlefield conditions at the Battle of Hastings, would carry more weight than a historians conjecture based on circumstantial evidence. I think what Tas was trying to get accross is all of our guesswork on the history of the universe is based on assumptions - no one was there to witness it … therefore there’s reason enough to question the status quo of geological history / scientific methods, which is very much embedded in society & educational standards.
If it’s possible that the, shall we say “secular”, geology is in error, then it make sense to consider alternatives. But as was pointed out, there’s a lot of evidence both ways, and it’s certainly not always clear - it’s very subjective, and I guess the decision to accept one viewpoint or the other rests with the individual.
Personally, I’m very much settled in the Creationist young Earth camp, but always open to logical evidences which I weigh up as objectively as I can (truth be told that is a challenge). I’ve been digging into all this stuff for years however and the further I go, the more I am comfortable with a young earth and the more uncomfortable I am with evolution and so forth - however I do have no professional background in these matters whatsoever
To the general public I say: don’t be afraid of considering alternatives to what is taught in school on these matters … as we can see, there’s two sides to the story and the alternatives are more logical and scientific than you may have originally thought possible!
Tas, thank you for initiating this thoughtful and stimulating conversation. I appreciate your patience and gracious replies to some of the posts here. I wish I could add to the scientific discussion but I’m afraid it is a little over my head.
What I can offer is my own experience as it relates to the accuracy of the Bible. The truth found there transformed my life from one of confusion, selfishness, and uncertainty to one of peace, purpose and understanding. 24 years ago God helped me see that His Son had to come to earth to pay for my sin and purchase my salvation (eternal life with God in Heaven). When I realized that Jesus died on a cross because of people like me or more specifically for me, I chose in that moment to surrender my life to Him. From that moment I was filled with peace in knowing that regardless of where the path would lead, as long as God was in control, it mattered very little which direction it took. Only that if God was leading it would be right and good. Well, 24 years later I can say that has been true and so has the Bible. Back then I told my new wife that I wasn’t smart enough to know which part of the Bible was to be believed and which part wasn’t, so until it proved itself otherwise I would believe it all. Since then I must confess I’ve read things that are hard to accept and or understand but never a contradiction or untruth. Yes, believing in a young earth sometimes takes faith but not near as much faith as it takes to believe in evolution. I think one has to work hard to believe that the intelligent design behind even the simplest organism is due to random formations of the elements around us.
Since I have a personal and intimate relationship with the One who gave me new life, and since His Word the Bible has proven itself true over and over in spiritual things, I feel the other facts found there pertaining to creation etc., are equally reliable and true. I know those who have been “educated” by our world system will find my simple faith laughable but I would rather be a fool for Christ than wise in the eyes of those who are willingly walking in the futility of there own understanding. My prayer for them is that the God of all creation will have mercy on them and open their eyes to the glorious truth revealed in Jesus Chist, that they might find peace and eternal life with the One who is love.
Glauron got me right. I’m led to disbelieve the metaphysical claims of the Torah and the Septuagint. Their admissions of no eyewitnesses are enough to lead one to presume that these stories have been embellished.
ANDROLOMA: The Torah is the Hebrew name for the five Books of Moses. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. So I don’t know what you mean by “Torah and the Septuagint”. And the events in the Bible read like they are accurately recorded because they record the heroes of the faith “warts and all”. It reports Noah’s drunkenness, Abraham and Isaac’s lying, Jacobs deceiving, his sons’ violence and despicable treatment of their brother, David’s adultery, etc. If the texts were embellished then you would think that they would have whitewashed their heroes.
Adam was there. He could have easily recorded the events after he was created. And we know from the biblical record that he personally talked with God. He is only six days out from the original creation.
ALL recorded history goes back only a little over 6000 years which is also the age of man according to the Bible - there is no older written history. One other argument for the truth of the Bible is what has happened in history SINCE the Bible was written. The march of the major world powers was predicted in Daniel - right down to the final world power which is the Anglo-American - history bears out the march of the world powers in the Bible even though it didn’t name all of them - The Bible’s timetable points to 1914 as a significant year which was the beginning of major changes in the world. Earthquakes in one place after another were all predicted and if you study the statistics for earthquakes you will find that they have increased exponentially starting with 1914. There are many more prophesies that are coming true NOW.
Read Matthew chapter 14 and Like chapter 21 to see the change in conditions predicted for the time we live in and 2 Timothy Chapter 3 for the predictions of the increasing bad attitudes of PEOPLE in this time. many other things in the Bible show it to be inspired - it speaks of the Earth as a circle hanging upon nothing long before man discovered this to be true. Perhaps those that spend so much time and effort coming up with all sorts of arguments to prove the Bible wrong and that God doesn’t exist - (which thereby does free them to do whatever they want but ALSO takes away any real hope for a future except death) - perhaps those should put some equal time into studying what the Scriptures really say and all the evidence for a loving and intelligent creator.
If you found a very primitive little hut made of sticks constructed in the middle of what you thought was an uninhabited island you would conclude that some intelligent being had constructed it - you would NOT ever think that the sticks came together and were tied together with vines to form a roof and walls by coincidence from the wind! Yet you can come to the ridiculous idea that the solar system with it’s predictible schedule, the amazing array of animals and plants and the human brain - all the variety, intelligence, all the systems of the earth, - this all just happened by accident! And you that chose to believe this consider yourselves somehow superior in intelligence compared to those that believe in an intelligent creator?
When you throw in all of the recent scandals of climate-gate, one has to really question the integrity of the scientific community. It is far more “rational” to believe that all the order that we see around us was created than to believe that somehow the random chaotic nothingness magically produced it — by itself, even though it was nothingness and random chaos. Any rational person can see that it’s nonsense.
Radiocarbon Dating is used on organic objects only, so the fact that your whole example is based on inorganic rocks and radio carbon dating only suggests that you do not know with any detail or understanding the topic that you are discussing. Your arguments have no research, you have a biased opinion because of your faith, and are not willing to look at the truth, only your version of it.
Yes radiocarbon dating is not infallible, but dendrochronology is extremely reliable and dates back 8,000yrs in the Southwest and in Europe it has been used up to 10,000yrs. It is used to refine and radiocarbon dating up to that amount of time. Radiocarbon dating only can go back 50,000yrs, there are many other dating methods used.
Hi HG,
I did not restrict my discussion to carbon dating. The same fatal problem applies to all dating methods.
I discussed carbon dating and tree-ring chronologies towards the end of my comment above dated July 1, 2009. I included a couple of links to articles about tree-ring chronologies. You do not find one tree with 8,000 or 10,000 rings in it. You find lots of trees in a bog and each has only hundreds of rings. So the long sequence is constructed by arranging dozens of individual pieces of wood into a long sequence and this is one place where the method is highly subjective.
you are completely wrong because you are using a strawmans arguement. carbon dating is not like a clock, and nowhere in the laws of physics does it say that it is impossible to measure time without knowing the start time. you just assumed that. As for radiometric dating,you only assume that there exists a constant half life, and that there have been no flux in the atoms of daughter or parent atoms. then you use mathematics to derive the age from the ratio
Eye witness accounts are essential to recording credible evidence of history. Since no one was around for the creation and all dating methods rely on a degree of assumption, none would not satisfy the evidence standard in a court of law. I find more compelling the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The case for the resurrection of Jesus does meet the courts evidence standards through many recorded eyewitness accounts. It is actually the resurrection that validates by inference the biblical creation claims, because He either is God and did what He said He did, or He is a liar. The recorded testimony of eye witnesses to the resurrection (a task that could be considered equally as difficult as the creation) overwhelmingly supports the former.
Or he doesn’t exist and it was all made up. Show me ANY evidence for the existence of your god or jesus.
Tas your arguments are quite definately of the straw man type. Radio metrics proceedures often use two different elements … yet you ignore this. How can they consistently give the same dates?? Thousands of times consistently pointing to a coherent story of an ancient earth?
Give me a break:
To find evidence for the historical reality of Jesus Christ you simply need to Google “evidence for Jesus Christ”. This is the first article that came up: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-jesus-exist.html but there are many others.
We have explained why there is a coherent story; the final step in the dating methods involves “Explain how your results are consistent with all previous work”. It is called “Interpreting the results” and involves changing ones assumptions about the past until all the results are consistent. It is a formal part of developing the “story”.