I believe the Biblical account of Creation but I am not 100% sold on the timeline. I think there are times when generations have likely been skipped when listing ancestry in the Bible, as the translations of "father of" can often just as easily mean "grandfather of" or ancestor of" and the math doesn't always seem to line up.

Of course, that would not make up the difference from 6000 years to 4.5 billion years.

I think there is an argument for God's time not being the same as ours, but I don't see evidence anywhere else in the Bible where a "day" is not used to describe what we know of as a day (24 hours.) Doesn't mean it is not so, though.

I think it is certainly possible that God created the Earth and all that are in it with the appearance of age. I definitely do not believe he created Adam or Eve as infants, but as adults.

I also believe the Earth was a very different place physically at the beginning of it's life and it is not hard for me to imagine extreme weather or geological events that could radically change the Earth's appearance so that humans a few thousand years later would think that it must have taken a very long time, due to how long it takes now.

I also believe that the Bible was physically written by the feeble minds of men who likely struggled to accurately put into words the miraculous works of an Almighty God.

quote:

Originally posted by YellowJacket:
I think there is an argument for God's time not being the same as ours, but I don't see evidence anywhere else in the Bible where a "day" is not used to describe what we know of as a day (24 hours.)

The concept of our "day" or "year" is only relevant in the context of the rotational speed and revolutionary period of Earth (or another identical planet/star). I'd say our notion of time is of little significance to the rest of the Universe.

quote:

Originally posted by bordeth:
I believe the earth is probably around 6-10,000 years old. I'm not dismissing science at all but rather just questioning the accuracy of the radio Carbon dating that much of scientific community hangs their hats/ opinions on.

I have an easier time when the answer is simply 'because the Bible says so." In your case, you are questioning what is scientific consensus. There really is no doubt in the scientific community about the age of the earth and geological matters.

For example, the Grand Canyon was thought to be 6M years old. More recent advances puts the date as older. It's pretty well established that an ancient river carved it out. That is how canyons form.

Point being, they'd have to be majorly wrong - huge assumptions debunked in order to put earth itself at just a few short millennia. You say you are questioning the accuracy of radio carbon dating, but to be so far off isn't a question of accuracy, it's a question of the foundation of the theory.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by YellowJacket:
I think there is an argument for God's time not being the same as ours, but I don't see evidence anywhere else in the Bible where a "day" is not used to describe what we know of as a day (24 hours.)

The concept of our "day" or "year" is only relevant in the context of the rotational speed and revolutionary period of Earth (or another identical planet/star). I'd say our notion of time is of little significance to the rest of the Universe.

The point is the writer was speaking from his own paradigm. He said a day and what he understood to be a day was the time period between sunrise and sunset.

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:

quote:

Originally posted by bordeth:
I believe the earth is probably around 6-10,000 years old. I'm not dismissing science at all but rather just questioning the accuracy of the radio Carbon dating that much of scientific community hangs their hats/ opinions on.

I have an easier time when the answer is simply 'because the Bible says so." In your case, you are questioning what is scientific consensus. There really is no doubt in the scientific community about the age of the earth and geological matters.

For example, the Grand Canyon was thought to be 6M years old. More recent advances puts the date as older. It's pretty well established that an ancient river carved it out. That is how canyons form.

Point being, they'd have to be majorly wrong - huge assumptions debunked in order to put earth itself at just a few short millennia. You say you are questioning the accuracy of radio carbon dating, but to be so far off isn't a question of accuracy, it's a question of the foundation of the theory.

This. The radioactive decay of elements is an established law (N = N.e-λt), with absolutely no debate regarding it's scientific validity or accuracy. Radiocarbon dating is actually based on this, but only with things that have, well, carbon in them, usually from once-living things, hence more recent (as in thousands or millions rather than billions of years). There are other things, like rocks, that have radioactive elements other than carbon that can be precisely dated by the amount of radioactivity left in them. Precisely. Billions of years old, according to the immutable rate of decay of those elements.

You may or may not believe the science, but it's sort of like believing or not believing in pi as a number. Your belief or non-belief will not change the relationship of the diameter to the circumference of a circle. It just won't. Having said that, I believe in the existence of an all-powerful God as Creator, who can do anything He wants - including creating the world, and me, yesterday. I just don't believe He did. Because, like Einstein, I don't believe God plays dice with the Universe. He gave us the tools and the intellect to figure things out, and when we can't, He gave us faith to fill in the gaps.

Very pious people, respected in the Church, a few hundred years ago believed in witchcraft, as did most of the population - they read the Bible too, by the way, the same one you read. Now we don't (mostly) because we know more. Imagine what we'll know tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:

quote:

Originally posted by bordeth:
I believe the earth is probably around 6-10,000 years old. I'm not dismissing science at all but rather just questioning the accuracy of the radio Carbon dating that much of scientific community hangs their hats/ opinions on.

I have an easier time when the answer is simply 'because the Bible says so." In your case, you are questioning what is scientific consensus. There really is no doubt in the scientific community about the age of the earth and geological matters.

For example, the Grand Canyon was thought to be 6M years old. More recent advances puts the date as older. It's pretty well established that an ancient river carved it out. That is how canyons form.

Point being, they'd have to be majorly wrong - huge assumptions debunked in order to put earth itself at just a few short millennia. You say you are questioning the accuracy of radio carbon dating, but to be so far off isn't a question of accuracy, it's a question of the foundation of the theory.

This. The radioactive decay of elements is an established law (N = N.e-λt), with absolutely no debate regarding it's scientific validity or accuracy. Radiocarbon dating is actually based on this, but only with things that have, well, carbon in them, usually from once-living things, hence more recent (as in thousands or millions rather than billions of years). There are other things, like rocks, that have radioactive elements other than carbon that can be precisely dated by the amount of radioactivity left in them. Precisely. Billions of years old, according to the immutable rate of decay of those elements.

You may or may not believe the science, but it's sort of like believing or not believing in pi as a number. Your belief or non-belief will not change the relationship of the diameter to the circumference of a circle. It just won't. Having said that, I believe in the existence of an all-powerful God as Creator, who can do anything He wants - including creating the world, and me, yesterday. I just don't believe He did. Because, like Einstein, I don't believe God plays dice with the Universe. He gave us the tools and the intellect to figure things out, and when we can't, He gave us faith to fill in the gaps.

Very pious people, respected in the Church, a few hundred years ago believed in witchcraft, as did most of the population - they read the Bible too, by the way, the same one you read. Now we don't (mostly) because we know more. Imagine what we'll know tomorrow.

The problem with "knowing" is that we "know" how elements behave right now, but we do not always know if those elements have always behaved in that manner. Scientists believe that man's burning of fossil fuels is altering the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 which is used in dating. Now, whether or not to believe the climate scientists is another debate but if man can affect that ratio it seems possible to me that epic geological or weather events (solar flares, volcanic activity, ice ages, floods, etc.) could also release mega amounts of carbon-12 and change the ratio.

This quote from Smithsonian is shocking, to me, though it could of course be scientific hyperbole and paranoia.

quote:

Carbon dating is a brilliant way for archaeologists to take advantage of the natural ways that atoms decay. Unfortunately, humans are on the verge of messing things up.

The slow, steady process of Carbon-14 creation in the upper atmosphere has been dwarfed in the past centuries by humans spewing carbon from fossil fuels into the air. Since fossil fuels are millions of years old, they no longer contain any measurable amount of Carbon-14. Thus, as millions of tons of Carbon-12 are pushed into the atmosphere, the steady ratio of these two isotopes is being disrupted. In a study published last year, Imperial College London physicist Heather Graven pointed out how these extra carbon emissions will skew radiocarbon dating.

By 2050, new samples of organic material will appear to have the same radiocarbon date as samples from 1,000 years ago, says Peter Köhler, the lead author on the new study and a physicist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. Continued carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will skew the ratios even further. "In a couple of decades, we will not be able to distinguish if any radiocarbon age we get out or carbon might be from the past or from the future," Köhler says.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...ay-fix-it-180961345/

I am no expert on these things... my only point is that the extrapolation that things are today as they have always been and will continue to be so is short-sighted.

quote:

Originally posted by YellowJacket:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:

quote:

Originally posted by bordeth:
I believe the earth is probably around 6-10,000 years old. I'm not dismissing science at all but rather just questioning the accuracy of the radio Carbon dating that much of scientific community hangs their hats/ opinions on.

I have an easier time when the answer is simply 'because the Bible says so." In your case, you are questioning what is scientific consensus. There really is no doubt in the scientific community about the age of the earth and geological matters.

For example, the Grand Canyon was thought to be 6M years old. More recent advances puts the date as older. It's pretty well established that an ancient river carved it out. That is how canyons form.

Point being, they'd have to be majorly wrong - huge assumptions debunked in order to put earth itself at just a few short millennia. You say you are questioning the accuracy of radio carbon dating, but to be so far off isn't a question of accuracy, it's a question of the foundation of the theory.

This. The radioactive decay of elements is an established law (N = N.e-λt), with absolutely no debate regarding it's scientific validity or accuracy. Radiocarbon dating is actually based on this, but only with things that have, well, carbon in them, usually from once-living things, hence more recent (as in thousands or millions rather than billions of years). There are other things, like rocks, that have radioactive elements other than carbon that can be precisely dated by the amount of radioactivity left in them. Precisely. Billions of years old, according to the immutable rate of decay of those elements.

You may or may not believe the science, but it's sort of like believing or not believing in pi as a number. Your belief or non-belief will not change the relationship of the diameter to the circumference of a circle. It just won't. Having said that, I believe in the existence of an all-powerful God as Creator, who can do anything He wants - including creating the world, and me, yesterday. I just don't believe He did. Because, like Einstein, I don't believe God plays dice with the Universe. He gave us the tools and the intellect to figure things out, and when we can't, He gave us faith to fill in the gaps.

Very pious people, respected in the Church, a few hundred years ago believed in witchcraft, as did most of the population - they read the Bible too, by the way, the same one you read. Now we don't (mostly) because we know more. Imagine what we'll know tomorrow.

The problem with "knowing" is that we "know" how elements behave right now, but we do not always know if those elements have always behaved in that manner. Scientists believe that man's burning of fossil fuels is altering the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 which is used in dating. Now, whether or not to believe the climate scientists is another debate but if man can affect that ratio it seems possible to me that epic geological or weather events (solar flares, volcanic activity, ice ages, floods, etc.) could also release mega amounts of carbon-12 and change the ratio.

This quote from Smithsonian is shocking, to me, though it could of course be scientific hyperbole and paranoia.

quote:

Carbon dating is a brilliant way for archaeologists to take advantage of the natural ways that atoms decay. Unfortunately, humans are on the verge of messing things up.

The slow, steady process of Carbon-14 creation in the upper atmosphere has been dwarfed in the past centuries by humans spewing carbon from fossil fuels into the air. Since fossil fuels are millions of years old, they no longer contain any measurable amount of Carbon-14. Thus, as millions of tons of Carbon-12 are pushed into the atmosphere, the steady ratio of these two isotopes is being disrupted. In a study published last year, Imperial College London physicist Heather Graven pointed out how these extra carbon emissions will skew radiocarbon dating.

By 2050, new samples of organic material will appear to have the same radiocarbon date as samples from 1,000 years ago, says Peter Köhler, the lead author on the new study and a physicist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. Continued carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will skew the ratios even further. "In a couple of decades, we will not be able to distinguish if any radiocarbon age we get out or carbon might be from the past or from the future," Köhler says.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...ay-fix-it-180961345/

I am no expert on these things... my only point is that the extrapolation that things are today as they have always been and will continue to be so is short-sighted.

Except radiocarbon dating is not used to date non-organic substances (e.g. rocks).

Uranium-lead, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium and other forms of radiometric dating are used for inorganics in igneous rocks.

Unless I'm missing something, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, a la the linked article, is entirely irrelevant.

The oldest things on earth are inorganic, ergo their dating is, within the margin of error of those radiometric methods, is pretty much infallible.

In order for any of these scientific measurements to be off by orders of magnitude (i.e. billions vs. thousands) would require staggering errors that no one ever detected in both observational sciences and basic math.

Furthermore, to echo DrDan, we can in fact quite precisely measure such things as tectonic plate drift by using GPS (which, again, is regulated via atomic clocks...which can be unerringly measured). If we can precisely tell how how far a plate moves in a given year, say, we can pretty accurately tell how long ago it was united with other landmasses (where there are matching rock formations, similar coastlines, etc.). It's the foundation of plate tectonics. It basically now only requires doing some backwards arithmetic and you have dates in the millions.

So that's just another process tracked by accurate and repeatable science (GPS) that shows the Biblical dating to be off by orders of magnitude...and we know that those tectonic processes are simply a reflection of what we see now and much younger than the earth itself. So even a process we know to be young is wildly older than the Biblical dating.

^^I was wondering why we were discussing carbon-14 dating with respect to the age of the earth, when as you correctly said it is only basically used for dating once-living things (with other forms of radiometry used for geological dating).

Then I realized that C-14 dating goes out to about 50,000 years, well outside the 6-10,000 years range indicated in the Bible if you use literal interpretation. I doubt that organic life pre-dates the earth. Unless you're into that 2001 Space Odyssey stuff. Which you might be.

"In a couple of decades, we will not be able to distinguish if any radiocarbon age we get out or carbon might be from the past or from the future," 

I thought that was interesting, because we could pretty much exclude any date we get from the future. Carbon dating generally comes with a plus or minus, sometimes a large plus or a large minus, for just those and other known reasons, but it will get you ballpark numbers usually. The radioactive rate of decay of inorganic elements is part of the fabric of the (known) Universe. There's a reason the most accurate timepiece is an "atomic" clock. Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve the foundation or the science - it won't affect daily living in the slightest.

I am a believer in the God as revealed in the Bible and I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God.I also have a BS in Geology and a degree in Engineering. My experience is that this is an irreconcilable debate. On the one hand we cannot prove scientifically how old the earth is with 100% certainty. We also cannot prove the existence of the God of Bible and more specifically the Book of Genesis. Both require a degree of faith. Depending on your point of view you will put more faith in science than spiritual things and visa versa. The Bible was not written as a scientific book. It was not written to validate or discredit science. It was written to show mankind God's plan to have a relationship with his creation. The debate or argument about a 6 literal day creation vs a 6 day epoch/day creation is distracting IMO. It cannot be reconciled or proven either way. I prefer to believe science when science deals in absolutes. Mathematics, chemistry, physics. In my Geology courses there seemed to be quite a bit of speculation that was taught as fact. One very hard thing for Geologists to reconcile in the fossil record is the lack/ absence of transitional forms. There should be a transitional record but record is abrupt The 6 day creation is also not provable. On the other hand, in a 6 day creation if one is honest with themselves, a general observation of the earth makes this 6 day creation seem implausible. Therefore a lot of doubters.
Finally, If you believe (like I do) in a creator God who is in control of everything then you come to realize that all things scientific are were God's design. As we, as scientists discover "things" we are merely understanding principles and precepts already in existence since the beginning of the universe. Science and God are then not exclusive to each other but one created the other.
A 6 day creation is possible in God's economy but his creations doesn't really bear that out. I see I have really rambled.. I will stop.

The implied age estimate depends on many variables and the understanding of them at the time.

Would the dating of items have to be adjusted if fission had taken place nearby?
Why do wolf puppies like to play fetch with people?
How did the petrified hammer come to be?

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
The implied age estimate depends on many variables and the understanding of them at the time.

Would the dating of items have to be adjusted if fission had taken place nearby?
Why do wolf puppies like to play fetch with people?
How did the petrified hammer come to be?

What variables? And how would these change over time? The statement perplexes me.

1. You mean if fission literally occurred everywhere, all over the globe, in every layer of the earth, in every single stratum of igneous rock...at once...that that would affect the earth's radiometric dating? And that it changed in the same way the radioactive decay of every igneous rock that ever was and even those that are currently being created in the absence of such a radioactive event?

2. I fail to see any relevance at all to the question at hand. A) Is that even true, and B) could one not find a simple zoological or animal behavioral reason if it were true? Regardless, it's entirely not germane.

3. And the proof that that..."artifact" is ancient is? The wood remnants have been carbon dated to be essentially modern. Even with the outermost margin of error, it's not remotely ancient. Second, there is a simple, observable natural phenomenon that could have created the "artifact", and it's no more witchcraft than people used to think a petrifying well was.

As a commercial helicopter pilot I have had the good fortune to fly on a lot of geological work. I have some clams which came from the top of a 9,000' mountain. The Phd geologists ascertained they were at least 70 million years old. So, I believe the earth is about 4.5 billion y.o. from my reading and working with professional who do this stuff for a living.

I believe Bishop User's estimates have been shown to be faulty so it's not 6,000.

I believe in a much younger universe as I also believe light was much faster in the beginning which would reconcile how big the universe is versus its age.

My estimate for the earth is 10,000 - 100,000 years old.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:
"In a couple of decades, we will not be able to distinguish if any radiocarbon age we get out or carbon might be from the past or from the future," 

I thought that was interesting, because we could pretty much exclude any date we get from the future. Carbon dating generally comes with a plus or minus, sometimes a large plus or a large minus, for just those and other known reasons, but it will get you ballpark numbers usually. The radioactive rate of decay of inorganic elements is part of the fabric of the (known) Universe. There's a reason the most accurate timepiece is an "atomic" clock. Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve the foundation or the science - it won't affect daily living in the slightest.

Just for accuracy's sake, you are mixing two different issues.

Carbon dating is based on the amount of carbon 12 versus carbon 14 based on the half-life of carbon 14. Based on the known half-life and the current amount, they can work back to how old it is by calculating how long for the carbon to decay to what it is now from the amount it would have been originally. One potential gap is it assumes a stable reference carbon in the beginning or that no carbon was introduced in the interim.

Atomic clocks are accurate because they use the stable high frequency of cessium 133 atom. One second is defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the atom.

The two measurements - half life and oscillations are different.

Well, some people don’t even believe dinosaurs existed ... and those go back 200+ million years.

I think the earth is old — billions and billions of years old.

This thread is absolutely mind boggling to me. I'm frankly stunned at some of the answers.

quote:

I also believe light was much faster in the beginning which would reconcile ...

You’re saying the speed of light is variable with time? Like once for a nano-instant or consistently over 1-14 billion years?

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:
"In a couple of decades, we will not be able to distinguish if any radiocarbon age we get out or carbon might be from the past or from the future," 

I thought that was interesting, because we could pretty much exclude any date we get from the future. Carbon dating generally comes with a plus or minus, sometimes a large plus or a large minus, for just those and other known reasons, but it will get you ballpark numbers usually. The radioactive rate of decay of inorganic elements is part of the fabric of the (known) Universe. There's a reason the most accurate timepiece is an "atomic" clock. Anyone is free to believe or disbelieve the foundation or the science - it won't affect daily living in the slightest.

Just for accuracy's sake, you are mixing two different issues.

Carbon dating is based on the amount of carbon 12 versus carbon 14 based on the half-life of carbon 14. Based on the known half-life and the current amount, they can work back to how old it is by calculating how long for the carbon to decay to what it is now from the amount it would have been originally. One potential gap is it assumes a stable reference carbon in the beginning or that no carbon was introduced in the interim.

Atomic clocks are accurate because they use the stable high frequency of cessium 133 atom. One second is defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the atom.

The two measurements - half life and oscillations are different.

Correct, and for simplicity's sake. The point being is that the inner workings of a specific atom, either losing energy or day-to-day ops, is a fairly established constant, not subject to belief, vagaries of time or location, or significant variation within this particular Universe, discounting quantum interactions. Hence can be - very - accurately measured. And based on that foundation, and others, the calculated age of the observable Universe is estimated at just shy of 15 billion years, with the earth about a third of that age. The calculations are accurate based on what we know of physics, today. There is absolutely no debate or doubt regarding that. The underlying premise can of course be wrong. The Universe could have been created yesterday by an all-powerful Being, as has been suggested, with suitable clues withheld or introduced. It's a matter, as they say, of faith.

I agree with the geologists. I also agree with the Bible.

I do believe that time to God is a different concept than it is for us, as God is eternal.