Young Earth Creation: The Tower of Babel

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Friday, August 1, 2014 58 comments

by Charlie Wolcott

There are four major historical events according to the Biblical account of Genesis that impacted the entire world: the Creation, the Origin of Sin, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. I’ve addressed issues about the Creation account and the Flood. Today, I will address the Tower of Babel and then come back to deal with the Origin of Sin.

The Tower of Babel is a short account that takes place after the Flood. All mankind still had one language and in an attempt to reach the heavens, they build a tower and a city named “Babel”. God had told Noah and his family to multiply and fill the earth and the people refused to do that. So God scattered them by confusing their languages.

Many questions arise from this account. Did all the tribes and languages in the world originate from one place? Is this feasible within the time frame of just after Noah’s Flood? Are these genealogies accurate?

The Young Earth Creation model puts the creation event around 6000 years ago. I’m not going to be as strict as Bishop Ussher was who put the creation date at October 23, 4004 BC. I’m not convinced by that specifically but I do believe Ussher was in the ballpark. How did he come to that date? Much of the Biblical account compares precisely with secular history. Especially from the time of David and the Kings forward. It is also widely accepted that Abraham lived around 2000 BC. From there, you just go through the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11.

Several challenges address the genealogies. The most common one I hear is that eastern cultures were known for skipping generations in their genealogies. One such example of this is in Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1. Matthew starts with Jesus the son of David, the son of Abraham. Here Matthew clearly skips a large number of generations, however this argument in Genesis does not do what it is intended to do: to stretch the timeline of creation to more fit along with the evolutionary timeline. However this does not stretch the date of creation back at all. It only adds more names between the dates given. When Methuselah became the father of Lamech, it does not matter how many generations were between the two. The fact remains that Methuselah was 187 years old when Lamech was born. I do not know of a single example in any genealogy of where telescoped generations are used AND the age of the patriarch is given. If the age of the patriarch is given, we must assume direct father/son lineage. If no age is given, then we can consider it.

The Genealogies are very important from a doctrinal perspective because Jesus is called the Last Adam. So Jesus, to be a representative of mankind, had to come from man’s lineage, from Adam. Adam was the one through whom all sin and death entered the world. Because one man cursed all his descendents with sin, it took a man to break it. That person is Jesus Christ and it is the genealogies that show Jesus was fully human, in the line of Adam. This is a critical part of Christianity because this connection is what enables Christ’s sacrifice and free gift to be accessible to all of mankind.

So what about this event at the tower? Can we trace all of the nations and languages back to one place and location? Are all humans really one blood and one race? Would there be enough people for the dispersion and to build a tower? Many questions and with some digging the answers show this is a very plausible event. A look at Genesis 10, we find a massive list of names. Genesis 10:32 tells us that this list of names is the source of all the languages and nations. It could be argued that Genesis 10 is one of the most important single pieces of documented history ever written. And it makes sense. Here is why. In Genesis 10, we have about 70 names not including Noah, Shem, Ham, or Japeth until Peleg’s time when the lands were divided. Here it is believed when the language dispersion took place. We have traced the 7000 languages and dialects in this world to a maximum of 100 language families. Genesis 10 gives a minimum of 70 family heads. This is not that far off and according to the Genesis 11 genealogies, we are only looking at around 100 years post Flood. Let us also consider how long these people lived. Shem lived 500 years post flood and was a contemporary of Abraham and Isaac. Peleg was the first person listed post-flood to die, seven generations after Noah. You can have a LOT of kids when you live several hundred years. So population levels are not unrealistic.

So what do these names mean and why are they important? The names listed in Genesis 10 are found all over Europe, Western Asia and Africa. Here are two sources that go into the details of where these names are found in history. Bible history briefly lists where Noah’s grandchildren settled, but Bodie Hodge of Answers in Genesis has done some extensive research in tracing as many of the 70 family heads in Genesis 10 as our records go. His presentation on the Tower of Babel is worth checking out. This link is for his book that goes into more depth than his presentation. In Ham’s line, we have Cush, Mizriam, Put, and Canaan. Today, Ethiopians still call themselves Cushites. Mizriam is the Hebrew name for Egypt. Some translations (like NIV) go ahead and put Egypt in for Mizriam. Put settled Libya. Canaan is one of the most obvious ones because Abraham was called to the land of Canaan. Modern day Israel, Lebanon, Syria were occupied by Canaan’s descendants.

From Japeth’s side, we get most of Europe. Gomer is found in Gaul and Galatia. Ashkenaz founded Germany. Javon’s name is found at Greece. Moscow used to be called Meshek. Tiras’ name is still found today in the Tiras River.

On Shem’s side, Elam settled Persia. Asshur was the father of the Assyrians. Lud founded Lydia, the Lycians, and Laodocia.

The list goes on and on. So much of recorded world history is easily traced to the names listed in the Tower of Babel account. It is more challenging to trace Native American or Amazon jungle tribes because the lack of historical documentations but when I found out about how these names are found in many of the world’s civilizations have not been able to look at the genealogical accounts the same again.

Why do Christians need to believe the Tower of Babel account? It tells of the origins of the nations and there is more secular world history that affirms this account than most are willing to admit. The secular accounts trace both language and names to one location and one time period, around 4300 years ago. Let us not forsake the history that is found in the Bible. It is fully accurate and true and has yet to be proven false. All challenges against the Bible’s history bring a false reading of the historical accounts or are claims that cannot be substantiated with other secular accounts. The real accounts have always been in line with what the Bible had all along. Trust the Bible. It never fails in every area it touches, including history.

58 comments:

Anonymous said...

/* The secular accounts trace both language and names to one location and one time period, around 4300 years ago. */

http://xkcd.com/285/

Charlie said...

Did you read my post, or click on the links provided?

Bob Sorensen said...

Well, Charlie, there you go again, writing about easy stuff. OK, you know full well that books have been written and a great deal of research has been put into Babel and the genealogies. This is a good article, and I hope that it will give people the desire to do further research on it.

Nonny there wants to be clever and not bother to politely ask for a citation, even though your space is limited and you provided links. What do some of these people want, every article to be an exhaustive doctoral dissertation?

David J. said...

I don't want citations for the whole article, I just wanted to know where he got that particular claim from.
This is a result I found when searching information on the origin of languages, though it only covers a portion of them:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6965/images/nature02029-f1.2.jpg

I only see one link to a secular source, a wikipedia list of language groups.

Charlie said...

I got that claim from a natural conclusion from compiling the sources I cited together. Basic research skills while adding a thing called your own mind to it. Or do you have a problem with me thinking for myself? The sources I cited got their research from secular sources and they were the best ones that had the secular sources complied together. But I can't exactly expect you to check them out because a few of them are YEC, can I? I'm not going to write articles or papers where the bulk of it is citation. I'm all for bringing in what others have said, but if you can only regurgitate what others have said (very common trend I see from the Evolution camp), it doesn't do much for your credibility of knowledge of said topic. It was quite painful for me to read the papers for my graduate courses because I could not distinguish the author's voice from the sources they cited. And I wasn't the only one. But if you put the sources I cited together and do a little thinking, my claim is not far-fetched.

Bob, yes, I was keeping it simple and just covering the basics. The sources I cited were just a few of them and the evidence is truly overwhelming that the Biblical account is true as written. There is no HISTORICAL documentation from the ancient cultures that date older than what the Flood and Tower of Babel accounts give. Yeah, lots of radiometric dating suggesting otherwise, but if I can't trust their internal math, I have no reason to trust the scientific claims associated with said math. And that claim is my own personal research so I can cite myself on it. I'd love to be able to get more in depth, but if I did that, I'd have a book like Bodie Hodge about the issue. And the deeper you dig, the more the Bible is confirmed, time and time again.

David J. said...

I think I may have misunderstood your claim. I was thinking you were referring to what modern secularists believe about language history. But when I re-read it, it sounds like you're referring to historical records written from a secular perspective.

Charlie said...

That would be correct. I do not expect modern day secular historians to believe the Biblical accounts. But the non-Biblical historical ACCOUNTS themselves (not the historians) have always been in line with the Biblical account. The secular historians often poorly interpret the accounts to get them off line with the Bible but when they do so they mess up the alignment with every other nation's account as well. Egypt's history is a prime example. Many secular historians interpret Egypt's history with non-overlapping rulers, and claim this is why there could have been no Flood 4400 years ago or the Tower of Babel. However, with this interpretation, a prime counter-example is that it placed a battle with the Hittites 500 years off from when the Hittites recorded it happened. When you interpret with overlapping rulers (very common practice in those days among many Middle-eastern cultures, including ancient Israel), it all lines up. When talking about history, the historical accounts should ALWAYS trump any "scientific" data, especially radiometric dating which has many problems. And the historical accounts of many secular nations line up VERY well with the Bible's account. More so than anything Evolutionary timelines could suggest.

Charlie said...

Here is an additional source that traces England's royal family from Richard III all the way to Adam.
http://www.wdl.org/en/item/233/

I would have included this in my original text if I had remembered about it as I wrote it. A friend of mine followed up with this link. I understand she had a physical copy of this source.

David J. said...

// Yeah, lots of radiometric dating suggesting otherwise, but if I can't trust their internal math, I have no reason to trust the scientific claims associated with said math. And that claim is my own personal research so I can cite myself on it. // It's worthless to cite your own personal research if you don't make it public.

Charlie said...

Ashley, every post you make here is making me question your reading comprehension more and more. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. Because you have repeatedly misrepresented my claim about WHY I would remove you. It has nothing to do with you challenging my posts. I made that VERY clear yet you continue to insist that is why I would. It would be very easy to go your route and call you a liar over and over and over again but if you can't get my arguments right, I can't expect you to get Ken Ham's either.

And you can take your feud with Bob elsewhere. It has nothing to do with me or this post. The fact that you keep bringing him up here is proving his claim that you are stalking him. But apparently this seems to be the only place you can try to hound on him.

I did back up my claim about the secular accounts. But apparently you aren't interesting in checking out the sources because they support YEC. I posted several sources in the OP that shows how the Biblical Table of Nations is found all over Europe, West Asia, and Africa. Those sources are a compilation of many secular sources (because if I were to post them directly, this post would be dissertation length) I was references. And in the comments I posted another sources that traces England's history from Richard III all the way to Adam. You asked. I had already provided. Now I ask: can you read? Or do you have to be spoon-fed on everything?

Charlie said...

David,

I am still working on my research and my mathematical calculations. But let me ask you about the accuracy of this quote from a PhD professor at UC Santa Barbara.

A question was asked:
"Question: Do you believe radiometric dating is an accurate way to date the earth? Why or why not? Could you also please explain further what radiometric dating is and the process to use it? Mahalo.
"

And here is part of the answer given by the professor.
"“…When dating older objects, namely rocks, it is necessary to use other isotopes that take a much longer time to decay. The most common isotopes used are uranium-235 and uranium-238 (there are multiple isotopes of uranium). The uranium isotopes eventually convert into lead isotopes. Measuring the ratio of uranium to lead can have a margin of error as small as 2-5%. In other words, we can predict the age of a rock within two million years out of two-and-a-half billion years. That's pretty good. “

I see these types of answers and figures quite frequently. Is the professor's answer accurate?
Source:
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901
UCSB Science Line: Answer #5
And this source is not quote-mined. The entire answer is all right there in the source. There just isn't enough space to put the entire thing.

Anonymous said...

/* But let me ask you about the accuracy of this quote from a PhD professor at UC Santa Barbara. */

Please provide evidence that it is from a PhD professor. It looks like most of the people answering questions on that site are graduate students.

/* Is the professor's answer accurate? */

They said the margin of error in measuring the ratio is 2% to 5%, but then says we can use that to date to an accuracy of better than 99.9%.

Is that what you're getting at?

It's not from a peer reviewed scientific paper. It's just an informal question and answer page by scientists volunteering in their free time. The answers are not cited, dated, and don't show the author's name. From looking at answer one, I doubt they have an editing/review process at all. The author could have just made a mistake. Maybe they meant .2% to .5% accuracy ( the U-Pb Wikipedia page gives an accuracy range between .1% and 1% and cites its source). That still wouldn't be quite enough accuracy for a range of ~2 million years, of course.

Scientists are not inerrant.

David J. said...

/* But let me ask you about the accuracy of this quote from a PhD professor at UC Santa Barbara. */

Please provide evidence that it is from a PhD professor. It looks like most of the people answering questions on that site are graduate students.

/* Is the professor's answer accurate? */

They said the margin of error in measuring the ratio is 2% to 5%, but then says we can use that to date to an accuracy of better than 99.9%.

Is that what you're getting at?

It's not from a peer reviewed scientific paper. It's just an informal question and answer page by scientists volunteering in their free time. The answers are not cited, dated, and don't show the author's name. From looking at answer one, I doubt they have an editing/review process at all. The author could have just made a mistake. Maybe they meant .2% to .5% accuracy ( the U-Pb Wikipedia page gives an accuracy range between .1% and 1% and cites its source). That still wouldn't be quite enough accuracy for a range of ~2 million years, of course.

Scientists are not inerrant.

Charlie said...

David, (and anonymous, since you both posted the exact same post), what I am getting at is this: if the math is that badly off, how can I trust the scientific claims that math comes from? That wasn't a typo, because in my analysis, I've seen this FREQUENTLY. Does this disprove radiometric dating? No. It means they need to make their numbers more fitting. But what I have researched has uncovered mathematical inconsistencies far worse than this. I know scientists are not perfect, nor without error, nor do I expect them to be, but when I see the whole system FULL of these errors, it puts the whole system into great question. And the math I have been doing ASSUMES all the assumptions that go into the radiometric dating methods are valid. But for example, the upper and lower limits of the various methods do not reflect an ability to measure the amounts of isotopes in the samples. Combine that with how the isotope's half-lives are determined, and you got serious problems. Again, this is WITHOUT going into the major problems YEC orgs frequently bring up, and without considering error factors. My research still has a long way to go but with the people I have shared this with so far (specifically asking them to break it to see if what I have is worth something) are rather shocked. I had given the scientists the benefit of the doubt for a long time, assuming they would make sure their methods would be internally consistent and I was wrong.

But I do applaud you for addressing what I was getting at. I've presented that quote to a number of people supporting radiometric dating and they say it is just fine. You caught to where I was going. The author's claim of being able to get within 2 M of a 2.5B year sample requires an error factor of 0.08%. And there is no way he could provide a typo on this one. If the 2-5% is accurate, that would be 50-125 million years of error. The author was simply repeated what he had looked up and didn't think to check his middle school level math. That's very common in the scientific community today (an in most other communities too, including the church), where you do your research and cite your sources but don't bother to check out what the sources say. Most people don't have the time, energy, or desire to do so.

//When you think about eg Australian aboriginals and their long history as natives of the Australian continent, your 'Bible History' link is shown up to be absurd. //

HISTORICAL sources please. You want them from me. I should expect them from you. Please show the HISTORICAL records that I am wrong. Not radiometric dating. I was talking about historical records. You said I am wrong. Prove it. But speaking of which, it sure is interesting how they were slaughtered so their skulls could be used on display at the Smithsonian as evidence for Evolution.
http://www.territorystories.nt.gov.au/handle/10070/86091?show=full

//500 years later we know different.//

Keep on dreaming. Amazing how Evolutionary driven education makes you not know your own nation's real history. It's happening in the US too, where the history books are not based on history but on what the politics say. They are re-writing the history books to fit their agenda. That is why I'll trust the actual historical documents from people who were there to record it or got their sources from those who were there over what Evolutionists say about history (and are almost invariably WRONG). On a rare occasion they are right, but a broken clock is right twice a day too. Still waiting for those radiometric dating methods to accurately dating something of KNOWN age right on a consistent basis.

David J. said...

/* David, (and anonymous, since you both posted the exact same post),/*
Sorry, the "type the text" authentication thing is buggy.

/* what I am getting at is this: if the math is that badly off, how can I trust the scientific claims that math comes from? */
I find it hard to believe that the same scientific community that builds this thing is so incompetent that they can't do math so basic that even you can find errors in it. Understanding radioactive decay is very important in the modern world. It's not like it's just some wacky people with an anti-God agenda making stuff up.
Why should I trust you? You've made at least three unsupported assumptions just about the author of the answer to the question: That they are a PhD, that they are a professor, and that they are male. (or you just use 'he' and 'him' instead of neutral pronouns)

/*That wasn't a typo,*/
Are you God, that you can read minds?

/*because in my analysis, I've seen this FREQUENTLY.*/
Have you seen any of these errors in peer reviewed research papers? It's one thing to see them in a pop-science TV show, or in a very casual posting like you linked, but if you actually think you've found a fundamental error in scientific understanding, you're going to have to look at a peer-reviewed publication.

/*Does this disprove radiometric dating? No. It means they need to make their numbers more fitting.*/
More fitting of what? I know an error of +-50 million years means a lot when you think everything is 6000 years old, but what difference does it make to you when most scientist thing the earth is few billion +- 50m?

/* But what I have researched has uncovered mathematical inconsistencies far worse than this. */
Why bother linking to the USCB error when you have a list of inconsistencies far worse?

/* I know scientists are not perfect, nor without error, nor do I expect them to be, but when I see the whole system FULL of these errors, it puts the whole system into great question. */
It should be under great questioning. And it is. And our understanding is getting better over time.

/* And the math I have been doing ASSUMES all the assumptions that go into the radiometric dating methods are valid. But for example, the upper and lower limits of the various methods do not reflect an ability to measure the amounts of isotopes in the samples.*/
Not sure what you mean.

/* Combine that with how the isotope's half-lives are determined, and you got serious problems. */
Based on what you've said about this before, you seem to be projecting your lack of understanding onto the process itself. Do you really think nobody else has asked the questions you're asking?
I'm not sure why this is even relevant. Even if they were off by 50%, it would get you nowhere close to the age that YEC's believe the earth to be.

/* Again, this is WITHOUT going into the major problems YEC orgs frequently bring up, and without considering error factors. My research still has a long way to go but with the people I have shared this with so far (specifically asking them to break it to see if what I have is worth something) are rather shocked.*/
Could you share your research somewhere?

/* I had given the scientists the benefit of the doubt for a long time, assuming they would make sure their methods would be internally consistent and I was wrong. */
I'm not convinced you even know their methods.

David J. said...

/* The author was simply repeated what he had looked up and didn't think to check his middle school level math. */
Like you with the volcano or the middle verse of the Bible claims. Except I doubt you bothered to look them up.

/* That's very common in the scientific community today (an in most other communities too, including the church), where you do your research and cite your sources but don't bother to check out what the sources say. Most people don't have the time, energy, or desire to do so. */
Ar you talking about the scientific community, or the pop-science community?

Charlie said...

When it comes to Evolution, I am honestly amazed at how these experts and really smart people give the appearance of throwing their education out the window when then start talking about it. I'm sure you've heard about YEC referencing some of them saying they will willingly accept that which they KNOW to be ridiculous so they don't have to allow the divine a foot in the door. Today, when discussing origins, it's not treated like science at all, but like a religion. It is not defended scientifically. There is no embracing of other positions or allowing them a point in the discussion. They've brainwashed you to think it is science but it is not. I've said it numerous times and I'll say it again. You cannot perform the scientific method over millions of years when you only records a couple hundred (less than that with radiometric dating). If you cannot perform the scientific method, it is not scientific. That isotopes radioactively decay is not the issue. It's using it as a dating method that is the issue. It doesn't work. It has never gotten anything consistently right.

When I analyzed the results of the moon rocks, (one of the very few publicly released sources where they show the results of all the testing) and I compared the +/- error range (I made sure I only compared the results from the same samples, using the same methods) I could not follow it through a scientific, methodical process where the error would come from the same sources. It really is as though they are making up the numbers. I'm trying to get a hold of many more results where I can make more comparisons but the deeper I dig, the more I see PhD in a another light: piled higher and deeper. But speaking of which, exactly how would those three assumptions I made about the author be unsubstantiated? There is nothing you could provide to prove me wrong. You yourself provided a few examples of what typos would look like and you admitted that would still be wrong. On the volcano, I said I was wrong about that one and I said I would stop using that argument. I HIGHLY doubt this author would stop using what he or she used.

You have fallen back on the standard response when the entire method is put into a bad light: "You don't understand the methods." That is a classic I see very often that tells me "I have no answer for you, but you must be wrong because Evolution is true and the Bible is false, therefore you don't understand it." And I've talked with actual PhDs who were VERY adamant about radiometric dating and they didn't know how the half-lives were determined until I brought it up. They squirmed when I brought just a sample of my research. Completely disagreed with what I was saying but could provide nothing to disprove me.

Yes, the numbers I have seen are worse that the USSB site I posted. I referenced that as an "opening sample". And yes, I know even with the math errors that sill makes it older than 6000 years, but what you do not see is that these errors make the method invalid. It doesn't matter what figures they result it. If the math involved is invalid, so is the method. An invalid method cannot have any input to the discussion. In any scientific method, you should be able to trace backwards through a scientific, methodical process from end to beginning. Is that not how forensics work? Yet, when trying, I cannot do this with radiometric dating. And it makes me question the entire thing.

Charlie said...

Ashley, my comment was on HISTORICAL documents. You said I was wrong. And you provided something that was NOT a historical document.

Radiocarbon dating is anything but accurate, especially after 1000 years. Here is why. The dating methods DEPENDS upon the ratio of C14 to C12 TODAY. C14 is generated by radiation from the sun. The amount of radiation that reaches us is dependent upon the earth's magnetic field. The earth's magnetic field was stronger in the past than it is now. In fact, at the rate it has been decaying, at a mere 20,000 years ago the earth would be too hot for life to exist. Good luck having evolution in those conditions. But that aside, because of the stronger magnetic field, not as much radiation could come through, which would produce significantly less C14. So anything at those ages are automatically deemed older than they possible could be because of the false assumptions of the dating method. Williard Libby who created the method in the 50s clearly did not consider this option.

But it gets better. We've found C14 in dinosaur BONES.
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
The fact that they are BONES, not fossils automatically puts them well younger than millions of years. The article dates the bones at 40K years ago, but just the fact that it HAS C14 in it at all disproves the claimed fact that dino died off 65 millions years ago. And don't give me the contamination argument. It sure is amazing how every time an "anomaly" comes up "contamination" is the first thing to be brought up. You should know by now of the C14 found in diamonds dated 2 billion years if you've done the homework you claim to have done. I shouldn't need to cite that one. Contamination is the #1 defense I've heard against that claim yet such a claim denies the very nature and structure of diamonds. If contamination is responsible for all the "anomalies", I have no reason to believe the method is reliable for anything else.

Radiocarbon is actually a friend to YEC because it constantly throws wrenches into the other dating methods. Because when we find C14 in coal or other objects that where the rock layers they are encased in date to millions of years, we call that a major internal error. One that invalidates the methods. And it's not just one case. There are hundreds if not thousands. But they are largely ignored, mocked, or silenced.

Charlie said...

I, as any Christian SHOULD BE, don't ultimately care what other people who call themselves Christians say. I care about what the Bible says and if what other Christians say do not line up with the Bible, they are wrong. There are many people who call themselves Christian but very clearly are not. And pastors are no exception. This is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy because the definition of a Christian was defined by Christ himself. He said clearly what it means to be one of his followers. And many of the ones who claim to be Christians and believe Evolution, have a tendency of having a lot of other major issues as well, including denying the deity of Christ and tending to support universalism. I don't expect perfect as I admit myself I don't have 100% correct theology, but in the areas I know I am not certain on, I don't go claiming them to be fact or demanding other people "repent". You said yourself you are not certain if Evolution is true or not and that automatically puts you in a position where you cannot be a judge on who is right or who is wrong. I am certain it is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am certain that the Biblical account is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. And yes, I would put my life on the line for it. If someone put a gun to my head and told me to renounce the Biblical truth, I would not do it. Because I know Jesus personally as does everyone here at Worldview Warriors. There is nothing that could convince me otherwise. And even if our scientific models of how the events of the Bible would have taken place might change, the account itself never will and it has been right EVERY time.

David J. said...

// You have fallen back on the standard response when the entire method is put into a bad light: "You don't understand the methods." That is a classic I see very often that tells me "I have no answer for you, but you must be wrong because Evolution is true and the Bible is false, therefore you don't understand it." //

I don't see what this has to do with evolution. You claimed that the math and methods behind calculating the decay rate are wrong. As AiG would classify it, that would be "Operational science." As far as I understand, even AiG and ICR accept the presently measured decay rates.

Charlie said...

//"Ashley, my comment was on HISTORICAL documents. You said I was wrong. And you provided something that was NOT a historical document."

Childish (and entirely predictable) tactics.//

Since you cannot answer the point, I'll consider that an admission of concession. You continue to demonstrate a lack of an ability to address the actual claims. You constantly get mine wrong (claiming it was "misread" or "I asked a poor question"). Apparently this happens EVERY TIME you have to admit you are wrong in order save face. Do you understand what a historical document is? I wonder.

If you understand radiocarbon fluctuations, how can you trust it as a dating method? Such fluctuations invalidates the principles behind using it as a dating method.

//Despite its name your link is to a Christian creationist site, not to a peer reviewed scientific site. For those who might not know, the claims of Seiler et al have previously been discussed here:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3184&p=43916&hilit=seiler#p43916//

Childish and VERY predictable. Genetic Fallacy and therefore invalid counter claim.

//But it's a bit odd that YEC Christians cannot actually demonstrate that these other Christians are 'wrong' when they are merely presenting scientific evidence and drawing rational conclusions based upon it (I would agree that they are 'wrong' if they are deliberately twisting what the Bible says though even YECs sometimes practise eisegesis). //

The ones that compromise on the Bible and what you THINK science is get both wrong. I highly doubt you understand what exegesis is or eisegesis. If you do, you have no clue what we YEC actually do. I can see your tunnel vision in your desperation to prove YEC wrong that you have constantly rejected some of your own top guys to try to prove us wrong. A prime example was when I brought up Haeckel. You guys mocked me for bringing him up and failed to see that Stephen Gould was harping on the textbook authors, NOT the YEC about Haeckel. Gould was one of the leading Evolutionists and one of the leading experts on science history and both you and Bible Science Forum blew up in my face completely missing my point...again. And you have demonstrated no scientific knowledge at all on any of these matters. You are really good at Google but all I've seen is "This guys says this, this guys says that." I've seen NOTHING from you that shows you can actually engage the topic directly. Which tells me you have no ability to accurately discern if YOUR sources are any valid or not.

If the Dr. Brown you reference is the same one I am thinking of, I recall him saying this in another interview: "I would also believe the earth is a few thousand years if I hadn't read any other books besides the Bible." And that's the problem. People believing what man says the Bible says instead of believing what the Bible says the Bible says. The Bible is always going to conflict with what naturalism and Evolution suggest. But when I address Evolution, I try to stay within the realm of Evolution. I try to keep it internal. Your only argument is "The Bible is wrong because Evolution says otherwise." You hate it when we say "Evolution is wrong because the Bible says so." So why are you allowed to use the arguments you don't want us using? I think I know why. You said you used to be an evangelical but God didn't show up. He very likely did, but not in the way you wanted or were expecting. God is not a magical genie that comes to our whims, despite many Christians who seem to think otherwise. Even if I give my life to Christ and in the end God sends me to hell, he has every right to do that and he is STILL worthy of praise if he were to do so. And you WILL bow your knee to him sooner or later. I don't know what the circumstances of why you thought God let you down were but there have been many times where I have felt the same way. The difference is that I didn't give up on him.

Charlie said...

//I don't see what this has to do with evolution. You claimed that the math and methods behind calculating the decay rate are wrong. As AiG would classify it, that would be "Operational science." As far as I understand, even AiG and ICR accept the presently measured decay rates.//

I was presenting a class of arguments. The argument of "You don't understand Evolution" or "You don't understand radiometric dating" when there is clearly no answer for the argument. Yes, calculating the decay rate would be operational science, but not using the decay rate for dating purposes. But operational science is not infallible. Just because something is described as operational science, that doesn't make it valid. I have not seen anyone take the approach I have and I suspect many at AiG, ICR have not thought about this particular angle either. Some may have. I just haven't seen it yet, nor have I seen it used in an argument before. I do believe they accept the decay rates but they are certain that many factors affect the decay rates and they bring them up. The arguments for and against radiometric dating are quite well known. Mine are different. I'm not making it widely public yet because I still have work to do to put it all together. I honestly don't know how far I can take it, or get it to be published or not. And even if I do, I know it won't convince others in this discussion. Nothing I say will. They have an issue with God and those who stand by his Word. I doubt they'd be so vehement at us if they didn't hate the One we represent so much.

David J. said...

// You said yourself you are not certain if Evolution is true or not //
I don't remember saying that, but if I did, it was only in the sense that I'm also not certain that everything wasn't created last Thursday.

//I am certain it is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am certain that the Biblical account is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. And yes, I would put my life on the line for it. //
Here's another person who was certain beyond the shadow of a doubt:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/the-worlds-most-deluded-woman-umm-nidal-mother-of-martyrs/

Charlie said...

//Yet he has not SHOWN here that I get YEC arguments 'wrong'. Perhaps he should invite Mr Ham to view this thread and the previous one with its 180 comments (not that I would trust Mr Ham not to then misrepresent/selectively present what happened).
//

Ashley, in order for me to be able to show you that your YEC arguments are wrong, you have first make an argument against YEC. You have not done that. So I have had nothing to actually address. Just saying I am wrong and I am a liar is not an argument. Just posting a link is not providing an argument. You keep bringing up Bob's claim that you misrepresented Ken Ham's position as though I was Bob. I have not seen what you said so I have not said anything about that. And because in the space we have engaged, I am really scratching my head about any actual argument you have made about the YEC account, my comment at AiG my comment does not actually apply to you. It is very difficult for anyone to take you seriously when you take anything that MIGHT apply to you personally. Though if the boot fits.... If you are truly innocent in this, you would not have been offended by the statement because you would know it did not apply to you.

I do wonder, you have repeatedly said you do not use fake accounts, yet you have brought up quite a few direct copy-pasted quotes by me from pages you have been banned from. Exactly how do you get them WITHOUT a fake account?

The Aboriginal claim is further evidence of a major issue you have. I've told you quite a few times that I don't believe you know what you post, especially with your links. The reason why is that you never actually engage the content. You have not demonstrated that you have actually read the links you cite, let alone understand them. The only link you actually spoke about besides "this link prove you wrong" was with Chromosome 2 but all you did that was copy paste the segment. When I see just a link and no indication of why it is important or that the poster has any hint of knowing it actually addresses the topic, I'm not inclined to look at it. These discussions are with YOU not the army of scientists out there. Yes, for every source I cite you have one ready, and for every one you cite I can put another one. And it just goes back and forth not getting anyone anywhere. When I cite my sources, I talk about them. I address why they are significant and I talk in such a way that I understand what is being said. I am able to address the claims in the sources and I am able to make a logical, intelligent conclusion based on those sources, which is what started this whole thread off: the inability of some people understand that part of research is making your own conclusions. When every statement has to be backed by an outside source, all you are doing is regurgitating what you have read. It shows you don't actually know much of anything except how to Google and repeat others. And it shows you don't know if your sources actually do what you think they do.

Your "aboriginal history" wiki is a perfect example. I said it does not address my argument because it doesn't. I was not denying any history nor handwaving it off. It points out that you do not understand what is actually being argued. A historical account is not determined by radiometric dating. It is determined by the people's records of who they were and what they did. And one thing is for certain, no radiometric dating method has EVER dated known historical events with any kind of consistency. On a rare occasion one might get it right but never with any consistency. That's why I don't trust it nor any source that uses it to "show" something. I deny the ability of these methods to accurately determine history. In your defense of them, you deny the actual records from the people who were there. What you have learned is a false history.

Charlie said...

How did I come to believe YEC? That one is pretty straight forward. I read the Bible. Long before I heard about any YEC orgs or any of the OEC arguments, when I read the Bible, the core of the YEC position is what was there. David J a while back agreed that YEC is the model closest to the Bible with fewest issues. I read the Bible and I believed it was true. I had heard about Evolution growing up. But never once, through the public media, through my science classes, through anything, have I ever actually made sense of how was it supposed to carry out. I knew the concepts and the general theory. But not one person has ever been able to show something tangible to show it actually does work. Something I could check out with my own eyes where I do not have to take by blind faith. I understand the basis of the theory, but I also understand the basis of the Force, and I understand the basis of Hogwarts, and I understand the basis of Narnia. I truly do not see any difference between Evolution and these fictitious tale. I've said several times I am an author and I know how to create a world that would be plausible today but is fiction. Every time I've seen an evolutionary-based paper, I see a few facts and a heck of a lot of story telling. With the Bible, over and over and over again, I've seen what it has and it is tangible. The scientific part of YEC opened my eyes to a lot of other stuff but all it did was confirm what I already knew. And I learned that so much of what Evolutionists claim to be solid evidence, really isn't evidence at all. The actual evidence being used 99% of the time is just as solid evidence FOR Creation as it is for Evolution. And this is why I keep harping on you to see if you actually know what you are talking about. To see if you can separate the evidence from the interpretation of it, from the story-telling behind it. Yes, YEC does some story telling too. But the key the separates us is that we take the Bible as history and you don't. We believe the Bible is legitimate recorded history. And we have GOOD reason to believe that. Because by secular historical standards on how to judge the validity of a historical text, the Bible passes it by a much higher margin than any other ancient document. And from a historical evidence perspective, there is not one event that proves the Biblical account being true than the Resurrection of Christ. Without the Resurrection, all our believe in YEC is null, void, and pitiful. If I had just one reason to give for why I believe YEC, the Resurrection of Jesus would be #1. Because the Resurrection validates every other verse in Scripture, including Genesis.

Charlie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charlie said...

Ashley, I really pity you. That rampage shows there is no intellectual drive in any of this. That was purely emotion-driven. And you are a slave to your anger, to your hate. You don't control it. It controls you. It is directed at us YEC but were not at the root of that anger. That is at God. Such anger actually places us at a higher level of respect than you think. Because you can't let it go. One thing I've pointed out is that YEC CANNOT stand without the very God you hate being in the center of it. You never gave me a chance because the very first thing you said to me via private message was that "I was a fake." That shows your hate goes far beyond any interaction we've could have. And you are a prisoner to it. You don't want to let it go because to do so requires you to surrender it to the very person you hate. But I pity you. I pity that you will never taste what life really is until you surrender that hate. And that is an issue you have to take up with God. I prayed for you tonight and I pray that you will be free from the poisonous hatred that has blinded you.

Charlie said...

//"Radioactive dating is fake." No - you are the fake.//

July 3, 16:02 Mountain Time via Facebook.

Are your memory skills that poor or are you an outright liar? I suspect both.

Charlie said...

Read your Facebook message Ashley or did you delete it right after you posted it? On July 3, at the time stated YOU "Ashley-Haworth Roberts" sent that message. "Mountain Time" apparently is not known to you as THE TIME IT WAS SENT. You are the first person I have ever met that would have this poor reading comprehension to think that "Mountain Time" was a group when I explicitly said "Message". I will not take "I didn't see that before" as a defense. There is NO defense you have. You have been caught red-handed, you accused me of being a liar when I caught you, and YOU are the liar. You also have repeatedly make lies about me in this posts among many others which makes you unworthy of being able to call anyone out. Confess that you have falsely accused me and man up in your BCSE that you blew it. YOU are the liar here and that invalidates every claim you have made here. And I KNOW it is you because five days later on July 8, at 17:20 (the time you sent it) you also messaged me word for word your first post to my blog on Chromosome 2. MAN UP, ASHLEY! If you can.

Charlie said...

Facebook has a wonderful way of retaining all messages sent. Here are the THREE you have sent me INCLUDING one you sent BEFORE the last three comments you made here. You defense is repugnant.

3 July 16:02

"Radioactive dating is fake." No - you are the fake.
8 July 17:20

"What I love about Chromosome #2 fusion is that according to Evolutionary timelines and thinking, the fusion took place AFTER apes and humans had already split off. So assuming this even took place, it is a pure human issue and does absolutely NOTHING to show ape and human ancestry. There is a reason I keep saying Evolutionists do not understand their own theory. This is among that."
TRY THIS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

"All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[3] Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[4][5]

Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere
The evidence for this includes:

The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[6][7]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[8]
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[9]
Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [9]"

And carry on saying this has nothing to do with chimps.

I cannot challenge Bourne on his page - because he does not tolerate any comments from me whatsoever and banned me.

Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
10 hours ago

Just found this page. Please READ my two emails, Charlie.
Chat conversation end
//
And here is a direct quote from you, the first lines, on your first comment to any of my blogs posts here on Worldview Warriors:

//Mr Wolcott

I have just sent you the following message via facebook - after seeing your comments at the facebook page entitled 'Evolution is a Lie':

//
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.com/2014/07/issues-with-old-earth-creation.html

Charlie said...

The contents that follow match precisely with the second message above. And because you directly referenced this post in your defense of your first contact with me, you continue to give me solid reason to question if you ever read any of your sources, let alone understand them. Yeah, keep citing these conversations. They are NOT doing you any favors. You can twist them all you want as you have done the entire time, but only a like-minded fool would buy it.

You kept telling me to not underestimate who I don't know. I was wrong. I overestimated you.
Your last message to me, proves you KNOW you sent those because Facebook would have shown the previous two messages in the window and you STILL accused me of lying. You have no concept of what truth actually is and when the evidence is smack in front of your face you still deny it. You are a lost, sad man to no ears to hear and no eyes to see truth. You don't want it and you have exchanged the truth for a lie. What you think is true is actually a lie. That is what happens when you reject God on emotional group. God is God and he is on the throne no matter what you say or how evil you think he is. You aren't the judge on such matters. Neither am I. He is. And you need to square up with that FACT.

Bob Sorensen said...

" But I am still WAITING for him to SHOW HOW I was dishonest regarding Ken Ham. He has so far DUCKED my challenge - proving that he is indeed a compulsive Liar as charged."

...proving YET AGAIN that he has no concept of logical fallacies, even though he has proven me right three times that he is using the Argument from Silence.

Charlie said...

A comment from our leader at Worldview Warrior. Because of the conversations like this, these posts are getting an all time high. There is nothing like someone who hates YEC giving us so much free advertisement. People like Ashley certainly save YEC orgs and supporters a lot of advertising costs. So thank you for boosting our Google rankings and allowing more people to find us. Thank you so much for "exposing" all these YEC groups. It makes our advertising job so much easier. You do such an awesome job at directing our resources to one of our target audiences: those who have not already been exposed to the Biblical truth. Keep it up, Ashley. You are doing a great job supporting us. And that's not sarcasm. Thanks to you, we've hit some all time highs for exposure for our ministry.

David J. said...

// On the volcano, I said I was wrong about that one and I said I would stop using that argument. // When you learn that you are off by several orders of magnitude, perhaps you should reconsider your views instead of just reconsidering the use of that incorrect fact.

Bob Sorensen said...

I would have stayed on topic, but guess who decided that lying, libel and slander were more important than that? So I responded to one of your attacks.

Charlie said...

//// On the volcano, I said I was wrong about that one and I said I would stop using that argument. // When you learn that you are off by several orders of magnitude, perhaps you should reconsider your views instead of just reconsidering the use of that incorrect fact.//

Funny you say that. Radiometric dating.
Mt Etna Basalt from Sicily historically known to form on 122 BC dating 170,000-330,000 years old.
Mt. Etna basalt form Sicily when it erupted in 1972 dated 210,000-490,000 years old.
Mt. St Helens in Washington lava from 1986 dated 300,000-400,000 years old.
Hualalai basalt in Hawaii erupted in 1800-1801 dates 1.44-1.76 million years old.
Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand erupted 1954, dated 3.3-3.7 million years old.
Kilauea Iki basalt in Hawaii formed in 1959 dates 1.7-15.3 million years old.

You want to talk being magnitudes of orders off? You defended that one like the scientists knew what they were doing. You want to keep that claim? Or should you reconsider your views? This is just a partial list of radiometric dating methods that get it VERY wrong, yet held as absolute fact. Yes, some YEC have done some bad science, but get your head out of the sand on your own people.

If radiometric dating methods actually worked not one of these samples should have come up with a result at all. Because it would have been too young to date. Do you try to measure inches with a ruler scaled for miles? Inches would come up insignificant. Do you try to measure the weight of a feather on a semi-truck weight scale? The scale would not even notice the feather. When these rocks, like the Mt. St Helens one which is less than 30 years old, takes to hundreds of thousands, that shows the method is outright false. It shows the methods are NOT calibrated for any real facts and the math I have demonstrated only a sample on gives the hard facts that this is the case. So if you want me to reconsider my views based on that, I want you to demonstrate how to do it based on this.

Anonymous said...

From what I understand, those tests were to test the accuracy of assumptions related to the initial ratio of K-Ar.
G. Brent Dalrymple published a paper in 1969 that listed 26 tests of lava flows with known dates, and 18 of the tests showed the expected results. Three tests underestimated the age of the results, and you've listed 3 of the 5 that overestimate the age.

If someone were to test the Mt Etna or Mt St Helens flows 50 million years from now, that means that the initial values would only effect the accuracy of the data by a few hundred thousand years... less than 1% relative to the overall age.

Most of these things just look like creationists pointing out "problems" that secular scientists are already well aware of.

By the way, the Hualalai basalt number you posted is actually a misreading of this chart from Dalrymple's paper: https://web.archive.org/web/20110629125430im_/http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/images/argontable.jpg

// It shows the methods are NOT calibrated for any real facts and the math I have demonstrated only a sample on gives the hard facts that this is the case. //
The whole point of the research was so we can calibrate our estimates. It also shows that K-Ar dating is not reliable for recent ages, and I accept that.

// If radiometric dating methods actually worked not one of these samples should have come up with a result at all. //

If radiometric dating were total bunk, I wouldn't expect different dating methods to agree with each other in a large majority of cases. Please show me a theory that can better explain all the radiometric data we have.

David J. said...

Oops, I wrote that anon post above.

// So if you want me to reconsider my views based on that, I want you to demonstrate how to do it based on this. //

I'm sure there is some logical fallacy there, but I don't know what it's called. Maybe the fallacy expert Piltdown Superman can help identify it.

I'm sure I've made a dozen fallacies in this post alone. Oops, there's another one. Make that a baker's dozen.

Charlie said...

David, you might want to look at those studies a little closer. I can promise you that no evolutionist would EVER attempt to use K-Ar knowingly to date a known sample. Same reason they would NEVER attempt to date dinosaur bones for C-14. It's out of range. K-Ar does not go as recent as about 50,000 years. The half-life is too long. If they did use K-Ar, that further validates the math I have been doing that shows the methods are not based on actual science but on philosophy. Very likely, if they are dating historic samples, they are using Ar39-Ar40, because it has a much shorter half-life. Not K-Ar.

The one thing that Evos HATE about the Mt. St. Helens sample in particular is that it was dated with K-Ar. The frequent claim is that Dr. Austin did not use the system correctly. Of course. When the labs get their samples, they also need to get the location of the sample AND an estimated date range BASED purely on evolutionary presuppositions. This is not made public very readily. And what this does is that is makes the methods dependent upon the previously established dating of the geologic column which is on index fossils, which in turn was determined by the rock layers. Austin did not tell the labs that the sample came from the 1986 Mt. St. Helens eruption. And the results are telling. The Mt. St. Helens sample was K-Ar dated, and Evos have been screaming foul ever since. And here is the one fact that invalidates: Argon has been found in liquid magma. Andrew Snelling has some issues with Dalrymple's presentations. As I said, the ones I posted is just a sample of the ones that are erroneous. Snelling in this link posts quite a few more and the key is that Argon was found in the liquid magma. This invalidates K-Ar from being a valid dating method because the clock can never actually be set. The method depends upon there being 0 Argon in the magma in liquid form so when it solidifies, the clock is set at 0. When we found measurable Argon in the magma, the clock can never be set so we can never actually make any accurate dating via K-Ar.

http://www.icr.org/article/436/

David J. said...

//David, you might want to look at those studies a little closer. I can promise you that no evolutionist would EVER attempt to use K-Ar knowingly to date a known sample.//
That's exactly what they did, because they wanted to test the absolute accuracy of the method, not the relative accuracy. At least some of those numbers you posted are originally from secular sources. Are you denying that?
You know how creationist accuse "evolutionists" of assuming the ratio at the formation of the rock? Well, this was their attempt at testing the consistency of the ratio. And what did they determine? They determined that the starting ratios were close enough that they would barely effect the dating of much older rocks.

//Same reason they would NEVER attempt to date dinosaur bones for C-14.//
That's the opposite direction. But I wouldn't be suprised if secular scientists had already measured the C-14 of things known to be old in an attempt to look for sources of contamination.

// It's out of range. K-Ar does not go as recent as about 50,000 years. The half-life is too long. If they did use K-Ar, that further validates the math I have been doing that shows the methods are not based on actual science but on philosophy. Very likely, if they are dating historic samples, they are using Ar39-Ar40, because it has a much shorter half-life. Not K-Ar. //

That's because these are very old studies that, as I understand, were done before Ar-40 - Ar39 testing was widely used. Dalrymple has said in more recent articles that ar40-ar39 is a better method.

// The method depends upon there being 0 Argon in the magma in liquid form so when it solidifies, the clock is set at 0. When we found measurable Argon in the magma, the clock can never be set so we can never actually make any accurate dating via K-Ar. //
The clock is sometimes set to +- a few hundred thousand years. Which can be less than one percent of the overall value for older samples.

If you were timing yourself in a 100 meter dash, and you discovered that your stopwatch was sometimes initially set to a value of up to 5 seconds off, that would be a significant error. If you were timing a 100 mile ultra marathon, 5 seconds wouldn't be much of a concern.

If you stopwatch is too slow or too fast by 25%, then you'd have a problem with all ages. But scientists haven't discovered anything that can't change the decay rate of any radioactive substance by more the a couple percentage points, usually much less.

If something is hitting the reset button on your stopwatch, there is also a problem. (thought that would always cause things to look too young, not too old.)

Radiometric dating is very simple in theory, but much more complex in practice. There are a lot of variables.
Please show me a comprehensive YEC theory of radioactivity that better explains the data.

Charlie said...

David, this is what you don't understand. K-Ar is not a good ruler to measure historic samples. As you very well said, if you are trying to time a 100-mile marathon and you are off by five seconds, that would be negligible. The problem is that the results do NOT show the negligibility. Again, using the truck weigh scale analogy. If you are trying to measure a feather, it should come up negligible. But when a feather shows up with a weight of a car you have a very serious problem with your scale. And that is the point. K-Ar should not come up with ANY age results for ANY historic sample. Because any historical sample would be in that negligible range. It should not pick up on anything. It should not give any results. Yet they constantly do. That shows the methods do not work as proclaimed. There are enough counter examples to show that it is not consistent. Did you ever seen the results of the moon rock samples? 90% of them do no agree with the Evolutionary suggested age of the earth. Most of the results are all over the place, and some of my analysis uses the same rocks samples using the same methods and the results are anything but consistent. I have yet to be able to trace any radiometric dating results through a consistent, scientific, methodical process, where you can identify a consistent source of error. I understand there is error in the process. But it's not consistent. The published results do not reflect a consistent source of error. I was like you, David, even as a YEC. I thought the scientists were thorough enough to check and double check their numbers to make sure they would work. I believed that for many years. Even though I never agreed with the dating methods being true, I thought these scientists were smart enough and professional enough to make sure it internally was sound. And I was wrong. And those I've shared this with were in just as much shock as I was when I started crunching numbers. They knew it was off, but certainly not to the extent I have been discovering.

What does YEC suggest about these issues? The RATE project has some pretty decent suggestions. But considering no one can ever know the initial starting values of the isotopes nor can anyone prove that the daughter isotope present is there purely as a result of decay of the parent isotope, the methods have MAJOR issues. Decay is not the issue. Using it as a dating method is. Though I'm not convinced the half-life, especially of the deep time isotopes are actually valid.

David J. said...

You are still failing at addressing my point about the difference between a relative error and an absolute error.

Here's a hypothetical problem to see if you understand the issue:
1. The measured rate of K-Ar decay is 100% accurate.
2. After formation of the sample, there is no contamination from outside sources.
3. The rate of decay is consistent.
4. The method for testing the ratio is 100% accurate.
5. A 100 year-old sample is dated at an apparent age of 200k years based on the ratio of K to Ar, due to an unexpected ratio at formation.

Given these assumptions, what will the error be (in number of years) if the sample is tested in 50 million years?

Charlie said...

David, if you have a 100 year old sample and it dates 200K years old, that is 0.05% accuracy. In 50 million years, it would date to 100,000,000,000 years. That's 100 billion years. When #5 shows up, it SHOULD make you question #1-4. You are trying to suggest that 100 years out of 200K is insignificant over the span of 50 million years. But you fail to grasp that you are changing rulers when you make that jump. If a method is going to be reliable, you need to use the same type of ruler. You cannot use mile-markers as a ruler to measure inches. I have heard this from COUNTLESS radiometric dating supporters. That is why they are so up in arms when we bring up these issues. Because it proves their scales are messed up. Using K-Ar to date a historical sample is akin to measuring inches with a measuring rod where a mile is the smallest unit. This is what you are not getting. If K-Ar can accurately date a historical sample is CANNOT date anything in the billions of years. Because too many half-lives would have progressed. That is why C-14 only goes so far. No scientists allows for much more than 10-12 half-life iterations and if K-Ar can date historic samples, that means the half-life cannot be 1.3 billion years. But I'll take a deeper look at your source. If K-Ar can date historical samples, I'll mathematically calculate how far it should actually go. If the method is as it says, I will say that is bunk because we simply did not at the time have the technology to detect that little difference in amount of decay. I can't promise when I can get those figures done because I am a very busy guy with work and in particularly trying to get my third novel edited and submitted to my publisher by end of this month. But I'll included that in my calculation lists to see how and if it can work and what the figures SHOULD read if such dating results are valid. Just remember, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

David J. said...

Yes, #1-#4 should absolutely be questioned, but I was just testing to see if you have a basic understanding of the math, and now I see that you don't (or you simply misread my post, or I made an error). Given the assumptions I listed, even after 50 million years, the apparent age would still be off by 200k years. Back to my stop watch analogy: if the stopwatch started with a time of 5 seconds, it would measure the 10 second dash as 15 seconds, and a 10 hour (36000s) marathon as 36005s.
The absolute error stays the same, but the relative error changes.

If on the other hand, assumption #2 or assumption #3 were the variables, your answer would be more correct. #3 is very unlikely, as scientists have tested the isotopes used in dating, and I don't think they've been able to affect the decay rates by even 1% by applying extreme pressures or very high or low heat, or observed any other natural cause that can affect it.

//Using K-Ar to date a historical sample is akin to measuring inches with a measuring rod where a mile is the smallest unit. This is what you are not getting.//

I understand. K-Ar is useless to date recent things, because the error bars are so huge. I'd guess that the error bar as a percentage of the overall age is smallest at about 1 half-life.

//Just remember, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.//
Just remember, you don't distrust all clocks just because you've seen a few broken ones.

David J. said...

// But I'll take a deeper look at your source.// I don't like to engage in link wars with science I don't understand, but here is where I got much of my information: https://web.archive.org/web/20110629125430/http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html

And because many of your numbers were originally from Dalrymple, I read parts of a couple of different articles written by him:
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html#h8



Charlie said...

//I understand. K-Ar is useless to date recent things, because the error bars are so huge. I'd guess that the error bar as a percentage of the overall age is smallest at about 1 half-life.//

If you understood this, yet you cite sources that claim it can be done, something is seriously wrong. For K-Ar, 1 half-life is 1.3 billion years, supposedly. I do agree that the error bar would be smallest there because like standard deviation graphs, an error factor of say 2-5% would be least noticed right in the middle. But when all practical knowledge of the methods say it cannot test historical samples, and yet it gives ages to historic samples where it should not, that invalidates the methods.

//Just remember, you don't distrust all clocks just because you've seen a few broken ones.//

But when the broken ones come from the same manufacturer, you tend to not trust any from that manufacturer. I don't distrust all clocks. 90% of all possible dating methods actually demonstrate a young universe. It's only about 10% that suggest an old one. One of my favorites is the Earth's magnetic field where at a mere 20,000 years ago, it would be so strong that life could not exist because it make the earth too hot. Most scientists believe the only way to make the magnetic field stronger is via pole-reversal and according to evolutionary theory, the last one was about 780,000 years ago based on radiometric dating of magnetized rocks locked in place. So if the only way to make the magnetic field stronger is via pole-reversal, that means according to these studies, it's been decaying for the last 780,000 years. Using the same style of studies used for radiometric dating, (measuring the decay as long as we've been keeping records) the earth's magnetic field has a half-life of about 1400 years. Not a problem for YEC. MAJOR problem for any old earth model. And one conveniently often ignored. One issue that the RATE Project has with suggesting accelerated decay during the Flood is the amount of heat involved. This is frequently brought up, but they are working on solutions to deal with it. One possible solution is expansion of the universe which would take away that heat. I'm not entirely how that would work at this point, but they are working on it. When I see Evolution attempting to deal with its issues, they either ignore it entirely or they come up with a ridiculous rescuing device that has no evidence for it. RATE actually has a source for their suggestion of universe expansion in Scripture. When the issues of comets are brought up, evolutionists have suggested the Oort Cloud which has never been observed. I honestly don't think it actually exists. So I don't reject all clocks because I've seen a few broken. But I do reject all clocks made by the same manufacturer that tend to rarely, if ever, be right. I reject radiometric dating clocks. But I have a clock that has been right 100% of the time. That clock is found in Scripture. It has never been wrong once.

David J. said...

Why do you continue to ignore my point about relative vs. absolute error?

Charlie said...

Why do you continue to ignore my point that a historic sample should have a reading of ZERO, an unmeasurable amount? There should be no reading AT ALL. Absolute error does not apply here if the scale is faulty to begin with.

Charlie said...

The issue is not "I'm off by five seconds and that is insignificant over a long period of time." The issue is "I'm trying to measure a couple miliseconds, my scale's smallest unit of measurement is seconds, and I am getting readings in seconds."

David J. said...

//Why do you continue to ignore my point that a historic sample should have a reading of ZERO, an unmeasurable amount? There should be no reading AT ALL. Absolute error does not apply here if the scale is faulty to begin with.//

In two thirds of his tests, Dalrymple found the results were essentially zero. In the other third, he found that the apparent age was greater or less than zero. This show that sometimes the amount of K and Ar when the rock solidifies is slightly different than expected. Does this make sense to you? Do you accept that it is good for scientists to test their assumptions about the starting amounts of each isotope?

David J. said...

I think your scale analogy is faulty for the topic we are discussing.

Imagine there were 24 trucks, and each one of them was carrying a container with 1000 gallons of water. On the way, 4 of the trucks hit a bump in the road and a about a gallon of water sloshed out of each of the containers. Another four trucks passed though a rainstorm and an extra gallon of water or so fell into each of the containers.

Each of those containers is put on a separate scale in a controlled environment so we can measure the rate of evaporation.
The scales are accurate to the weight of ± 0.5 gallons of water.

The scientists have previously measured that about 2.00 gallons of evaporation happen each 24 hour day.

The scientists first check the scales about 5 minutes after the test is started. Wow, four of the scales already show that there has been an evaporation of somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 gallons of evaporation when practically zero evaporation was expected!

In four of the trials the starting amount of water was 99.9% of what they predicted, but when they tested the rate of evaporation after 5 minutes, the evaporation rate was off by a factor of between 72 and 216. When they test 250 days later, though, the calculated rate of evaporation was over 99% accurate.


Charlie said...

David, your water truck analogy does not apply here. You understand the difference between absolute and relative error but you do not understand how to apply them. You CANNOT, EVER, have a scientific value and an error greater than that value and be called good science. You have suggested that you can have a rock that is 100 years old with a +/- range of 200,000 years. This is scientifically absurd. Your water truck analogy does not apply here because you are dealing with a large amount with a small error range. That would be akin to have a 200,000 year old rock dating to 100 years old. The REVERSE of what you have suggested and the REVERSE of what these samples suggest.

Let me use another analogy. Rain gauges apply greatly here because each rain drop is analogous to the radioactive decays. When we get rain less than 1/100 of an inch it is called either a trace of rain or no rain at all. A historic sample with K-Ar should in absolute best case scenario only register a trace. Enough to detect and say it is not zero but no enough to give an actual value too. The problem is when you have a trace of rain and your gauge says you just got 3 inches. That's not a problem of absolute error. That's a problem of your gauge.

This is another aspect of the mathematical research I've been doing. I have been unable to trace numerous samples (same sources and same dating method used on said sample) through a consistent scientific process where you have a consistent source of error. And this is part of the process that has forced me to question if the methods are even scientific at all. I was accused of being fake when I said radiometric dating methods are fake. My comment was not careless jab. The research I have done so far has led me to this conclusion. I have found NOTHING pointing me in a different direction and I've been LOOKING for such evidence. I've been trying to find anything I can to break the conclusions of my analysis and I'm not finding it. As as I said before, I thought similar to what you do now. I thought these guys were pretty accurate on their stuff and their key errors lie in the assumptions YEC has been pointing out. But the math I've been working out is giving pretty solid evidence that their claims are legit.

ashleyhr said...

"Did you ever seen the results of the moon rock samples? 90% of them do no agree with the Evolutionary suggested age of the earth. Most of the results are all over the place, and some of my analysis uses the same rocks samples using the same methods and the results are anything but consistent."

I would be grateful if you could supply further details including a link.

"90% of all possible dating methods actually demonstrate a young universe." I would be grateful for a link that is not from a YEC apologetics website. If such exists. NB I assume you meant to write Earth rather than universe since we have previously been discussing EARTH ROCKS?

"One of my favorites is the Earth's magnetic field where at a mere 20,000 years ago, it would be so strong that life could not exist because it make the earth too hot...". Ditto my requests above.

I also thought that scientists believed that a weakening magnetic field as has been measured in recent decades/centuries might be associated with a ('forthcoming') pole reversal. Not a stronger magnetic field being associated with such. Or were you saying that if there is a pole reversal in future, then the Earth's magnetic field might become stronger again?

"it's been decaying for the last 780,000 years" Is that what YECs claim would have been the case (if Earth was 'really' as old as scientists have determined? I'll bet nobody is insisting that this is so. The YEC argument on earth's magentic field appears based on a uniformitarian assumption even though normally they absolutely DECRY uniformitarianism (the same applies with respect to the recession of the moon from earth; Prof Tertius of the bible.and.science.forum challenged Tas Walker on this but the latter seemed unwilling to engage by all accounts - so this point does not really originate with me).

And HOW could the Earth's magnetic field possess a 'half-life', Charlie?

"One issue that the RATE Project has with suggesting accelerated decay during the Flood is the amount of heat involved. This is frequently brought up, but they are working on solutions to deal with it. One possible solution is expansion of the universe which would take away that heat. I'm not entirely how that would work at this point, but they are working on it. When I see Evolution attempting to deal with its issues, they either ignore it entirely or they come up with a ridiculous rescuing device that has no evidence for it." The Irony.

Perhaps Charlie will tell us what the "ridiculous rescuing device" was. And explain briefly how the rescuing devices so far put forward by RATE have never been the slightest bit ridiculous.








David J. said...

Forget the analogy. Explain where my math is wrong in my hypothetical K-Ar problem. Why do you see an error of 100b and I only see an error of 200k?
I kinda wanna make a computer program that you can select values and show an animation of what I am trying to explain.

David J. said...

// Only in YEC-dom does a half century old book of "science" get reprinted as an anniversary edition without any error corrections or updating of the "science".) //
http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Of-Species-Anniversary/dp/0451529065

Charlie said...

For someone who mopes around on a wheelchair (I know several people who are wheelchair bound and are far more productive with their lives than you are, Christian and non-Christian alike) these last few comments are telling. I have been VERY busy lately. I do have a job, and I have other projects going on, some on contract, that simply take a significant higher priority than you do. Can I answer your challenges? Yes I can. Will I? No. Because you've demonstrated you have no interest in hearing if I do or not. It does not matter what I post, you are still going mock it and call me a liar. That's all you've done this entire series. I'm not going to let you dominate my time, my energy, or my resources. I simply have better things to do and answering your challenges is not high on my priority list right now. I've got someone I've been having a nice pleasant private conversation with who is not a believer and he's much more worth my time because he actually has ears to hear what I have to say. You don't. You have demonstrating both a lack of interest and inability to carry an intelligent conversation and I'm simply not going to bother with you any more.

David J. said...

Two points about Charlie's post on Facebook that Ashley quoted.

1. In Charlie's mind, anyone who understands the Bible and YEC would never leave it. Therefore, anyone who has left the Faith/YEC never understood it.

I'm sure that in Charlie's mind, David MacMillan never understood YEC, even though he wrote a couple of articles for the AiG website. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/07/understanding-c-6.html

Bill Seng accused me of lying after my short testimony posted at this blog ("Your claim is a bold faced LIE")

2. I doubt that 98% of the commenters at the AiG Facebook page understand the Bible and YEC to Charlie's standards. I bet many of the former evangelicals and YECs that Charlie speaks of could explain the Bible and YEC better than the vast majority of commenters on the AiG page.

David J. said...

I did some calculations here: http://www.shodor.org/unchem/advanced/nuc/nuccalc.html2
Please tell me where my error is.

A ~1 part in 10000 initial contamination can give a 1000 year old rock an apparent age of 200,000 years when using K-Ar:

10000 moles after 200k years = 9998.934 moles remaining
9998.939 moles after 1k years = 9998.934

But a 1 part in 10000 initial contamination gives a 49.8 million year old rock a date that is only off by 0.4%

10000 moles after 50m years = 9736.927
9998.939 moles after 49.801m years = 9736.927