Creationists, is this your chance to prove your truth, or maybe learn something instead..?

Question

Creationists claim dating methods are flawed when arguing against evolution and fossil finds, as well as other archeological disciplines. Below are a few of the accepted methods of dating used in science.

AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) Radiocarbon Dating
Archaeomagnetic Dating
C14-L
Cal-Pal
Chronological Analysis
Dendrochronology
Fluoride Dating
Luminescence Dating
Mean Ceramic Date
Obsidian Hydration Analysis
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio Dating
Paleomagnetic Dating
Potassium-Argon Dating
Racemization Dating
Seriation

Would creationists please:
1) Outline the flaws in each method..?
2) Explain why these independant methods all corroborate with each other..?
3) Is there a chance you have been spoon fed incorrect representations about modern mainstream science, specifically regarding flawed dating methods in this instance..?

These are direct and fair questions, so answer accordingly if you are able..

Answer 1

Dear, you do not believe. . .and that is your choice. There is nothing I could say or any evidence that I could lay out before you that would sway your mind. The burden of proof is not upon me. . .I have my belief. . .and it is through faith. . .one can not prove faith. I can tell you that the only tangible evidence I have are my experiences with the Lord, it is my personal experiences with Him that confirm for me beyond a shadow of a doubt that He is alive and very real. Until one has experienced it for themselves there is no other tangible evidence.

Answer 2

Although I have limited experience in these techniques (I am not a scientist, but a businesswoman) and as a whole do not attempt to discredit that which I do not know, I am familiar with a small sampling of these methods:

C-14-L: Carbon dating, I believe. Mathematical formulas trace the decay rate of carbon in a material- it decomposes at a somewhat stable rate, so the amount left can give us an age of when the decay first began. (There is a term I just can't remember it!!) I guess the trouble is the accuracy of the decay model used. (I just remembered! The term is "half life", right??!! :D My professor would be proud!)

Dendrochronology: Dating of environment by using rings of a tree. Does not take into consideration (for the most part) outside factors such as moisture and environmental changes that may affect the tree's growth pattern. Generally accurate since techniques have been refined.

*I am sure most will think I am some stupid redneck Christian but at least I am honest in my interpretations. I have not taken a Biology or Chemistry class in a few years, so my memory and understanding is naturally not as sharp as it used to be. I appreciate any clarification (as long as it is politely introduced) :0)*

Do I get bonus points for my attempt?

Answer 3

A couple of points here. First, just because a person believes in creationism, does not necessarily mean that the person does not believe in evolution. Creationism concerns the origin of life, while evolution concerns the origin of species. The scientific theory known as "The Big Bang" attempts to explain the origin of life, so it is better pitted against the ideas of creationism. Note that the "Big Bang" does not explain how matter/energy -itself- came into being...

Secondly, not all Creationists believe the Earth was created five thousand years ago. These are mainly fundamental Christians...who believe that the text of the Bible is to be taken literally, as in the same way one might read a history book. More importantly, not all creationists are Christian. Still more importantly, not all people who believe in intelligent design are creationists.

As for your scientific dating methods -- I can tell you right off the bat that two of them (the ones involving carbon dating methods) cannot reliably be used to date the age of the Earth. This is because the half-life of carbon is only about 5568 years; I'm sure you can imagine how much carbon must decay in order to date the Earth back -millions- of years. The practical limit for carbon dating is about 60,000 years. You can cross verify this. Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Perhaps the most you could say is that radiocarbon dating methods provide some evidence that the Earth was formed at least 5000 yrs ago, even if we don't know when exactly it was formed. However, remember that these dating methods themselves are still very crude -- normally, observation and experimentation yielding repeated results based on the same input -- these are key in science.

Thus, it would be one thing if someone were alive to test a carbon sample 60,000 years ago and at each successive 5,568 year interval -. then we could actually verify that carbon decays at the constant rate because we would know our starting amount and our present amount of radiocarbon. However, as it stands, no one has been alive 5,568 yrs ago to verify even -one- half-life iteration. We just sort of assume that the rate of decay of carbon is constant... perhaps this is not a particularly bad assumption, but just recognize that it still is an assumption, not based on direct empirical observation or testing. There could have been reasons why rate of carbon decay increased or decreased, for example, 3000 years ago; alternatively, our model may be wrong.

I think K-AR (potassium argon dating) would be a lot more useful than carbon dating, since the half life there is on the order of a hundred thousand years; again, however, it is subject to the same assumption we have made above, that the rate of decay is constant. Again, no one has been alive to empirically verify even -one- half-life iteration of K-AR.

The other technique I wish to comment on is dendrochronology -- this concerns looking at tree rings to determine age. One ring on a tree usually represents one year. I'm not sure how long you think trees tend to live; but this method cannot be used to date the Earth back millions of years. Unless either you knew for sure that the age of the tree -itself- was millions of years old; in which case, I'm not sure why you would need to look at 1 yr tree rings anymore; or unless you had a million year old tree with just lots and lots of rings. :)

I am not persuaded by your bald assertion that these dating techniques corroborate with the results yielded by other techniques. Carbon dating itself has on multiple occasions dated the Earth back only 1000 years.

I am not familiar with the other methods to comment on them. The most important thing for you to know, however, is just because the dating techniques have flashy, scientific names; does not mean these techniques are necessarily reliable, precise or accurate. In many cases, the techniques are based on crude methods, assumptions, approximations, derived models, and other forms of guesswork. As far as religious interpretation is concerned, you should not take everything literally; some phrases might just mean "a long time ago."

Answer 4

You can only accept these methods as truth if you believe that men are smarter than God. Since I do not, I know that the methods of man must be flawed because mankind is flawed. God is perfect. He can and does escape your traps.
How do you explain the finding of a human footprint and a dinosaur footprint in the same layer of sediment in a dried up river valley?

Answer 5

I may dissappoint you here, but I am no scientific genius. I am uncertain of what flaws there are in these systems, and if I were, it would take volumes to explain.

The main problem that I find in these accepted methods of dating is simply comparative. What basis is there for the creation of the numbers of years attributed to the items?

I'm fairly positive that there are no known fossils etc. that have been proven to be millions of years old (by proven, I mean someone was there to see it millions of years ago, documented this, and now we have it and the documentation today). Without such a guide to go by, how can scientists be certain that the years they give to fossils are positively accurate? I don't mean to imply at all that scientists are maliciously inventing numbers to foil creationists, but just that they systems which they are using are fallible.

Answer 6

Me knows me knows, the basic flaw they have is that since radioactive decay have some variation because of quantum factors, the measurements might be off a couple of years(LOL of course not enough to invalidate the findings).

The only flaw these methods have, is a small standard deviation of a couple of years.

Answer 7

Nice try, chum, but it's obvious you have yet to learn that being REASONABLE with believers is utterly futile. They believe for the simple reason that they have no solid basis for believing.

BTW, the age of the earth doesn't require scientific lab tests. Knowing how long it takes the tectonic plates to move a given distance, and knowing how far they moved is enough to know beyond a doubt that the world is incredibly ancient, in the billions of years, at a minimum.

Check out what Isaac Asimov has said on these subjects. What he said then is still relevant today. He said once, "you cannot reason with a person whose fundamental premise is that reason doesn't count." So much for reasoning with a believer. All you can do is feel sorry for his having been wazooed. Religion is a means of controlling people when reason and basic good morality aren't enough. Spirituality is not like that at all - it's healthier, nonjudgmental, makes no outlandish promises, but is satisfying, notwithstanding. Religion, in its essence, is anything but spiritual. It only feigns spirituality. I've lived with indigenous people for eight years now, and their spirituality is benign, gentle, and has a sweetness no religion has ever achieved.

The young think they CAN influence people with reason away from the inanities of religion, and I feel their anguish when they fail. But have heart! Religions ALL die out. The ponderous weight of their own inanities and irrationalities - not to mention their inherent evil - does them in every time. When I was young, the evil in Christianity was not apparent, but it sure is today, isn't it? It has gained political power, which is what religion is ALL about, anyway. But religions won't necessarily die out in OUR lifetime. It can take thousands of years, but it WILL happen.

What can take their place? Who can say? But humanity originally worshipped the Earth, because it was VISIBLY obvious to them that all life comes from the Earth, is sustained by the Earth all during its lifetime, and when it dies, it returns to the Earth - one way or another. That truth has never been challenged, because nothing CAN challenge it. We could do a whole lot worse than returning to an Earth Mother spirituality, even if we no longer would worship the Earth as an actual god. That is not necessary; simple reverence for that which gives us everything we are and everything we have or will have ought to be enough.

The Earth Mother is the most sucessful belief system in the history of mankind. It existed for tens of thousands of years. Wiping it out was the goal of those who wrote the Old Testament. Religions are still trying to wipe it out. If the earth is "only 6000 years old," that ancient spirituality could never have existed, you see. That's a major reason religious leaders want their followers to accept such an outrageous idea about the Earth's age. The last thing they'd EVER want to have to compete with is the Earth Mother spirituality again. The ancient Hebrews invented the god worshipped today - made sure to make it a MALE god, in order to discredit and wipe out the Earth Mother. They almost succeeded, too, and today's religious leaders are STILL trying to wipe it out.

The Old Testament was the essential beginning - the kernel of it, at least - for all of the major religions we have today. It also inaugurated the hatred of women. The Earth Mother had been highly satisfying to humanity across the entire landmass from the shores of France to those of China, and dipping well into Africa, as well, for more than ten thousand years. The genders had no reason whatever to fight.

Then something happened. Some new knowledge was acquired, and that led the male population to think it had been wazooed royally by ALL women for countless generations - they felt themselves the victims of a VAST female conspiracy - and their rage was towering.

That was why they invented a male god, "Yaweh," and set about supplanting the Earth Mother with this new god - by force, of course. They were trying to eradicate the Earth Mother from human memory. If it wouldn't have meant the end of humanitiy itself, they'd have probably genocided all females. That's how potent their hate was. Of course, there was no conspiracy at all. But the OT established male dominance over women for good and all, thus inaugurating the "war of the sexes." It has been thus ever since, and all of today's major religions are equally based on hatred of females and absolute dominance over them by males.

The war of the sexes had a beginning. It is NOT a default setting in humanity. It is LEARNED behavior.

And we have our "religions" to thank for it. So thanks, religion - thanks a whole pantload.

Answer 8

LOL...and, with this question, Christianity crumbles.

If only it was as simple as presenting the facts. There are a thousand different ways, all perfectly sound and legitimate, of demolishing the premises of Christianity. I've never seen a "Christian" upset in the least by any of them. If you're going to accept that the violent death of a magical carpenter 2,000 years ago has somehow relieved you of responsibility for your own wrongdoings and those of your mythological ancestors, logic and reason clearly do not play a large role in your thought processes.

Answer 9

I love the question. Unfortunately I lack the knowledge to answer.

Answer 10

Expect a lot of dodging the actual question, and the good old, never tired answer of "You have to have faith!" As if having faith actually answered the question!

Good question, by the way!