Young Earth creationism

Young Earth creationism

Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer – Please update your browser. This site uses cookies. You can disable them, but certain site features will no longer work correctly. If you already have an account, Sign in. This item is backordered and will be available for shipping on. Non-returnable item. Checking for included items. Checking for discount packs.

Rebuttals to Presented AIG “Evidence”

The rock walls were slippery and steep at points, and some people came in their dress shoes straight from the conference that brought them together. Let me see that. A brightly painted sign in the state park explained that million years ago these ancient creatures lived at the bottom of a warm, shallow sea during the Ordovician period. But none of these geologists believed it. As young-earth creationists, they think the earth is about 8, years old, give or take a few thousand years.

Creationist ideas about geology tend to appeal to overly zealous amateurs, but this was a gathering of elites, with an impressive wall of diplomas among them Harvard, U.

Questions & Answers. Is the earth billions of years old or just thousands? Are radiometric methods of dating rocks and fossils reliable? What evidences support a.

Scientists use certain elements present in a certain abundance to calculate an approximate age for rocks. One of the decay ratios used is Uranium decaying through a series of alpha and beta decays to Lead. The number in superscript preceding the element name indicates the atomic mass, the sum of its protons and neutrons. Alpha decay releases a Helium nucleus two protons and two neutrons from the parent atom to create two atoms: the released Helium and a daughter product that has an atomic number two less than the original and an atomic mass four less than the original.

Using the amount of the remaining Uranium, the amount of Lead that has built up, and the original amount of Lead which is not created by any known decay process, scientists can calculate an approximate age based on the decay rate of Uranium and the ratios of Uranium to Lead and Lead to Lead. Some creationists claim that there is too much helium in Earth’s crust for the earth to be any more than two million years old Sarfati, If Earth has existed for billions of years, there should be little helium left in deeper rocks as a result of radioactive alpha decay.

They claim that if God had created the Earth with initial Helium in the atmosphere, the maximum age would be even lower than two million-perhaps even as little as 6, years Humphreys et. The RATE Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth project, cosponsored by the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, and Answers in Genesis, claims that the amount of helium present in minerals at different depths of the earth’s crust is too high to support day-age or evolutionist theories about an old Earth.

They sent rock samples to a lab for helium diffusion tests, and their results were that the rock samples have too little resistance to the diffusion of Helium through the rock for the age to be greater than at most two million years. The conclusion reached by the RATE project as to the reason for the increased amount of Helium is that sometime in the past few thousand years there was a period of increased radioactivity DeYoung, , A fundamental problem with this hypothesis, however, is that the amount of energy released during the accelerated decay proposed by RATE would potentially be enough to evaporate the oceans and melt the Earth’s crust Ross, , The samples RATE tested were from a borehole sample retrieved in with no statement made as to the storage or collection conditions of the samples.

Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the bible? – Answers in Genesis

Six research scientists with specialized training in Geology, Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Physics met to report on research completed over the past year. They also discussed plans for future activities. An initial approach taken by some of the investigators is to explore models for accelerated rates of decay of radioisotopes during Creation, the Fall, or the Flood. Several sources of data suggest that significant quantities of radioactive decay have occurred during the history of the earth and cosmos.

The conventional age model assumes that this decay has occurred over billions of years at constant rates rather than in concentrated episodes over short periods of time.

Andrew A. Snelling, Answers in Genesis, PO Box , Hebron, KY USA, dating methods to render the resultant ages as not absolute (Faure.

Andrew A. This is the question AIG received:. Good question! You are, of course, quite correct that, based on the authority of the Bible, God created the universe in six days, and therefore, all the original matter God created during those six days should be relatively the same age. Subsequent to the Creation Week, the history of the earth unfolds in the book of Genesis with the Curse and then, about 1, years later, the cataclysmic global Flood in the days of Noah.

Thus, billions of plants and dead animals were buried in rock layers laid down by water catastrophically all over the earth. In a relative sense these rock layers are therefore younger than the rock layers created by God during the Creation Week. Similarly, during the Creation Week there was a sequence of events over those six days during which God created the different components of the universe and the earth.

Answers in Genesis — Creation Geology

Before we begin, it should be explained that AIG believes the Earth to be around 6, years old- a number they arrived at by tracing the Biblical history. Very eager to attack the validity of radioactive dating methods, AIG questions radiocarbon dating. However, AIG claims that scientists have found diamonds projected to be over 50, years old with C Therefore, AIG proposes this is proof that C dating techniques are wrong and the earth cannot be that old.

It then sites a paper by Dr. A Snelling as proof.

Matt’s style is to post a link from a creationist web site, usually Answers in Genesis, Concordia (U/U) and uranium/thorium Concordia (U/Th) dating methods.

A study published Jan. After scientists extracted the DNA, they dated it to approximately 11, years ago, according to common evolutionary dating methods, and discovered commonalties between the harvested genome and the DNA of modern Native Americans. Researchers also found the ancient infant girl had ancestors in East Asia some 35, years ago according to evolutionary dating methods. But other details of the find, he noted, corroborate the account in Genesis 11 of mass human migration following attempted construction of the Tower of Babel.

But he discounted the evolutionary dating methods used by many secular scientists because they allegedly are inconsistent with one another and based on unverified assumptions. Other believers known as old-earth creationists also claim God created the universe by direct action, but much longer ago than young-earth creationists contend.

Circular Reasoning in Dating Methods

Today, though, a friend of mine shared this youtube video from AiG about radiometric dating, and why it is supposedly unreliable for determining the age of rocks. Now, I am not a scientist, and most scientific discussion makes my eyes glaze over. My brain is wired for literature, poetry, and Biblical Studies. As I watched this short video, though, a few thoughts popped into my head that I just have to share.

about the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project, providing a young-Earth creationist perspective on dating techniques like radiometric dating​.

Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava properly called magma before it erupts fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios.

Such processes can cause the daughter product to be enriched relative to the parent, which would make the rock look older, or cause the parent to be enriched relative to the daughter, which would make the rock look younger. This calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into serious question. Geologists assert that older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older.

But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column, which is open to question, this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down.

A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger. The general idea is that many different minerals are formed, which differ from one another in composition, even though they come from the same magma.

The mineral makeup of an igneous rock is ultimately determined by the chemical composition of the magma from which it crystallized. Such a large variety of igneous rocks exists that it is logical to assume an equally large variety of magmas must also exist.

Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research ICR have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.

This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters.

Dating methods answers in genesis – Join the leader in rapport services and find a date today. Join and search! Rich man looking for older woman & younger.

A quick flash to a chart during the debate purportedly showing so, and far too much to read in a second, and then on to somethig else. Gish Gallop springs to my mischevious mind. So did Ham have a point that a piece of year old timber was found in a rock purportedly 45, years old? My sympathies lie completely with the currently accepted scientific methods of dating rocks, the Earth, the universe … but, and it is a discussion, is there room for doubt?

Without the reference to the alleged finding, it is impossible to be specific. Report abuse. Rocks are usually millions of years old… unless we are talking about lava rocks…. Ken Ham seems to be referring to a geologist named Andrew A. Snelling, who also happens to be a young earth creationist. He posted an article on the Institute for Creation Sciences on this topic.

Radiometric dating revealed the wood was only about 45 years old. His argument is of course that this does not make sense. In essence, he is arguing that radiometric dating is bullshit and hence we should accept that young earth creationism is true. If this was truly of such significance as he claims I think it would gather a lot more interest.

Radioisotope Dating of Rocks: Challenging an Icon of Evolutionary Geology – Dr. Snelling Part 1


Comments are closed.

Hi! Do you want find a partner for sex? Nothing is more simple! Click here, registration is free!