I’m just a computer tech, so I can’t quote my own scientific findings. I have to rely on the observations/interpretations of others in a position to do so. I’ve been reading AIG extensively, and comparing it to what TalkOrigins has to say. They seem to be the two most comprehensive sources easily available to me.
I would honestly like to know how the creationists on this site explain what appear to be many scientific evidence that point to an old earth rather than a relatively young one. Buzz indicated that, perhaps, everything was created in place to appear old. I would like to know how this could be substantiated.
Since no one else has piped up, I decided to contribute by using AIG’s arguments. But just because I read them doesn’t make me an expert on all their supporting data, so I point you back to the article. Plus, it doesn’t make sense to copy the article here when I can provide a simple link.
The side with corroborating data from multiple fields and multiple independent variables. For dating, we have the corroboration of lake varves, ice cores, and tree dendrochronology. On top of that, we have the correlation of tectonic plate movement, erosion, biodiversity, and potassium/argon dating in the Hawaiian Island and seamounts. We have argon/argon dating of historical volcanic eruptions, the corroboration of decay rates in supernovae thousands of lightyears away, etc.
AIG shows the initial bias’s you have and how when you apply it to the facts it will effect how you interpret them. For example, if you assume there wasn’t a Flood (from the Bible) and the earth is billions of years old, then if you find evidence that points to Biblical creation in some way, you will throw out the data as faulty, contaminated, etc. If you assume God created the earth, sent a great flood, etc, then your interpretation will be affected in the opposite way. AIG explains this very well right here:
What Is Science?
| Answers in Genesis
I’m not talking about something unethical. We all have a bias of some form. If you think the earth is billions of years old, you will assume ice has been crushed down so much that each year is represented by a pencil thin layer. Each year would have been relativity the same as the year before it. If you think the earth is 6000 years old, and the flood/ice age happened then the climate would have been very different from today, the ice didn’t have time to compress to millimeters thick. For the trees: the moisture levels would have caused excessive numbers of tree rings each year. If you think there was no flood, then you wouldn’t expect tree ring growth disproportionate to today’s tree growth
What do the creationists use to date the earth? What corroborations do they use to date the earth at around 6,000 years old?
Creationists initially use the Bible to date the earth. We start with a bias of 6000 years instead of a bias of billions of years. In my first post, there is a link to things one would expect to find in a young earth. That link should give adequate corroboration to the young earth model (but not to the tree ring/ice layer discussion.). We don’t just assume it’s so because the Bible says so. Although we could make that assumption, because God’s Word is true. It’s nice to examine our faith, and God encourages us to do just that.
Jar has suggested I go to some of the various places around town. I’ve actually been to Taylor Falls and listened to their speeches and seen the evidence. The rock formations are incredible. The things that water can do are amazing. I’m sure glacier ice created those formations, just like it affected the whole area around where I live. What I doubt was the millions of years. I can’t perform my own tests.. Nor am I going to blindly believe a minimum wage worker reciting words he/she was trained to say.
As far as I know, there isn’t one dating method that shows conclusively how old something is. All dating methods must be interpreted, using assumptions about what happened in the past. It has to be corroborated with data that was gotten through measurements that needed assumptions made. It seems circular to me, using assumptions to back up assumptions.
Let me see if I can figure out what they are saying, ok? You can correct me where I get it wrong.
They suggest that there were 100's or 1000's of summer and winter like "seasons" each year for a very long time. These produced the correct isotopic ratios as well.
It seems AIG agrees with the first top 2000 layers, but after that, the opinions are different. I did some math and 110,000 divides into 2500 44 times, not 100’s or 1000’s. So they are saying an average of 44 assumed annual layers for one actual layer.
Here is a quote, AIG says it better than me:
quote:
On the other hand, creationists view both the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets as products of a post-Flood rapid Ice Age, plus additional ice added after the Ice Age (Oard, 1990). In this model, annual layers would be very thick in the lower portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet (the Ice Age portion determined by the oxygen isotope ratio) with decreasing annual layer thickness higher up in the ice sheet. Since the Ice Age ended about 4000 years ago, the compression of the ice sheet has been much less than uniformitarian scientists believe, but still substantial (Vardiman, 1993). So, one annual layer deep in the ice sheet may represent 100 or even 1000 uniformitarian ‘annual cycles.’ In this case, the claimed uniformitarian annual cycles represent oscillations that are much less than annual.
(Note: the quote above is from a link in my first post. Please see that article for the footnotes in this quote.)
And somehow they "seasons" produced enough growing time for tree rings or reasonable thickness to be laid down even though a season would last hours or days at most.
I addressed the ice issue above. The tree rings would vary so much due to the same climate changes the flood and ice age brought. If a tree had 10,000 rings, the tree can’t be older than the flood, so it is at most 4,500 years old. If the climate was similar to today’s climate for the past 3,500 years, that would give an average of 6.5 rings for 1,000 years., then 1 ring per year for 3,500 years after that. This is an oversimplification, but illustrates my point.
And these two very different ways of counting just happened to line up with each other?
And they lined up with other ways of counting (several others).
Sure. They were all part of the same planet. All experienced the consequences of the flood and ice age.
Then when we can compare actual historical dates, even back 2,000 years, the counts still line up to within 1 %.
They actually claim all this AND they don't give any mechanisim for how this could have happened?
Sure there was a mechanism. That was the climate changes due too the enormous amount of water, the change in geography that formed many land features we have today, and the ice age.
Now did all this happen only during the flood year? Perhaps you can fill in some more detail that seems to be lacking. Thanks.
Well it didn’t happen during the flood year. The ground was relatively flat before the flood. The waters rose for 40 days until they covered the whole planet. At some point near the end of the year, mountains rose, oceans sank, then there was an ice age. At that time, the climate around the whole planet was vastly different than what we have today. This unusual activity created the evidence you see. If you think the earth is billions of years old, you won’t see the evidence for what actually happened. You will fit the evidence into your worldview. If you think there was a flood, etc, then you can see the evidence for what it really is.
™ Version 4.2
