Replies

I appreciate the civil discussion you have provided on radio carbon dating. And your observation that I was commenting on several things at once is correct.

My Quote was: "In radio carbon dating it works on the basis of carbon 12 and carbon 14 atoms. The accumulation of one in life and their release upon death. And the other is slowly gained after death."

I admit it is a simplistic approach -- but in the 1980's the decay was described as a release of carbon 12. I was not aware of the half life of carbon 12 and 14 but it makes sense that there would be one.

And you responded: The ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14 is relatively stable in the atmosphere. All living things absorb carbon, and so the ratio in living things closely approximates that in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, the Carbon 14, being radioactive, decays over time--it is not released, as you state. With a half life of 5730 years, half of the original amount decays into Carbon 12 with each 5730 years. No additional Carbon 14 is gained after death. Other than your mention of the constant or the baseline that I mention earlier I see no disagreement between you and I on this other than the word choice of release and decay -- and decay is the release of atoms.

We move on to my next quote yet after a certain year in the 1700's the dating is noticeably off with items that historically were named and dated and then dated by carbon 14 and this shift becomes father and father off the farther back items are dated. Again I admit this is a simplistic explanation. Now we are both in agreement on the fact that the constant of carbon twelve and carbon fourteen has not been a constant and has risen by quite a bit over the last 50 years since it began to be measured. And so men have understandably sought to calibrate this -- and in bring that up you have acknowledged that there is an error that occurs and the margin of error increases over time. I will not put words in your mouth, But in my reading of studies on tree rings for the last twenty years I see there are trees with two and three rings per season and that was called not uncommon -- and I remember the day not to many years ago when tree rings were poo-pooed by science as having any reliability -- and that anyone who used tree rings to ascertain dates was roundly rejected. Now in saying that we do have data and I would say concrete data in these tree rings but there is a lot of question as to how rightly to derive true dates from these rings. And I would say since I live in Alaska and have had some interest in glacial varves or "ice core drillings" that here again we are dealing with layers much the same as tree rings and these layers are not necessarily indicative of a single winter season, but in fact they are snow seasons which here in alaska we have a period of snow for a month or so it lays off we have melting even at below zero temps and snow degradation and shrinkage occurs and dirt from the atmoshpere accumulates on that layer and then a few months later it snows some times inches or feet and so with any Alaskan year we can have 2-3 layers and this has shown up here in glaciers and their core samples that were built up during known periods of time say the last 50 years and at least up here this has thrown into serious doubt the traditional method of reading these ice core samples. This is not to say that the core samples are not concrete data but it is to say that the reading of it and interpretation of that data is what is suspect.

And we can say the same things for dirt core samples which were deemed unreliable decades ago. Your response was The dating is not noticeable off because radiocarbon dates are calibrated against the calibration curve, which accounts for atmospheric variation. This curve has been established using individual tree-rings from bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of California and from another site in Europe. It extends 11,600 years into the past. Beyond that, the curve is established on glacial varves, and goes in excess of 20,000 years. Again you and I more or less agree. But these dates used to correct radio carbon dating from tree rings and Ice core samples are not cast in stone and since the 1970's have been the subject of repeated revision and I can say with certainty they will change again and again as technology changes (I purposely did not say improve)And at least what I have read -- not from Christian sources but these dates I have seen them being revised upwards not downwards in other words fossils form my childhood have been growing younger and not older -- and this means little or nothing as we are speaking still of vast periods of time. Time I might add that would seem at face value to be incompatible with the biblical record. which I touched on in one of my posts.

And in looking over your comments to snippets I wrote I see we are much in agreement As to Dr. Libby of whom you said now is read on more of a historic basis and that would make sense

You state that there are attempts to make carbon dating more precise and deal with the margin of error that dramatically increases over time. We agree on that but we do not agree with the iron clad numbers that are now postulated of these tree rings and ice core samples. I will not put words in your mouth but I think you have also read of what I mentioned above about these core samples and rings as to how they are interpreted and the radio carbon dating of old objects being made "younger" rather than "older"

And you go on to sate that carbon dating can not be used past 50,000 years and I read that in Dr. Libby's writings decades ago.

And yet I believe this method of dating has been abused to come up with dates in the hundreds of thousands, and the millions to the general public for their general consumption to make either political statements (thats is what I view evolution as) and by these really old numbers they hope to attract federal grants and public financial support -- much as the environmentalists of our day skew their results to gain attention and market share of these coveted federal grants.

my statement -- Volcano's spew hundreds of tons of this and ozone depleting clorofloro carbons in a single belch. Mount Pinotubo in the Philippines in that one blast emitted more florochloro carbons that the us had made from the 1940's until the year 2000 -- (that was repeatedly posted here on FR) the carbon 12 emitted was more than the production of carbon 12 in California from 1900-2000 and the earth has had thousands of said eruptions -- how have those altered the ecology of the earth -- how have those altered the level of carbon 12 and carbon 14 by causing it to rise and rise? And again by how you respond we are in agreement on mount Pinatubo and these volcanic carbon 12 as well.

To which you added that carbon 14 being created in the outer atmosphere which I was not aware of. In either case both of these add to any discussion of any baseline of carbon 12 and 14 as being stable through time as a weak theory and the corrections over extended periods of time are like the supreme courts "last guess"

Your words Again, this shows the need for a calibration curve. But why would we worry about Carbon 12 being emitted from Mount Pinatubo? We worry about Carbon 14, which is created in the outer atmosphere.

I would hazard a guess that because of your vocation you have to believe more in your technology than you might if you were in a different field of trade, and I do not fault you on this. -- I only note this because in various careers and vocations I have had all required of me a certain amount of belief and loyalty. And in hind sight I would say several did not warrant either.

Things are so muck easier when we can discuss things in a civil manner. And we can see that we are not as far apart as appeared some posts earlier and that what I had said was not garbage -- so we will let that pass as part of the heat of the moment.

I will compliment you as having integrity in that you actually went back and looked over what I had said. There is no harm and no foul that we interpret some of the data differently and in time some of what we both say will be proved srong and some of it will be proved right and this is why I can not state my life on the shifting sand of science and technology

Others can and I do not fault them on that, it is their choice to make. To put ones faith in God and the bible is one choice, to put faith in men and science is another and there are hundreds of combinations in between. But to explode with rage over one choice or another does nothing and others calling each other idiots does not make for conversation and no one can learn anything in such confusion.

I don't expect that you would read on but i will add a bit more to this for the benefit of whoever may also read this.

Understand that most Christians because of the introduction of the Gap theory by Dr. C.I. Schofield circa 1900(who had an expertise in nothing) but on his say-so they do no believe in literal 24 hour days, but what they call "epoches" and "ages" and because of this unscriptural belief they will not be pinned down on this point.

What I am suggesting is that many who called themselves creationists no longer believe the bible but instead preach and teach the words and traditions of men in their place -- and this is not a good thing.

Unlike my counterparts I look up a lot in the original Greek and Hebrew and what I read is different than the King James Version account. And I will paint a thumbnail

In Genesis chapter 1 we have God creating earth in seven days -- whether they are our days of 24 hours or divine days as suggested elsewhere in scripture as a thousand years we can not tell. And neither would have any measurable effect to this discussion of carbon dating and evolution a this being a literal seven days or literal seven thousand years are not what is at stake here and will not alter this discussion one iota.

I think what alters the picture is it is what happens between God and Adam in Genesis chapter 2, and may be of some help in understanding or interpreting these words much like one would interpret tree rings or ice core samples.

As I have indicated I am not a fan on the current craze of Intelligent Design because I have no idea where the people in this are going with all of it. And the unpredictability of it makes me pull away from it.

Just as the father of cybernetics with his programing of logic questions is intelligent design because the designer was intelligent himself -- So in my mind everything that God has created from the smallest grain of sand to the wind that carries it to the rock it wears down in time all have intelligent design and I have little use for mathematical equations or algorithms -- but to some this may carry weight so I do not find fault with them. Lets just say I am more cautious as I have live to see many things go wrong when things are relied to heavily upon.

In genesis what I see in creation is that each thing that God created is unique. And that the intelligence of the design is far more than bumps and ridges or patterns on it, the intelligence to me is how all of this fits together and all of this interacts as one great organism that has live for thousands if not tens of thousands of years.

And regardless the boasts I read in my youth, evolution has yet to produce one single chain of species showing linear development. there are questions in my mind of DNA showing something as being an ancestor or simply being a relative or a distant relative.

Anyway in Genesis we see God living with Adam for an undisclosed period of time. And previously I mentioned that in Creation God had made everything in a state of maturity the trees fist birds animals all of them had been created uniquely and in matures states so in the case of the universe the oceans and the building blocks of these things the elements themselves -- would it not follow that these to were all created in matures states so that uranium and what ever are all unique and were created in their half life states from the start -- and therefore they would be inscrutable to the eye of science

I am a bible school grad and was a pastor some years back so what I am writing is more than mere musings - though I have been known to muse in my free time

You see there is this narrative that says that God said it was not good that Adam should dwell alone and that God would make Adam a help-meet

The word in Hebrew is not wife but one to stand with or a helper and so we read that God would form an animal in his hands before adam and and he would give it to Adam to see what he would call it. Consider now the criteria given "to be a help-meet" and to determine if one would be a proper help-meet it would take some level of conversation or fellowship -- now in chapter 3 of Genesis when the serpent speaks realize that Eve did not scream and say you spoke! The Hebrew implies more than the serpent spoke by adding the word cattle to the speaking population.

Now when I said Adam was create mature I do not mean he was created as a crotchety old man. I think Adam was created as a young Child perhaps around age 8 or 10 and I have some real reasons for suggesting that other than just some speculation on my part.

In my minds eye I see God create something for Adam and he squeals with delight and goes and romps off with the thing olls in the grass pets it fellowships with it and converses with it and over time Adam names the thing and returns to the father and reports to him that is was not a suitable help-meet and the bible says then God created something else out of the dust of the earth and Adam squeals with delight and runs off with that and this happens with hundreds if not thousands of creatures and implicit in this passage is also Adam naming all the plants and trees.

First lea me deal with these squeals of delight -- eden is a word that means "delights" and man as he his prone centers around his delights and so men say the Garden was created as only a delight to Adam -- but I see here and elsewhere that in the garden God delighted in his relationship and fellowship with Adam. And of this delight God loved Adam he was his beloved son -- salvation is based upon this love this delight and in the old testament and the new testament God is seeking not those with lip service say I love God but those in their heart and Spirit delight in Him for who he is not what he can give then.And further Christ constantly calls his followers children and compares believers to children and this is in hundreds of passages. It apparently is not large no one can see it. God longs for the relationship he had with his child and son Adam in the garden and seeks those who would seek Him in such a manner.

Now in the purpose of this discussion I believe in the timeless and ageless garden where no sin or corruption was Adam may have grown some but he did not change as in his hair did not fall out. But I think that in the Garden they entered into "a day with the lord is as a thousand years; and so that with each now animal God made and Adam delighted in time was passing to the tune of t thousand years for each day the child Adam spent with God if I understand the passage quoted.

And let me say that to this day we see the remnants of Adam's relationship with animals and there yet remains some communication however muted that would be

So we have this naming of thousands upon thousands of animals and everything else and that would have taken up quite a while

So what was going on outside the garden, not so much evolution but the population of the earth with trees seeds and then animals.

Anyway so Adam appears to have spent quite a bit of quality time with his Father.

Anyway my fingers are telling me I have said enough

I read with interest your post #1098, concering myself more with the 'religious' part of your post, rather than the larger part 'scientific' part...

I would say this...when you came to the part, discussing whether or not a 'seven days' , as opposed to a 'seven thousand years' time frame in Genesis, you state that its not what is at stake, and that it wont alter the discussion..but on this point I do think you are wrong...

Because there are many on FR, who do absolutely insist on the literal meaning of 'day' in Genesis, to mean nothing but a 24 hr day as we know it now...and they apply this to creation, as they see it....they will not accept that there are those(myself counted among them), who do affirm belief in the Bible, and also belief in TOE...we see God as the beginning Creator, who created, but not in the 'day' timefame as these literal reading folks would have us believe....

We are then told, we cannot at all believe in the Bible, if we shed the belief in the 24hr hour day...they post endless scriptures, and tell us that we are absolutely wrong, that our reading of the Bible is incorrect, that only they, the Bible literalists really know what the Bible is saying...and then they condemn us to Hell(not all of them do this, but enough do), because we refuse to believe in the Bible as they do...they tell us, simply by refusing to believe in a 24hr day of creation, we are calling God a liar, and for that we have earned eternal damnation...I find that whole thing absolutely revolting...

Whether the days of creation were 24hr 'days', or thousand year long 'days', or millions of years long 'days', is always under attack, and in the minds of some, incorrect belief on this point, is good enough to have Satan drag you into Hell...

Whenever a person says that they believe in God, believe in the Bible, and also believe that evolution as a process, may have been used by God the Creator, as a wondrous way of creation, immediately that person may find himself attacked for believing in such a way...they are called ignorant of Biblical teachings(and are immediately subject to reams of Biblical passages being posted), they are told they may believe in a god, but certainly not the God of the Bible, and other such stuff...

As I see it, you have people in many different categories...

1. Creationists who believe that the God of the Bible, created every living form in its present state, and did it in six 24hr days of creation...and also believe that the earth is only about 6-10 thousand years old...

2. IDers...who, from what I read, admit to a type of evolution, taking millions of yrs, but always want a 'creator' involved in the beginning...and perhaps a special supernatural creation of humans(giving them a soul)..and tho they are sometimes not willing to admit it, the want the creator to the God of the Christian Bible(tho some Iders have admitted it could just as easily be some other deity, who might even be dead or no longer exits...

3. Those who believe in TOE, fitting in nicely with God of the Bible, who see God as creating evolution as His own tool of the creation of living things(here I would include myself...would not this be a wonderful tool, to have God create the first cells, and from those first cells, allow his tool of evolution to proceed according to His Will, and produce the world around us today?

4. those who believe in TOE, and further, do not believe that there is a 'God', who created the first living cells...

I am sure there are many folk who have other categories to list here, I am new to this whole discussion on evolution/Creationist/ID...\

Perhaps one might see me as rambling...perhaps...but my point is, even among those who claim belief in God and belief in the Bible, there is so much disagreement when it comes to creation, including the time frame...for so many, their emphasis on the time frames that they derive from their own personal interpretations of the Bible, is of utmost importance, for they feel if another does not see the time frames as they see them, then that other person richly deserves damnation...I find this a hideous thing for one person to say to another, when in fact, what they are saying is that their personal interpretation is the right one(gee, do they have a phone line straight to God?), and all the rest of us are religious dunces, ready to be burned...

So altho the matter of the time frames may not enter into importance in all discussions of this matter, surely one must see, that they have a huge influence on how people come to their beliefs regarding creation and evolution...