MODERATORS

The age of the earth is a central issue in creation -evolution discussions, because a young earth would not permit enough time for evolution to occur, and an old earth would contradict a literal reading of the Bible account of creation. The belief in an old earth is based on conventional dates for geological periods, which are in the hundreds of millions of years range, and are obtained by isotopic dating methods. Standard isotopic radiometric dating techniques typically yield such dates on fossil-bearing strata. There are, however, numerous disagreements between dates produced by different isotopic dating methods, and there are many cases where the dates obtained are very different from the expected ones. Furthermore, geologists are aware of a number of factors that can cause radiometric dating methods to give bad dates, and these factors are sometimes difficult to recognize. This already casts some doubt on isotopic dating methods. Creationists have given evidence that the geological column is much younger than hundreds of millions of years, but until now they have not had a quantitative method of measuring the age of the fossils or the geologic column. Nor have they had a uniform explanation for why isotopic dating methods give such old dates. This has put creationists at a disadvantage in discussions of dating issues, and also has been an obstacle in the widespread acceptance of a young earth. Now there are evidences that explain why isotopic dating methods yield such old dates on fossil-bearing strata.

The Toba Super Eruption, Polar Ice Cores, and Climate Change

The RationalMedia Foundation board of trustees election is completed and the results are posted. Thank you for your interest and participation! The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming. This article collects evidences that place a lower limit on the age of the Universe beyond the 6, to 10, years asserted by most Young Earth creationists YECs and the literalist Ussher chronology.

Prior to his full-time ministry in creation science he conducted 15 years of field research in cloud physics and weather modification for the U.S.

The topic of radiometric dating and other dating methods has received some of the most vicious attacks by young earth creation science theorists. However, none of the criticisms of young earth creationists have any scientific merit. Radiometric dating remains a reliable scientific method. To broaden your learning experience, we provide links to resources on other old earth websites, noted below by this graphic – Article Submission Policy.

Roger Wiens. Are Dating Techniques Accurate? Isochron Dating , by Chris Stassen. Geochronology – Radiometric Dating Reappraised. Ar39 – Ar40 Dating – How serious are errors in Ar Dating and how good are their monitoring standards. Shotgun Attack – Woodmorappe’s efforts to attack Ar-Ar dating.

Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth

Earth scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Annually deposited layers of sediments or ice document hundreds of thousands of years of continuous Earth history. Gradual rates of mountain building, erosion of mountains, and the motions of tectonic plates imply hundreds of millions of years of change.

Radiometric dating, which relies on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements, provides accurate age estimates for events back to the formation of Earth more than 4.

In the GISP2 Ice Core, which was taken from the Greenland ice sheet, scientists counted , layers. They insist , years must have.

Naturalis Historia. A cross section of the Toba ash layer found in a valley in India. Helens released only 1 cubic kilometer of ash which covered thousands of square miles. This catastrophic event is thought to have produced global climatic effects possibly even wiping out much of the human population in the northern hemisphere. The challenge to young-earth creationism becomes apparent when we consider the date of the eruption 74 thousand years as we will see below and what the ash layers tell us about human history.

Because that eruption has been dated around 74 to 80 thousand years ago it generated a considerable discussion in the literature about how widespread humans were prior to these epic event and what this event might have done to those populations. You can learn more about these hypotheses and the challenges they present to young earth creationists in my prior post.

This open access article describes further efforts to pin down the date of the Toba super eruption. The importance of this date is that prior to this time the estimated dates of the explosion ranged from 74 to 80 thousand years ago.

Young Earth Creationism, Part I

There was a time when glaciers covered large areas of North America and northwestern Europe. Ice caps still remain in Antarctica and Greenland, along with many glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere. There are several lines of evidence that show the presence of ice sheets over much of northern North America in the past.

The age of the earth is a central issue in creation-evolution discussions, because a This has put creationists at a disadvantage in discussions of dating issues, and The researchers found atoms of a very rare isotope of iron, 60Fe, in cores When a comet is heated by the sun some of the ice vaporizes and dust escapes.

Creationist Comedy F. NOTE: This article incorporates revisions to the original in response to corrections and information supplied by Peter Knight, and by Sean Mewhinney via Leroy Ellenberger see e-mail message below. Revised August After describing how holes were melted into the ice until the planes were discovered feet deep, Wieland makes this curious comment: None of the discoverers had thought that the planes could possibly be buried under more than a light cover of snow and ice.

And why would they? Maybe because they didn’t bother to look at the available data for snowfall and ice accumulation for that area for the past 50 years. If they had investigated more thoroughly, they would have found that the ice in that area builds at a rate averaging 7 feet per year. Dr Wieland next proceeds to leap from the merely curious to the astonishing: After all, the impression the general public has is that the build up of glacial ice takes very long time periods – thousands of years for just a few metres.

Since when is “the impression the general public has” considered a valid basis for science or anything but the impressions of the general public? Wieland at first seems to be somewhat aware of that as he continues: In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years.

In that case, the metres of ice core brought up in Greenland in would only represent some 2, years of accumulation. Suddenly the thickness of feet of glacial ice near the east coast that was melted through by non-scientists to recover the “Glacier Girl” P fighter is being used to date ” metres of ice core” extracted deep in the interior of the Greenland ice sheet.

Has he opted for no more flim-flam about annual layers? Is Wieland funny, or what?

Who won the evolution debate? Bill Nye the Science Guy, or creationist Ken Ham? (Video)

No hatemongering We will remove any post or comment that argues that an entire religion or cultural group commits actions or holds beliefs that would cause reasonable people to consider violence justified against the group. Be Civil All Posts and comments must not attack individuals or groups. We will remove posts and comments that show disdain or scorn towards individuals or groups. While we understand that things can get heated, it is better for the quality of debate for people to combat arguments and not the persons making them.

Thesis Statement and Argument All Posts must include a thesis statement as either the title or as the first sentence in the post. All posts must contain an argument supporting that thesis.

Creation Update A podcast that delivers recent scientific findings with a connection to biblical TNRTB. Stay up to date with today’s new reasons to believe!

Does ice core dating really prove that the earth is much older than the Biblical creationist timeline as stated by Bill Nye? Watch the short segment on ice core dating and “the lost squadron” from “The Age of the Earth,” part of the hour Creation Seminar series available for streaming at www. Jump to. Sections of this page. Accessibility help. Email or phone Password Forgotten account? Sign Up. In honor of Resurrection Sunday, the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached and clearly explained in this two minute clip from “The Good Test.

Ice core dating creationism evidence

To support our nonprofit science journalism, please make a tax-deductible gift today. Scientists endured bitter winds to retrieve ancient ice from a blue ice field in the Allan Hills of Antarctica. Scientists announced today that a core drilled in Antarctica has yielded 2.

Also carbon dating isn’t perfect and has some flaws. But what about ice core samples. We can distinguish the different years in an ice core sample due to.

Our current scientific understanding places the age of the Universe since the Big Bang at In addition, scientists can date the age of our Solar System and Earth to about 4. In this series of blog posts, we review the scientific data that underpins these conclusions. However, there are small numbers of scientists who claim that both the Universe and the Earth are in fact more like 6, years old.

As we point out, those numbers are based upon an insistence that various numbers and genealogies found in the Bible are literally true. In this four-part series we summarize the extensive data from a number of independent sources that lead mainstream scientists to converge on the ages of the Universe and the Solar System. Then we contrast this with arguments by Young Earth Creationists. Furthermore, we provide links to articles and data sets that can be accessed by those who wish to follow these issues in more detail.

In part I, section 1, we summarize our current understanding of the origin and evolution of the Universe since the Big Bang. Some major milestones in the Big Bang Scenario are summarized in Fig. This is contrasted with the historical timeline advocated by Young Earth Creationists, given in Fig. In Part I, section 2 we summarize different methods that are used to determine the age of the Earth.

The first method is radiometric dating, a technique that utilizes the fact that certain isotopes are unstable.

Primate’s Progress

The American Biology Teacher 1 April ; 75 4 : — Biology textbooks tend to assert the correctness of evolutionary concepts but mention very little of the evidence that supports them. This gives the impression that evolutionary theory is poorly supported, which discourages acceptance of the theory. A case in point is the age of the Earth.

modern creationism evolved in response to geological discoveries. The following brief review rocks thought to pre-date the flood was widely considered to confirm this view. flood of ice. Particularly core and some kind of crust. Rocks that.

Should the scientific community continue to fight rear-guard skirmishes with creationists, or insist that “young-earthers” defend their model in toto? Donald U. Introduction This manuscript proposes a new approach for science’s battle against the rising influence in America of pseudo-science and the Creationist movement. The framework of Creationist Bible-based earth history, focusing on Genesis and the Noachian flood, can be assembled into a single geologic time scale Figure 1 , enlarged by addition of many geologic facts, difficult for Creationists to explain.

Figure 1 is an abbreviated version of the time scale outlined in the following paragraph which was redrawn and published by the American Scientist. Some of the items are so absurd that all but the most dedicated fundamentalists will see the overall picture as scientific nonsense, even bordering on humor, a most rare commodity in Creationist literature. Science, rather than using its traditional defensive approach of item-by-item rebuttal of Creationist attacks, needs to take the offensive by challenging Creationists to defend their “scientific” view of earth history as represented by this time scale.

Note that the numbered items in this Time Scale are further expanded in subsequent numbered sections which are keyed to these same numbers. Day 2 – Waters above and waters below. Day 3 – Earth’s crust and plants. Day 4 – Sun, moon, and stars in place. Day 7 – Day of rest.

Creation science

Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations To understand climate change, the obvious first step would be to explain the colossal coming and going of ice ages. Scientists devised ingenious techniques to recover evidence from the distant past, first from deposits left on land, then also from sea floor sediments, and then still better by drilling deep into ice.

These paleoclimatologists succeeded brilliantly, discovering a strangely regular pattern of glacial cycles.

(a, b, c) performs a reanalysis of the ice cores to demonstrate that the objections creationists make with regard to radioactive dating. The model.

Roger C. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. First edition ; revised version Radiometric dating–the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements–has been in widespread use for over half a century.

There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers.

Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating. This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another.

In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community. Doubters Still Try Apparent Age?

Ice Layer Dating

This does not imply that science is above the Bible Scripture. We accept that. We have adopted this approach.

The topic of radiometric dating (and other dating methods) has received some of Ice Cores. A Holocene Cold Snap In The Year 2, B.C. (Before Creation).

Should the scientific community continue to fight rear-guard skirmishes with creationists, or insist that “young-earthers” defend their model in toto? Donald U. Introduction This manuscript proposes a new approach for science’s battle against the rising influence in America of pseudo-science and the Creationist movement.

The framework of Creationist Bible-based earth history, focusing on Genesis and the Noachian flood, can be assembled into a single geologic time scale Figure 1 , enlarged by addition of many geologic facts, difficult for Creationists to explain. Figure 1 is an abbreviated version of the time scale outlined in the following paragraph which was redrawn and published by the American Scientist. Some of the items are so absurd that all but the most dedicated fundamentalists will see the overall picture as scientific nonsense, even bordering on humor, a most rare commodity in Creationist literature.

Science, rather than using its traditional defensive approach of item-by-item rebuttal of Creationist attacks, needs to take the offensive by challenging Creationists to defend their “scientific” view of earth history as represented by this time scale. Note that the numbered items in this Time Scale are further expanded in subsequent numbered sections which are keyed to these same numbers. Figure 1. GIF, K Figure 1.

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 65 Dating Assumptions