See this page in: Hungarian , Russian , Spanish People who ask about carbon 14C dating usually want to know about the radiometric  dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history. Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering —the reason Jesus came into the world See Six Days? Christians , by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years. We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
References Generic Radiometric Dating The simplest form of isotopic age computation involves substituting three measurements into an equation of four variables, and solving for the fourth. The equation is the one which describes radioactive decay: The variables in the equation are: Pnow – The quantity of the parent isotope that remains now. This is measured directly.
The Deccan Traps and Reunion hotspot track are well explained as melting of delaminated, recycled continental mantle lithosphere and a propagating crack.
Although they also posed new questions, the thousands of satellite photographs brought back from the Moon have permitted us to map its surface with greater accuracy than Earth could be mapped a few decades ago. We now have over kg of rocks from nine places on the Moon, rocks that have been analyzed by hundreds of scientists from many different countries.
Data from a variety of experiments have revealed much about the Moon’s deep interior. As it turns out, the Moon is truly a whole new world, with rocks and surface features that provide a record of events that occurred during the first billion years of the solar system. This record is not preserved on Earth because all rocks formed during the first million years of Earth’s history were recycled back into the interior. The importance of the Moon in studying the principles of geology is that it provides an insight into the basic mechanics of planetary evolution and events that occurred early in the solar system.
Much of the knowledge we have of how planets are born and of the events that transpired during the early part of their histories has been gained from studies of the Moon. At the outset, it is important to note that we assume that the physical and chemical laws that govern nature are constant. For example, we use observations about how chemical reactions occur today, such as the combination of oxygen and hydrogen at specific temperatures and pressures to produce water, and infer that similar conditions produced the same results in the past.
This is the basic assumption of all sciences. Moreover, much of what we “know” about the planets, as in all science, is a mixture of observation and theory a mixture that is always subject to change. Scientific knowledge is pieced together slowly by observation, experiment, and inference.
British stages[ edit ] The Tremadoc corresponds to the modern Tremadocian. The Floian corresponds to the lower Arenig; the Arenig continues until the early Darriwilian, subsuming the Dapingian. The Llanvirn occupies the rest of the Darriwilian, and terminates with it at the base of the Late Ordovician. The Sandbian represents the first half of the Caradoc; the Caradoc ends in the mid-Katian, and the Ashgill represents the last half of the Katian, plus the Hirnantian.
Gondwana started the period in equatorial latitudes and, as the period progressed, drifted toward the South Pole. Early in the Ordovician, the continents of Laurentia in present-day North America , Siberia , and Baltica present-day northern Europe were still independent continents since the break-up of the supercontinent Pannotia earlier , but Baltica began to move towards Laurentia later in the period, causing the Iapetus Ocean between them to shrink.
Articles home page Creation vs. Evolution 0. Introduction and table of contents The following is an organized presentation on the creation vs. evolution controversy.
The Radiometric Dating Game Radiometric dating methods estimate the age of rocks using calculations based on the decay rates of radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium. On the surface, radiometric dating methods appear to give powerful support to the statement that life has existed on the earth for hundreds of millions, even billions, of years. We are told that these methods are accurate to a few percent, and that there are many different methods.
We are told that of all the radiometric dates that are measured, only a few percent are anomalous. This gives us the impression that all but a small percentage of the dates computed by radiometric methods agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found, and that all of these various methods almost always give ages that agree with each other to within a few percentage points. Since there doesn’t seem to be any systematic error that could cause so many methods to agree with each other so often, it seems that there is no other rational conclusion than to accept these dates as accurate.
However, this causes a problem for those who believe based on the Bible that life has only existed on the earth for a few thousand years, since fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be over million years old by radiometric methods, and some fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be billions of years old. If these dates are correct, this calls the Biblical account of a recent creation of life into question. After study and discussion of this question, I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found.
I believe that there is a great need for this information to be made known, so I am making this article available in the hopes that it will enlighten others who are considering these questions.
Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: A Biblical and Scientific Critique of Young
Primary source references As a preface to this document, I want to point out that it is a shame that we have to continue to refute the same arguments that evolutionists keep bringing up over and over again in their attempts to argue against the fact of creation, which fact has been well established since the day the earth was created ex nihilo several thousand years ago.
It is also a shame that the masses have bought all this based on some circular reasoning about fossils, where fossils tend to be found buried, similarities between various life forms, the presence of certain decay products in rocks, and other inherently speculative arguments about the past, based on phenomena that exist in the present. If I hope to accomplish anything, it will be to simply encourage critical thinking.
One must get past the arguments ad populum that its popularity counts for something , ad hominem that if you attack the person making the argument, this counts for something , and especially ad baculum that there are people who have the clout to decree it as true , to ask the key questions and challenge the unsubstantiated assumptions and thinking of those who would hold to the evolution position.
Join Origins host, Ray Heiple as he welcomes, Dr. Georgia Purdom for, “Natural Selection is not evolution.” The engine that drives Darwinian evolution is natural selection.
USGS Paleontology glossary Acritarch microscopic organic structure from any of a number of organisms; common during the Proterozoic. Adaptive radiation, evolutionary radiation the rapid expansion and diversification of a group of organisms as they fill unoccupied ecological niches , evolving into new species. Age of Mammals term found in popular books on evolutionary systematics for the Cenozoic era, beginning with the Paleocene Epoch when following the K—T end Cretaceous mass extinction , mammals underwent a huge evolutionary radiation and thus replaced reptiles as the dominant life on Earth.
The Age of Mammals has in turn been replaced by the Anthropocene or Age of Man, Holocene when humans dominate every conceivable environment and most other life forms apart from weedy species are suffering a mass extinction Yes, I know humans are also mammals, so technically speaking this is still the Age of Mammals, but I tend to think of the Age of Mammals as a period of flourishing biodiversity.
MAK Age of Reptiles term found in popular books on evolutionary systematics for the Permian through to Cretaceous periods but obviously originating with Victorian discoveries of “antediluvian monsters” , when reptiles first mammal-like reptiles , then archosaurs and marine reptiles were the dominant life on Earth. Paleontologist Edwin Colbert wrote a popular intelligent layperson book with the same title. The Age of Reptiles was followed by the Age of Mammals.
The fresco sits in the Yale Peabody Museum in New Haven, Connecticut, and was completed in after three years of work. The Age of Reptiles was at one time the largest painting in the world, and depicts a span of nearly million years in Earth’s history. Painted in the Renaissance fresco secco technique, The Age of Reptiles was an important cultural influence during the s—60s, images of which are often found in earlier books on paleontology, and was also the model for dinosaur toys.
Despite its somewhat outdated view of dinosaurs presenting them as slow, sluggish creatures , The Age of Reptiles is still notable for its historical and artistic merit and as the largest natural history painting in the world. It has been an inspiration to many visitors including both Robert Bakker and Peter Dodson , who credit it with influencing them to become paleontologists.
How Old is the Earth: Radiometric Dating
Can science prove the age of the earth? No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.
I looked and looked for the methods explained and the data summarized in one place that leads scientists to confidence in the age of the earth.
Important We believe any unbiased reader will realize that we were fair with our treatment of the two models in the table above. Yet, although the theory of evolution matches the facts in some cases, evolution is still an unproven theory. By now, you may believe it should be your first choice also. Unlike many others that preceded us, we attempted to find a clear defense of evolution for two reasons: To keep from being accused of bias. To keep from making claims that someone could refute later.
Even though there are a great number of claims in books and on the Internet, we could find no scientific, testable facts that support the theory of evolution. The best site we could find was at The University of California at Berkeley. If you are interested, click here to examine the scientific evidence recorded at UC Berkeley yourself. It includes lots of pictures, links to other pages, and scientific names. The site is very interesting and informative.
These formations and therefore the river and community are called chat-a-wa-pis-shkag in Swampy Cree. The overall purpose of the project was to help the regional Council and its associations develop a strategy for natural resource co-management, self-government, and sustainable regional development. Their results published in , showed “that geographically extensive land use for hunting and fishing persists in the Mushkegowuk region, some km2.
Although the First Nations control only km2 0. The town or hamlet of Attawapiskat now covers 1. It is in the James Bay drainage basin.
Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better.
The sun, moon, and stars 2. The fish and the birds 3. The fertile earth 6. The land animals and humans 7. Rest and satisfaction In light of these correspondences, Kline interprets days one and four as different perspectives on the same event, and likewise days two and five, and three and six. He concludes that while the creation account is historical, historicity and narrative sequence are not the same thing, so the account need not—indeed, should not—be read as chronological at all.
And, of course, this nicely addresses Origen’s observation that days one, two and three could not be literal days before the sun, moon and stars existed to mark them and it also obviates the anachronistic modern question, relevant to all six days if they are literal, of the time zone by which God measured his evenings and mornings Garden of Eden Standard Time?
Of course, Kline’s interpretation can be disputed. For instance, Collins , while recognizing the validity of the parallel structure in the days of creation and appreciating the implication that the precise lengths of time involved and the precise historical ordering of events was not the author’s focus and is not a matter of deep biblical importance, nonetheless resists Kline’s effort to condense the divine “workweek” into three days told from two different perspectives rather than six.
Evolusie of Skepping
The enhanced detail of plate tectonic processes provided by these new data did not, however, result in such a dramatic advance as would have been expected. Hot spots and mantle plumes were by then firmly established concepts in explaining the observed linear chains of volcanic islands and in providing a super-deep mantle frame of reference the hotspot reference frame that was independent of plate motions at the surface.
Accumulating scientific evidence over half a decade and recent GPS-derived absolute plate motions suggest that both the mantle plume frame of reference and the age dependence along volcanic lineaments are not as strong as once believed. This article investigates the complex tectono-magmatic processes involved in the opening of the Central, Equatorial and South Atlantic Ocean and asks the simple question of whether there is an alternative tectonic model to explain the phenomena seen in the satellite gravity field.
The case is made that hot spots or mantle plumes are not necessarily required to explain the volcanic lineaments and that most, if not all, features result from deformational processes during the evolution of the plates. Such a model has a range of implications which, hopefully, can be tested to further refine the model.
A brief introduction to isochron dating methodology. The technique (and related ones) is widely used in isotope geology.
Outlook Other Abstract U-Pb radioisotope dating is now the absolute dating method of first choice among geochronologists, especially using the mineral zircon. A variety of analytical instruments have also now been developed using different micro-sampling techniques coupled with mass spectrometers, thus enabling wide usage of U-Pb radioisotope dating. However, problems remain in the interpretation of the measured Pb isotopic ratios to transform them into ages.
Among them is the presence of non-radiogenic Pb of unknown composition, often referred to as common or initial Pb. There is also primordial Pb that the earth acquired when it formed, its isotopic composition determined as that of troilite in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. Subsequently new crustal rocks formed via partial melts from the mantle. So the Pb isotope ratios measured in these rocks today must be interpreted before their U-Pb ages can be calculated.
Various methods have been devised to determine this initial or common Pb, but all involve making unprovable assumptions. Zircon does incorporate initial Pb when it crystallizes. The amount of Pb cannot be measured independently and accurately. It cannot be demonstrated that the initial Pb only consisted of Pb atoms. It cannot be proven that the Pb in apparently cogenetic U- or Th-free minerals is only initial Pb, and that it is identical to the initial Pb in the mineral being dated.
Nevertheless, the ultimate foundation of this U-Pb dating methodology is the assumption that the earth formed from the solar nebula.