A Major Issue With Carbon Dating

People these days have blind faith in what scientists claim. The problem however is that there generally is not a consensus among scientists when it comes to new findings, or research methods. While it is generally claimed among scientists that Carbon Dating has been improved, over when it was first established, and can now be trusted at giving reliable ages, the reality is that this is far from the truth.

It is the methods at which one collects the data, which in this case is the 14C to 12C ratio within a carbonaceous substance, may have been improved, the fundamentals behind the concept of radiometric dating in general is flawed. Moreover, these fundamentals are more amplified in carbon dating as the atmospheric 14C to 12C ratio is not a constant as it is claimed. This is where the issue lies with carbon dating.

As with any form of radiometric dating, there are many assumptions that have to be made since the ratio of a parent to daughter isotope were not collected at the formation of a substance in question. While some radio-isotopes are calibrated via other radio-isotopes, causing a deviation in the accuracy, the claims that the 14C to 12C ratio has not changed over time is quite bogus. Moreover, it is these claims which allow scientists to use these techniques despite their accuracy. Therefore it is essential at better grasping the fundamentals behind each radio-isotope used for dating to know how to better establish accurate dates to ensure scientists base their research on proven methods and not on assumptions. However, since the isotopic ratios are not really known when an object was formed, unless scientists were there to determine the ratios at formation, then there is no real way to consider any radiometric form of dating viable.

The Big Bang And The Bible

Many people do not have a well developed creation cosmology. Either they believe that the waters above the firmament are clouds or a canopy of water that used to exist high up in earth's atmosphere or they embrace the Big Bang cosmology and end up believing an old earth view.

Although the discovery of the red shift lead to a Big Bang cosmology whereas the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation cemented it as the prevailing cosmology among old earth uniformitarians, there is no need to reinterpret Genesis 1 so that it conforms to a Big Bang Cosmology. This does not mean that the Big Bang Theory and the Bible agree with each other. Remember that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump and therefore a Big Bang cosmology is not really the means God used.

While the Big Bang Theory is the main cosmology embraced by old earthers, it is not the only one. The Quasi-Steady State Theory, Plasma Cosmology, Meta Model Cosmology, Variable Mass Cosmology, the Universe Cycle Model and the Aetherometric Model are other cosmologies used to explain inconsistencies with the Big Bang Theory. Many young earth creationists also have differing cosmologies based on their interpretation of Genesis as well as their understanding of the universe. For example, Dr. Russell Humphreys, in his book Starlight and Time, presents a cosmology based on a white hole, instead of a black hole (which he explains in his book). Dr. Jason Lisle, presents the anisotropic synchrony convention as a means to explain distant starlight and claims that gravitational time dilation embraced by Dr. Humphreys is not significant enough to explain distant starlight in a young universe. As a side note, the current observed size of the universe is too large even for a Big Bang cosmology where an accepted age for the universe is 13.7 billion years. Therefore, a better understanding of the propagation of distant starlight through the vacuum of space is warranted.

Due to the fact that there are differing cosmologies among both young and old earthers, it is evident that we do not yet comprehend the entire scope of the nature of the universe and much further research is required. Hopefully the insight gained from this video can provide one with a better understanding in how observations agree with the Bible, and inferences made by old earth uniformitarians from these observations defy logic.

Disclaimer: Since making this video, I realized cosmology which better explains how God created the cosmos. Stay tuned.

My Thoughts On The Ham / Nye Debate

Last month, Bill Nye and Ken Ham had a debate. I must say that is was quite a civilized debate. Unlike politicians, they did not resemble children fighting over a sand box.

They both had strengths and weaknesses in their arguments. Bill Nye seemed to be hung up on describing the Bible as a book written three thousand years ago. Ken Ham kept referring back to the earlier part of the debate where he explained Historical Science versus Observational Science. In certain instances Nye brought up some scientific arguments which Ham later had a chance to refute some of them.

It appeared as though Nye knew that he couldn't convince Ham so he focused on why he decided to debate in the first place as a plea to encourage more children to venture into scientific fields. He focused on the school children of Kentucky, where the debate was. It appeared insulting to the residents of Kentucky in him talking as though they didn't produce enough scientists.

While Ken Ham argued using scientific arguments he focused mainly on Biblical arguments. I remember how 25 years ago Ham would focus on scientific refutations against evolution and uniformitarianism. The past decade however, he has shifted to focusing on how evolution and an old earth view degrades society. He has also written books on the importance of Christians teaching children a strong foundation in creation before they head off to college and get corrupted by atheist professors. This focus is fine when teaching to church groups as he does quite often. However, when arguing against someone who doesn't believe in a Biblical world view it is vital to focus on the scientific refutations and then show how they support what the Bible says.

At one point in the debate, Ken Ham tried to explain the concept of catastrophic plate tectonics and mentioned how he is not well versed in that area. Naturally, John Bumgarner who has modeled the theory is.

One interesting observation I made from the debate was that at one point Nye listed a few arguments and later when Ham explained them it was as though Nye didn't hear them. For example, one of the arguments he mentioned was ice core samples going back to supposed hundreds of millennia. Naturally, Ken Ham later in the debate mentioned the Lost Squadron. While he said that they were found 250 feet below the ice after a few decades, some sources claim as deep as 268 feet. Both of these figures however can be correct if one measures to the top of the planes and the other to the bottom.

Nevertheless, towards the end of the debate Nye exclaimed that in order to convince him of a young earth Ham would have to explain and he lists his few points again. Didn't he hear anything about what Ham said concerning the Lost Squadron? It clearly indicates that the layers found in glaciers cannot be interpreted as individual years. It appears as though scientists are applying dendrochronology to glaciers. Of course it is also known that based on the climate and weather patterns of any given year, there are cases where one ring per year will not apply and it is possible for two rings to form in one year.

Overall, they both got some of their points across and not others-which is typical with all debates. Unlike politicians who are lawyers, they were discussing rather than arguing tooth and nail to get their way. If only politicians can learn from this debate.