Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2009-06-03T02:28:51Z

Ebrianson: /* Creationism */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The real question is if all humans are decsended from only Adam and Eve, and all mutations are just a negative distruction of DNA and are the breaking down/ destruction of the perfection ( good and very good)created by god, why are there more than 4 allels at a given loci in the human genome? More than 4 positive phenotypes exist for many traits, some must be contigent on a single gene (not combinations of genes). From where did this genetic diversity arrive?
- on a side note last I heard "race" is not a very scientific term, as no given gene or combination of genes can define a race.As in there is not a single trait you can define a race by. Ex. not ALL negroid people have very dark skin, some actually very light (I'm trying really hard not to sound racist here. We can all agree any discussion of race is a touchy subject, best avoided...And thankfully science says races probabaly don't even exist)
-Damien Rivers

: Not all mutations destroy information. Many are neutral. That is, they can change genes to a different form that has no new function. Further, there may be some genes that are ''designed'' to vary, such as genes that control the production of antibodies. They wouldn't change so that they do something different than that, but they may change so that they can recognise different infections.
: As far as races are concerned, you are quite correct. Did you actually read the link?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

As for neutral mutations, of course they exist . Neutral mutations include silent mutations where the DNA sequence is changed but the amino acid sequence remains unaltered. Equivelent mutations, where the DNA sequence changes and the amino acid sequence changes as well, where the functional domains and the protein folding remains intact- allowing normal functioning of the protein ( ie. the changed protien conserves size, charge etc. of the amino acid substituted). However this is not what I was refering to. I was asking how creation science accounts for populations with more than four different DNA sequences at a sigle genetic loci, which result in more than four different amino acid sequences. I was specifically refering to cases where these protiens result in different, but positive phenotypes. The maximum number of these different phenotypes (coded from a single gene like discribed above) should not exceed 4 if the entire population descended from two diploid parents (as would be the case for animals from Noahs ark). This is of course only if you assume no mutations result in new positive allels(ie mutations that alter proteins to have a new '''positive''' function).
-Damien

: I think that we are talking about "neutral" and "positive" in different ways, and that is my fault for not being clear what I was referring to. I was using the term in the sense of genetic ''[[information]]''. So when I said that many mutations are neutral, I was meaning that they neither destroy nor create ''information''. Think of a cake recipe. The recipe contains ''information'' on how to make a cake, including a list of ingredients and instructions on how to put them together. Now suppose that someone wants a copy of your cake recipe, so you type out a new copy for them. But in making this copy, you accidentally change some of the information. There are various changes that could hypothetically occur. Let's just pretend that one of these changes adds information on how to ice the case (your recipe didn't include icing). This would be an ''information-gaining'' change (mutation). Of course this could never occur accidentally, yet this is what evolution proposes. Alternatively, let's suppose that you accidentally skipped a bit of the recipe, and left something out. This is a very real possibility, and is what we actually observe in living things: mutations ''destroying'' information.
: But there are a couple of other possible changes/mutations. Perhaps where the recipe called for 2.5 cups of water, you typed it as 2.8 cups. In this case, the change is not neutral the way you used the term (it is a real change), but there is no ''new information'', nor a ''loss of information''. It's merely ''changed'' information. It may even be a beneficial one if the original recipe was a bit dry. The remaining possibility is that the recipe calls for cherry flavouring, and you mistype that as sherry flavouring. So it's not a quantity that has changed in in this case, but a different ingredient. But it's only going to change the flavour; it's not new information like adding the instructions for icing is.
: So your allele change is more like one of the last two. It's not new information, just a change in information, so is neutral as far as information gain or loss is concerned.
: And to forestall what the next question might be, if your mistyped "flour" as "sherry", this is are more substantial change, but the result is that you no longer have a cake, just a mess instead. In this case you have actually ''destroyed'' the cake recipe, so this counts as a ''loss of information''.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Before I comment further, I would like to clarify then. Is it correct to assume nobody disputes that there can be changes to protiens where an "old" protein takes on a new function? (ex.1 a kinase protien mutates and gains the ability to phosphorylate a different type of sugar, or gains the ability to also dephosphorylate the sugar as well)(ex.2 only protiens that give rise to thick coarse hair and thin hair exist. Now the DNA that gives rise to thick hair is mutated to give rise to curly hair.. now all three can be found in the population)-- clearly 2 is a hypothetical ( I know nothing about human genetics for all I know these types Of traits are controlled by 12 genes)It's just an example trying to illustrate the type of change I'm referring to.

If these types of changes can occur,Then over time they would accumulate. At some point these simple changes would then cause groups to no longer be able to interbreed, gain the ability to metabolize new food sources, change skin and hair colour, change size etc. Eventually generations later(many many many later) would not resemble what the original parents started out as. I understand that creation science says baramin sometimes can no longer interbreed due to "degeneration of information" or some similar term, but at what point would it no longer be the same type of creature.

I've heard people say that this doesn't happen, but it works at the molecular level (changes like paragraph one of my response), we see it every day in labs. If you accept (again I suppose I don't know that you do) that changes like in paragraph 1 of my response do occur, why would they then not simply accumulate until the offspring of thousands and thousands of years later don't resemble the original generation.
At what point are these changes stopped from occuring/ accumulating? by what are they stopped? and at what point is this evolution?

In regards to new information I guess that depends on your definition of "new" as well. gene duplications occur all the time. These then can have their original functions altered ( see example 1 and 2) now the organism in question has 2 genes with two similar functions that are different and useful, and that can be passes on to subsequent generations. This second gene can be altered further or duplicated itself in subsequent generatons,(of course influenced by it's enviroment; it will not change or loose the only copy of something required in a given environment. Eventually the parent protein no longer resembles the desendent from thousands of years later.

Gene timming is also huge using the same protien in different ways. A promoter ( or operator)..or the proteins that interact with the promoter (or operator) can be altered. Now the gene is "ON" at a new time.At the molecular level situations like this are observed in a labs. Using your cake analogy this would be like taking melted chocolate that goes in with flour for flavor, instead on the cake.Not a "new" information exactly but a new use that would be a different product.Timing body plan genes (hox genes???) can create drastically different looking creatures.( duplicating body plan genes also has a large effect I believe?)

If these change accumulate,the creature looks and acts differently in a new niche, wouldn't it be correct to say this is evolution.

We may not have observed enough accumulated changes to be what you would accept as a complete new species , (It is very unlikely that we could have yet, due to time constraints ie. how long we have been observing) however, we have observed many of the molecular mechanisms. They wouldn't just stop working because over time it could/would lead to evolution.

As for where the first genetic information ever came from.. that is origins of life not evolution, and though there are theories, this is much less experimentally sound science at the moment.( not to mention a whole other discussion)
-Damien

: Whether or not an old protein can take on a new function depends on whether or not that new function is more or less specific. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2107/ A-I Milano mutation—evidence for evolution?] for an example that I think addresses the sort of situation you are describing.
: Gene duplication is not the creation of ''new'' information, but the duplication of ''existing'' information. Whether or not mutations to the duplicate gene count as new information is a separate question.
: Creationists accept that new species can arise. What they dispute is that such involves new information.
: Whether or not the origin of life is evolution depends on your [[definition of evolution]].
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I understand what you are saying about the shrinking room, but I have trouble accepting that the sizes of everything will change just because the speed of light changes. That is, I have trouble accepting that the sizes of things are ''dependent on'' the speed of light. And the speed of light ''does'' change when travelling through different substances (''c'' refers to the speed of light ''in a vacuum''). By the way, I don't plan on taking a course on physics at any university just to have this discussion with you, let alone one on the other side of the world!
::::: As for objects being more than 8,000 light years away, see [[starlight problem]]. If I recall correctly, far-away objects are measured by their red-shift, and/or by the apparent brightness of the brightest objects in galaxies.
::::: I think with the dating issue you are getting confused with my response to what I believed you were saying and what I was saying. Let's try this explanation:
::::: Radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent and daughter elements, and calculating from that ratio how long it has been decaying. Uranium decays through a number of steps to eventually become lead, so one way of dating objects is to measure the relative amounts of uranium and lead. However, one of the intermediate elements is thorium, so you can also measure the relative amounts of uranium and thorium. Therefore if the relative amounts of two isotopes of uranium, thorium, and two isotopes of lead are measured, then one should be able to determine the date from three calculations: two from the different uranium-lead ratios and one from the uranium-thorium ratio. You are arguing that because the two uranium-lead figures agree, the date is likely to be accurate. But the link I provided argues that because the thorium figure was zero, this indicates that there is a problem with the sample (perhaps leaching) that makes the uranium-lead date unreliable.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::But what about the 207Pb/206Pb dating? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 18:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems that Setterfield's idea has been abandoned even by most Young Earth Creationists. It's discussed earlier in this page. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 10:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

People honestly believe this stuff? This article makes me embarassed to be a conservative. All this article does is make us conservatives look like dunces. I can understand trying to hold on to past beliefs but there has to be a point where you have to admit you were wrong. {{unsigned|Psl04001}}
: So when are you going to admit that you are wrong? You've not actually pointed out ''anything'' wrong in the article. Your comment has nothing of substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

This is where it gets to be most the obvious, the young earth creationists aren't about science at all, they just want to twist on everything to make it look like there is a doubt in the commonly acceptet data, and push their own belifs onto the reader as to if there were any kind evindence tied to it.

The fact is, they read the Bible, then they pretend like they are scientists and say that science is wrong but can't really show the evidence for it.
Face it, that just the same way this whole place is built up, no neutriality and only pure oppinions, based on nothing else than their own predeterimined, pre-tought viewpoints --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 17:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT).
: Despite your comments, you've done nothing to substantiate your claims, and are clearly wrong. The ''fact'' is that creationary scientists do not ''pretend'' like they are scientsts; they actually ''are'' scientist. And they don't say that ''science'' is wrong, but that ''evolutionary hypotheses'' are wrong. And yes, they ''can'' show evidence. As for pushing their own beliefs onto people as if there was evidence "tied to it", that is just what evolutionists do. By the way, your "own predetermined, pre-tought(sic) viewpoints" wouldn't be evolutionay ones, would they? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Like allways, you guys can't change.
:You just keep ramble out a load of shit which is supposed make people tired of answering you all the same obvious answers.
:Do you have any idea how tiny that percent is which consists of scientists who officially confirm their doubt in the present model we use???
:Though..... I shouldn't be a hypocrate, as I don't really belive so much in them myself ;)....
:The problem is, scientists can't belive in anything else than what their instruments is showing them, and that's excactly what they are showing, and when you creationist's try to distort the evidence only because of your allready determinded oppinion, based on your belifs, you are in reality denying the details of what god has created.
:We both know that there is more between earth and heaven than just the physical, right?
:But the thing that destroys every attempt of locating the real truth by combining both science and religion is that religion is based on dogmas, and NOT creativness. No intelligence or indipendence.
:Science is about discovering what the world is really made of, but to this day they can only use their intelligence on the created which is of a physical orgin.
:But beliving that science and religion can be united in the way the young earth creationists are trying to do it is only shown to continiuly contradicting itself. They don't accept what we have learned because it contradicts with their belifs, then of course it must be false......
:
:A real science of both the physical and the spirutal that co-exists will be able to fit with both ways of thinking without coming into conflict with them, and the young earth creationists obviously isn't there yet.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:00, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

== other belifes ==

I'ma christian and a creationist i do not want to be put in with these people.

The bible cleary has the age of the earth at around 12,000 ,The universe could be mush older than that if God didint make the earth first since .He could have made other galaxys and star systems etc. before the milky way or solar system.

== Reactions to Criticism, Really? ==

Ok, this section is really bad. Is this really what an encyclopedia entry would look like?
A few examples:

'''"The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See Creation week for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history."'''

How would anyone know what the authors clearly intended? Maybe say , that this is what YEC supporters believe. But don't state is as fact.

'''"Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus."'''

If we want this project to be taken seriously at all,words like "bogus" should probably not be used.

Also in general where did all of this come from? Can anyone verify that these are the most widely used criticism and that those are their responses.
[[User:KingAdrock|KingAdrock]] 19:12, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

: Are you simply trying to be difficult, or am I supposed to realise that your intention is to improve this article? If the latter, how am I to tell that if it's not possible for a reader to "know what the author (you in this case) intended"?
:Also, you obviously didn't read (or take in) the link to [[creation week]], in which the ''author's intentions'' are claimed to be knowable by "professor[s] of Hebrew or Old Testament at .. world-class universit[ies]". So if these experts believe that the intention is discernable (and ''clearly'' discernable, given their apparent unanimity), why should we take any notice of ''your'' opinion? Furthermore, Barr (like the other experts, for the most part) is not a YEC.
: What is wrong with "bogus"? What would you suggest instead?
: From decades of personal experience, I can say that these are common criticisms (it doesn't say that they are necessarily "the most widely use criticisms") and that the responses listed are, on the whole, the ones normally given by leading creationists.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

There are definitely problems with the term "bogus". The Reactions to Criticism section states the evolutionist argument against YEC as questionable the poses the YEC rebuttal as indisputable fact. Both views are, in fact, opinion. The word bogus would only properly be used to describe something that has been absolutely proven to be false. - [[User:highbrow|highbrow]]
: "absolutely" proven? How about proven beyond reasonable doubt? And how do you know that it hasn't been proven to be false? The evolutionist arguments ''are'' questionable, and I note that you have not disputed any of the YEC rebuttals. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of Rotskep's edits ==

I've reverted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=554031&oldid=547552 these] edits of Rotskep for the following reasons.
* Rotskep may have been trying to insert some arguments for evolution to discredit creation, in which case the argument should be removed because it is incorrect.
* Alternatively, Rotskep was trying to provide an example of the silly arguments that evolutionists sometimes use, in which case it would only serve to confuse the flow of the text in having two different arguments in the one point, and refutations would need to be provided for both.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:41, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Are you assuming A Priory that all arguments for Evolution are incorrect? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:01, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Mutually exclusive ==

Claim one is essentially ''evolutionists cannot gather enough solid testable evidence to point us in one direction or another as to what happened long before we started observing, this is because it is impossible to''

Claim two is essentially ''The evidence we have gathered (it is implied atthis point that evidence means testable reliable, not guesses) points us in the direction of a young earth that started 6-10,000 years ago''

That's akin to stopping someone who is reading a sign that is a long ways away and saying "No you can't know that, no one can see that far, but here let me also show you by reading the sign and telling you what it really says" If someone said that to you you would point out that the two arguments for why you are wrong are mutually exclusive. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: I agree with your description of claim 2, and of your analysis on the basis of your descriptions, but don't agree that your description of claim 1 is correct. Claim 1 is more along the lines of saying that neither evolution nor creation can be ''scientifically "proved"'', as both involve untestable assumptions. Claim 2 says that you can, however, still see which view the evidence is more consistent with.
: To give an example, we observe that everything that we see begin to exist has a cause. So does that prove that the universe had a cause? No, partly because science can never actually prove anything, or, more specifically, just because everything that we ''see'' begin has a cause, doesn't mean that ''everything'' that begins has a cause. We are free to speculate that the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason (as many Big Bangers do). Creationists, however, argue that the universe was created by God.
: So, ...
:* The creationists believe, ''on the basis of their theistic worldview'' that the universe was created by God.
:* The secularists believe, ''on the basis of their atheistic worldview'', that the universe had no cause.
: Neither is scientifically testable. However, it is the creationists' view that is ''more consistent with'' the evidence that observations show things that begin having a cause.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== I would like to make a new section ==

I would like to make a section about the main stream scientific criticism of YEC. I figured I should ask for permission rather than spend my time typing up something up and having it reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: The article already lists criticisms, and the responses to them. If there are more that can go in this list (even if you don't know the responses), then I have no objection.
: As for "main stream scientific criticism", is there any? I've seen critics claim that creationism is simply not an issue in science, and therefore scientists don't bother criticising it (as scientists; they may criticise it as atheists, for example, though).
: It's not clear from your comment whether you are talking about a single criticism or a list of criticisms. If the latter, perhaps you could start with just one, so that you don't risk wasting too much time?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe section ==

I propose removing most of the ''Starlight and the Age of the Universe'' section, leaving only a brief summary, as it is duplicated in the [[Starlight problem]] article. Any objections? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:41, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== Creationism ==

There is perhaps no greater attack upon science and rational thought than the doctrine of a recent creation. [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationists]] deny much of [[astronomy]], [[geology]], [[biology]], [[paleontology]], [[chemistry]], [[linguistics]], [[geomorphology]] and [[physics]] in favor of [[pseudoscience]] and their ''biblically'' based view that the world is more or less only 6,000 years old.

This article presents some of the reasons why we know that the world is not "young". The entries below are listed in alphabetical order, while in the contents box at the right they can be found listed by the approximate minimum they put on the age of the earth. It is also important to note that these dating methods are not mutually exclusive and where their range, accuracy and applicability overlap, the dates they produce are concordant with each other.

== Amino acid racemization ==
[[Amino acid]] racemization dating is a technique that is used to date fossilized objects up to several millions of years in age. Amino acid molecules usually possess an asymmetric carbon atom which will occupy one of two configurations; D (right), or L (left). The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal (with only one exception, naturally occuring amino acids are in the L form) and will decay to a balanced state in a process called ''racemization''. Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can give you an estimated age of the sample. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to '''several million years''' old.<ref>Michael D. Petraglia, Ravi Korisettar (1998). "Early Human Behaviour in Global Context". Routledge Education. Page 63. ISBN 0415117631.</ref>
While it is true that there can be great variability on the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young earth (under 6000 years) view are completely unreasonable.

== Baptistina asteroid family ==
The Baptistina asteroid family is a cluster of asteroids with similar orbits. This group was produced by a collision of an asteroid 60 kilometers in diameter with an asteroid 170 kilometers in diameter. Researchers from the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and the University of Prague have traced the orbits of these asteroids back from their current locations and have determined that the original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago.<ref>Sherriff, Lucy (September 6, 2007). [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/06/dino_killer/ "Dino-killing asteroid traced back 160m years".] ''[http://www.theregister.co.uk/ The Register]''.</ref>

== Coral ==
Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcerous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for '''25 million years''', and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least '''600,000 years'''. <ref>[http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/12437/Reef-Facts-01.pdf A “big picture” view of the Great Barrier Reef]</ref>

== Continental drift ==
[[Image:Snider-Pellegrini Wegener fossil map.gif|thumb|left|180px|Fossil areas across landmasses.]]
Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be very accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least '''200 million years'''.<ref name="SCC">Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). "[[Scientists confront creationism (book)|Scientists confront creationism]]". W. W. Norton & Company, Canada. Pages 35-36. ISBN 0393301540.</ref>

== Cosmogenic nuclide dating ==
The influx of cosmic rays onto the earth continually produces a stream of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere that will fall to the ground. By measuring the build-up of these nuclides on terrestrial surfaces, the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred. This technique can be used to date objects '''over millions of years old'''.<ref>Manz, Lorraine. "[https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/nl02s/PDF/insitu.pdf In-situ Cosmogenic Nuclides: Their Role in Studying the Age and Evolution of Landscapes, or what "as old as the hills" really means]". Accessed January 21, 2007.</ref>

 
== Dendrochronology ==
[[Image:Treering.jpg|thumb|left|Clearly defined tree rings.]]
Dendrochronology is a method of scientific dating which is based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings. The rings are the result of changes in the tree's growth speed over the year (since trees grow faster in the summer and slower in the winter). The age of a tree can be found by counting the rings.

Now, any date derived from this method is not in itself contradictory to the recent creation doctrine, since trees do not live longer than 5,000 years or so. However, it is possible to extend the chronology back over many different trees. Because the thickness of tree rings varies with the climate, a sequence of ''thick ring, thin ring, thin ring, thick ring, thick ring, thick ring, thin ring, thick ring'' is strong evidence that the corresponding rings formed at the same time. By observing and analyzing the rings of many different trees, including fossil trees, the tree ring chronology can be pushed back in some cases as far as '''11,000 years'''.<ref>Mark Isaak (2004). "[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG010.html Claim CG010]"(TalkOrigins). Accessed November 6, 2007.</ref>

 
== Distant starlight ==
[[Image:Hubble Ultra Deep Field part.jpg|left|thumb|Part of the Hubble ultra deep field]]
The fact that '''[[starlight problem|distant starlight]]''' can be seen on earth has always been a major problem for the young earth idea. Because the speed of light is finite, when you look at an object, what you are actually seeing is an image of that object from the past. On Earth, the delay caused by this phenomenon is incredibly minor — when you look at an object a mile away, you are seeing it as it was five microseconds ago. When you look at the sun, you are seeing it as it was 8.3 minutes ago.

But, on the cosmic scale of things, this delay is far from minor. When astronomers look at the closest star to earth (Alpha Centauri), which is roughly four light years away, they are seeing the star as it was four years ago. When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were over '''ten billion years ago'''.

Therein lies the problem for young earth creationism; if the universe is only 6,000 years old, how can objects billions of light years away — and therefore billions of years old — be seen?

== Erosion ==
Many places on earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The [[Grand Canyon]], for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/science/07canyon.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin] General scientific consensus had been 6 million years, but new research reported 17 million years as the time it took to form</ref> Nevertheless, Young Earthers insist it was cut in a few years following the Great Flood - but in order for this to happen the rocks of the Kaibab Plateau would have needed to have the solubility of granulated sugar. VenomFangX of YouTube claimed that the Grand Canyon would have formed in about "5 minutes", which at the very least would require the water to travel several times the speed of sound.

In the case of the Yakima River in Washington State between Ellensburg and Yakima, the river meanders with many oxbows typical of a slow-moving river on a plain, yet it is set within a deep canyon with visible layers of erosion. The only possible explanation is the pre-existing river maintained its original bed as slow tectonic forces caused the surrounding land to rise underneath and around it.

== Fission track dating ==
Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique that can be used to determine the age of crystaline materials which contain uranium. As uranium decays, it sends out atomic fragments, which leave scars or "fission tracks" in crystalline structures. Because decaying uranium emits fragments at a constant rate, the number of fission tracks correlates to the age of the object.<ref>"[http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/dat_fission.html Fission track]"(Minnesota state university). Retrieved on September 30, 2007.</ref> This method is generally held to be accurate, as it shows a high degree of concordance with other methods such as potassium-argon dating.<ref>Johns, Warren H. (1977). "[http://www.grisda.org/origins/04076.htm THE IMPACT OF TEKTITES UPON AN ESTIMATED 700,000 YEAR HISTORY OF DEEP-SEA DEPOSITS]"(Geoscience Research Institute). Retrieved on September 30, 2007.</ref>

== Geomagnetic reversals ==
A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the polarity of the earth's magnetic field. The frequency at which these reversals occur varies greatly, but they usually happen once every '''50,000 to 800,000 years''', and generally take thousands of years.<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geomagnetic_reversal&oldid=153776572 Geomagnetic reversal]" (2007, August 26), from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:37, October 6, 2007.</ref> This fact is obviously inconsistent with the young earth idea; around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the earth at least several millions of years old.<ref name="SCC"/>

== Helioseismology ==
The composition of the sun changes as it ages. The differing composition changes the way sound waves behave inside the sun. Using helioseismic methods (models of pressure waves in the sun), the age of the sun can be inferred. Using this method, an Italian team came up with an age of '''4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years'''.<ref>A. Bonanno1, H. Schlatt, and L. Patern. "[http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=bibcode&bibcode=2002A%2526A...390.1115BPDF The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS]". Accessed January 12, 2007.</ref>

== Human Y-chromosomal ancestry ==
The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one person alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has outcompeted the other strains and is now the only one left. Because the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome is mutation, measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backwards can tell you when this man lived. Calculations by the geneticist Spencer Wells have shown that this man lived around '''60,000 years ago'''.<ref>Hillary Mayell (2003). "[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html Documentary Redraws Humans' Family Tree]"(National Geographic News). Accessed November 17, 2007.</ref>

== Ice layering ==
[[Image:GISP2D1837.jpg|thumb|left|360px|A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.]]
Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.

Annual differences in temperature and irradiance cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.

Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an error rate of over 1000%, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young earth creationists.<ref>Matt Brinkman (1995). "[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html Ice Core Dating]"(TalkOrigins). Accessed October 8, 2007.</ref>

Nevertheless, the ''minimum'' age of the earth identified by these means is '''160,000 years'''. (+/- 15,000 years.)

== Impact craters ==
[[Image:MeteorCraterPanorama.jpg|thumb|320px|A crater 1,200 meters in diameter.]]
The number of impact craters can provide an ''extremely probable'' lower limit on the age of the [[Earth]]. Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on an order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrences; the chance of an asteroid with an Earth-crossing orbit actually striking the planet has been estimated at ''2.5 x 10-9 yr-1'', and when multiplied by the estimated number of earth crossing asteroids this approximates about one collision for every 3.2 million years.<ref>Shoemaker, Eugene M (1983). "[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1983AREPS..11..461S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf Asteroid and comet bombardment of the earth]". Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences '''11''': 461-494.</ref> If this frequency is correct, the number of impact craters on Earth were it only a few thousand years old should be very few. The most logical number of observable one km+ impact craters for a young earth would in fact be a something like ''zero'' — a number that is completely at odds with the observable evidence, since over one hundred such craters have been discovered .<ref>[http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CIDiameterSort2.htm Impact Structures listed by Diameter]</ref>

Even if creationists were to present some scenario in which many dozens of large asteroids could hit the earth in less then 6000 years, there are still tremendous problems with this idea. The largest asteroid impacts are some of the most catastrophic events the world has ever seen. In [[Antarctica]] there is a crater 500 km in diameter which is believed to have been caused by an asteroid 48 km in diameter roughly 250 million years ago.<ref>Gorder, Pam F. "[http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/erthboom.htm BIG BANG IN ANTARCTICA -- KILLER CRATER FOUND UNDER ICE]"(OSU Research). Accessed October 26, 2007.</ref> How the life we see today could have survived such an incident (if it had occurred in the last 6000 years) is a serious problem for YECs; an asteroid impact that big would have led to the extinction of all medium to large size species, an event that —given the creationist model; short time frame, no evolution— the world would have never recovered from.

== Lack of DNA in fossils ==
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C,
it would take around '''100,000 years''' for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels.<ref>Michael Hofreiter, David Serre, Hendrik N. Poinar,Melanie Kuch and Svante Pääbo (2001). "[http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/HofreiterAncDNA_NatRev2001.pdf ANCIENT DNA]" Accessed November 22, 2007.</ref>

If fossils of the dinosaurs were less then 6,000 years old, detectable fragments of DNA should be present in a sizable percent of dinosaur fossils, especially in the arctic and antarctic regions where the decay of DNA can be slowed down 10-25 fold. A claim that soft tissues in a ''Tyrannosaurus'' fossil had been recovered in 2005<ref>Leesem, Don (March 24, 2005). [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/ Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue] Accessed August 22, 2008.</ref> have since been shown to be mistaken<ref>[http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/07/29/new.research.challenges.notion.dinosaur.soft.tissues.still.survive New research challenges notion that dinosaur soft tissues still survive] (retrieved 12 February 2009)</ref>, supporting the idea that dinosaur fossils are extremely old.<ref>Aldhous, Peter (18 May 1996). [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020302.800-science--dinosaur-dna-fails-new-test-of-time.html Dinosaur DNA fails new test of time]" Accessed November 22, 2007.</ref>

==Length of the prehistoric day==
Work by John W. Wells of Cornell University, New York has shown that certain pieces of extremely old coral show evidence of a growth rate which reflects a time when a year had 400 days of 22 hours each.<ref>Wells, John W. (1963). CORAL GROWTH AND GEOCHRONOMETRY. Nature '''197''': 948 - 950.</ref> Because the rate of change of the rotation of the earth is relatively predictable—about 0.005 seconds per year—one can calculate the last time a year had 400 days, which was about '''370 million years''' ago (which is also about the same as radiometric dating of the coral).<ref name="HGATYEA"/>

== Lunar retreat ==
South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson indicate that at some point in time the moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it is today."<ref>[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/moonwhack_main_000901.html "Torn Away: The Moon's Violent Birth".] ''space.com''. Accessed August 9, 2008.</ref> The distance between the earth and the moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the moon is currently receding from the earth at a speed of 3.8 centimeters per year.<ref>According to Wikipedia's [[wp:Moon|article on the moon]]</ref>

== Naica megacrystals ==
The Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico is the home of some of the largest gypsum [[crystals]] on earth. Specimens in the area have been found to exceeded 11 meters in length and 1 meter in width. Based on classical crystal growth theory, these crystals are older than '''one million years'''.<ref>Fermín Otálora, Angels Canals, Carlos Ayora, Roberto Villasuso, Juan Manuel García-Ruiz (2007). "[http://giantcrystals.strahlen.org/library/garciaruiznaica.pdf Formation of natural gypsum megacrystals in Naica, Mexico]". Geology '''35''': 327-330.</ref>

== Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating ==
'''Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating''' is a method for determining the absolute age of charcoal samples with relative accuracy. This dating method works by measuring the ratio of oxidizable carbon to organic carbon. When the sample is freshly burned, there will be no oxidizable carbon because it has been removed by the combustion process. Over time this will change and the amount of organic carbon will decrease to be replaced by oxidizable carbon at a linear rate. By measuring the ratio of these two isotopes, one can determine ages of over '''20,000 years''' ago with a standard error under 3%.<ref>Douglas S. Frink (1995). [http://www.eprida.com/hydro/ecoss/background/applicationofocr.pdf APPLICATION OF THE OXIDIZABLE CARBON RATIO (OCR) DATING PROCEDURE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PEDOGENIC RESEARCH]. Accessed November 2, 2007.</ref>

== Permafrost ==
The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process. To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the [[global flood]], there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood.

Because earth is a good insulator and permafrost forms downward from the surface, it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost. In the Prudhoe Bay oil fields of [[Alaska]], the permafrost which extends over 600 meters into the ground is believed to have taken over '''225,000 years''' to reach present depth.<ref>Virgil J. Lunardini (1995)."[http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/CR95_08.pdf Permafrost Formation Time]"(US Army Corps of Engineers). Accessed November 28, 2007.</ref>

== Petrified wood ==
{{main|petrified forest}}
The process in which wood is preserved by permineralization, commonly known as petrification, takes extensive amounts of time. Gerald E. Teachout from the South Dakota Department of Game has written that "the mineral replacement process is very slow, probably taking
'''millions of years'''".<ref>Teachout, Gerald E. [http://www.northern.edu/natsource/earth/Petrif1.htm "PETRIFIED WOOD OF SOUTH DAKOTA".] Accessed May 13, 2008.</ref>

It is true that in the laboratory petrification can be archived in a matter of months, but petrification is far slower in natural conditions.

== Radiometric decay ==
[[Radioactive decay|Radiometric decay]] is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered to be one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects '''far older than 10,000 years'''.<ref>Chris Stassen (1996-2005)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html The Age of the Earth]"(TalkOrigins). Accessed October 9, 2007.</ref>

Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand the process of radiometic decay and just [[argument from incredulity|not believe]] it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods.

However, the most frequently used method of attack is to give examples of objects of known ages that were dated incorrectly. These instances are by far the exception rather than the rule and are usually due to unforseen contamination or other errors that can be quickly identified and compensated for. This is not "cheating" and forcing results to confirm to expectations as many young earth creationists may claim, it is making the data as accurate and precise as possible (if it is "cheating" then cleaning your camera lens to get a better and clearer picture is also cheating).

== Relativistic jets ==
[[Image:Gb1508 illustration.jpg|left|thumb|110px|A drawing of quasar GB1508 and its relativistic jet]]
A relativistic jet is a jet of plasma that gets ejected from some quasars and galaxy centers that have powerful magnetic fields. It is conjectured that the jets are driven by the twisting of magnetic fields in an accretion disk (the plate like cloud of matter) found encircling many celestial objects. In super-massive bodies, immensely strong magnetic fields force plasma from the accretion disk into a jet that shoots away perpendicular to the face of the disk. These columns of plasma have, in some cases, been found to extend far enough to refute the idea of a young universe.

For example, the quasar ''PKS 1127-145'' has a relativistic jet exceeding one million light years in length.<ref>Ron Cowen (2002)."[http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020216/fob5.asp X-Ray Universe: Quasar's jet goes the distance]". Science News '''161''': 101.</ref> Because the [[speed of light]] cannot be exceeded by any known form of matter, this column must be at least '''one million years old'''. Moreover, these jets are generally billions of light years from Earth, meaning they were at least a million years old '''several billion years ago''' due again to the speed of light. QED

== Rock varnish ==
Rock varnish is a coating that will form on exposed surface rocks. The varnish is formed as airborne dust acumulates on rock surfaces. This process is extremely slow; between 4 μm and 40 μm of material forms on the rock every thousand years, and instances of 40 μm of accumulation are very rare.<ref>Tanzhuo Liu and Wallace S. Broecker (2000). "How fast does rock varnish grow?". Geology '''28:''' 183-186.</ref> Because the rate of accumulation is generally constant, measuring the depth of the varnish can provide dates for objects up to '''250,000 years''' old.<ref>Tanzhuo Liu. "[http://www.vmldatinglab.com/ Rock Varnish Microlamination (VML) Dating]"(VML Dating Lab). Accessed October 19, 2007.</ref>

== Seabed plankton layering ==

Fossils of dead plankton that layer on the ocean floor is used to gauge temperatures from the past, based on the chemical changes of Crenarchaeota, a primitive phylum of microbe. Much like ice layering and dendrochronology, researchers drill through the ocean floor to extract samples which indicate annual temperature fluctuations in the plankton fossils, or "chemical rings" as it were. A 2004 pioneering expedition to the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole collected samples dating back to over '''56 million years''' of temperature dating.<ref>http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/01/news/pole.php</ref>

== Sedimentary varves ==
Varves are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. In the summer, light colored coarse sediment is laid down, while in the winter as the water freezes and calms fine dark silt is laid down. This cycle produces alternating bands of dark and light which are clearly discernible and represent, as a pair, one full year. As is consistent with the old earth view, many millions of varves have been found in some places. The Green River formation in eastern Utah is home to an estimated '''twenty million years worth''' of sedimentary layers.

The creationist response is that, instead of once per year, these varves formed many hundreds of times per year. There is, however, much evidence against accelerated formation of varves.

*Pollen in varves is much more concentrated in the upper part of the dark layer, which is thought to represent spring. This is what would be expected if varves formed only once per year because pollen is much more common at this time.<ref>Glenn R. Morton (2002). "[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/pollen.htm Pollen Order Presents Problems for the Flood]". Accessed October 17, 2007.</ref>
*In Lake Suigetsu, Japan, there is a seasonal die-off of diatoms ''(calcerous algae)'' that will form layers in the bottom of the lake along with the sedimentary varves. If the 29 thousand varves in the lake formed more than once per year, there should be several sediment layers for every layer of deceased algae. However, for every one white layer of algae in Lake Suigetsu, there is only one varve.<ref>Hiroyuki Hitagawai, Johannes van Derplicht (1998). "[http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/radiocarbon/GetFileServlet?file=file:///data1/pdf/Radiocarbon/Volume40/Number1/azu_radiocarbon_v40_n1_505_515_v.pdf&type=application/pdf A 40,000-YEAR CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: VARVE EXTENSION OF THE CALIBRATION CURVE]". Radiocarbon '''40''': 505-515.</ref>
*The varve thickness correlates with both the 11 year sunspot cycle and the 21 thousand year orbital cycle of the earth.<ref>John R. Dyni (26 June, 2000). "[http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/varve.ev.pdf VERIFICATION THAT GREEN RIVER VARVES ARE ANNUAL LAYERS]". Accessed October 14, 2007.</ref>

== Space weathering ==
''Space weathering'' is an effect that is observed on most asteroids. Extraterrestrial objects tend to develop a red tint as they age due to the effects of cosmic radiation and micrometeor impacts on their surfaces. Because this process proceeds at a constant rate, observing the color of an object can provide the basis for a generally reliable estimate. The ages provided by this dating technique '''exceed millions of years'''.<ref>Robert Jedicke, David Nesvorny , Robert Whiteley, Z eljko Ivezic & Mario Juric.(2004) "[http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~davidn/papers/sloan1.pdf An age–colour relationship for main-belt S-complex asteroids]" Nature '''429''': 275-277</ref>

== Stalactites ==
[[image:Stalactite.jpg|thumb|right|100px|A stalactite]]
A stalactite is a mineral deposit that is usually - though not exclusively - found in limestone caves. They are formed on the ceilings of caverns by the slow deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals as they drip, in solution, over the stalactite. These formations take extremely lengthy periods to form; the average growth rate is not much more than 0.1 mm per year (10 centimeters (4 inches!) per thousand years). With such a slow rate of formation, if the earth was less then ten thousand years old we should expect to see the largest stalactites being not much longer than one meter.<ref name="HGATYEA">Dave E. Matson (1994-2002). "[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?]"(Talk.Origins). Accessed October 6, 2007.</ref> In fact stalactites frequently reach from the floor to the ceiling of large caverns.

It is true that cases of accelerated growth have been observed in some stalactites, but rapid growths are only temporary, as the rapidly growing stalactites quickly deplete the surrounding limestone.<ref name="HGATYEA"/>

== Thermoluminescence dating ==
Thermoluminescence dating is a method for determining the age of objects containing crystalline minerals, such as ceramics or lava. These materials contain electrons that have been released from their atoms by ambient radiation, but have become trapped by imperfections in the mineral's structure. When one of these minerals is heated, the trapped electrons are discharged and produce light, and that light can be measured and compared with the level of surrounding radiation to establish the amount of time that has passed since the material was last heated (and its trapped electrons were last released).

Although this technique can date objects up to approximately '''230,000 years ago''', is only accurate on objects 300 to 10,000 years in age. This is, however, still over 4,000 years older than the creationist figure for the age of the earth.<ref>"[http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/thermoluminescence.html Thermoluminescence]"(Minnesota state university). Retrieved on September 30, 2007.</ref><ref>Thomas Berger (2001)."[http://www.ati.ac.at/~vanaweb/papers/archview.pdf Thermoluminescence dating]"(ATOMINSTITUT). Retrieved on September 30, 2007.</ref>

== Weathering rinds ==
Weathering rinds are layers of weathered material that develop on glacial rocks. The weathering is caused by the oxidation of magnesium and iron rich minerals, and the thickness of this layer correlates with the age of a sample. Certain weathering rinds on basalt and andesite rocks in the eastern [[United States]] are believed to have taken over '''300,000 years''' to form.<ref>Bryn Hubbard, Neil F. Glasser (2005). "Field Techniques in Glaciology and Glacial Geomorphology". John Wiley and Sons, United States. Page 355. ISBN 0470844264.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Lower limit on the age of the universe]]
*[[Radioactive decay]]
*The incontrovertible evidence for [[common descent]]
*[[Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in Young Earth Creationism]]

== External links ==
*Chris Stassen (1996). "[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html The Age of the Earth]".

*For a YouTube video that incorporates some of this information, see [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rslUZmP782g here].

==Footnotes==
<references/>


[[Category:Best of science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Entry point]]
[[Category:Lists]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Carbon dating

2009-06-03T02:26:42Z

Ebrianson: /* Young Earth */ new section

== Huge errors on this page ==

Firstly, there is an claim that carbon dating had wrongly measured the age of some carbonate rocks, oil etc. Ofc it has, because no one in their right minds and knowing even the basics of carbon dating would try to measure those with this method... Offcourse the result is wrong, it's like saying one was trying to measure weight with measuring tape. The whole concept of giving false measurements as a "proof" that the method dosen't work is ridiculous. Who knows how many measuring errors has happened with measuring tape, but no one is claimin that because person "A" measured the lenght of an tree wrong using a measuring tape, that the measuring tapes arent reliable. Im deleting that whole section. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: This is factual and informative information. Why censor it? The only reason that "no one in their [sic] right minds ... would try to measure those with this method" is because of significant limitations in carbon dating, which is precisely the point. The math alone does not predict that dating rocks and oil should be as unreliable as the results show.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:01, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::So you really think there should be an collection of wrong results when trying to measure weight with measuring tape on the pages descriping the measuring tape? Just to prove that the measuring tape is limited on measuring the lenght? You can't measure things such as rocks, oil etc with carbon dating, from the basic reason that the carbon in it is from petroleum. So no one who knows anything about carbon dating would never even try that. And what do you have to say about the general measuring errors? Do you really think that we should now start to post diffrent wrong reasult people have gotten when they where using a volt meter, measuring tape or scales? That makes no sense at all, as said before, it would be ridiculous and would really like to hear why we should do this. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 11:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Changing decay rates==

Further corrections i would like to make are allso removing the following sentences: "First, it is impossible to prove scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time." Indeed, for this to happen laws of physics would have needed to change. And to claim that... Well, im speechles, who exactly is claiming that laws of physics have changed so dramatically during these few years and based on what experiments? Firstly, for it to be any help for the young earth creationists, it would have needed to happen during the last 10 000 years. And the laws of physics to change so much that it would change the half time of C-14 atom... Oh boy. I see no place for claim like this on encyclopedia. There is no evidence of anything like this ever happening, and even the idea of this is so strange to modern science that it's once again just absurd to offer that as an excuse for considering carbon dating not to be valid. If this excuse is accepted here, it can be used on every other scientific article here. They all rely on the fact that laws of physics arent changing around. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 11:33, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:You're "speechless" about a position of Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac and many physicists today??? Maybe what you meant to say is that you've never heard this. OK, most people (including physics majors) don't hear about this. But, please, let's be at least a little open-minded. I've updated the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:36, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::First i would like to quote myself: "Well, im speechles, who exactly is claiming that laws of physics have changed so dramatically during these few years and based on what experiments?" You are claiming that Nobel Laurete Paul Dirac claimed so? It has been long known that for example at the time of the big bang, when scientists presume that the laws of physics where allso born, there might have been some changes. But the key here is that for some one to claim that the laws of physics would have changed so much on earth in so reasent history that the halftime of C-14 atom would have been cut down to 1/5th or something around that is just beyond what any scientist would ever claim. It would mean catastroph to other things here. And if claim like that would be accepted here to undermine the Carbon dating, it could, as said earlyer be used to undermine any scientific findings. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:01, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: You've gone from being "speechless" to saying "it has long [been] known." I'm only interested in an open-minded discussion here. If your mind is made up, and you'll treat anything contrary to your opinion with derision, then this is not productive for you or me. We're both better off working on other entries.

: If the C-14 decay rate varies proportionately with the age of the universe, and if that age is, say 5,000 years rather than 10 billion years, then obviously the C-14 decay rate could have been many orders of magnitude larger a thousand years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::It would offcourse help, if one would read why i was speechless, ill quote myself the thirth time: "im speechles, who exactly is claiming that laws of physics have changed so dramatically during these few years and based on what experiments?" But i do think you allready read that, and are just trying not to answer the questions itself. Those questions being. If something like that would have happened in the last 10 000 years, how would anything have survived it? If this is valid argument here, why can't it be used to question everything else in science? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 14:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::: There is a circularity in your line of reasoning. You concede the decay rates may have changed, but implicity use the current decay rate to estimate the age of the universe.

::: Once one concedes that the decay rates may be declining, as one must, then the rates cannot be used to infer the age of the universe. If the universe is 5000 years old, then the decay rate first declined rapidly thousands of years ago. The half-life may have only been 100 years at the time of Christ. I don't see how such a half-life would make any difference to the sustenance of life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, there is no evidence that decay rates would be declining, as said, that would brake the laws of physics as we know them. Some scientist have speculated that in some special circustamses, like during the very first moments of Big bang those laws might have been under a change, other than that, its all highly speculative talk around fine-structure constant and the changing of the four fundamental forces gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. None of this has ever been proven to happen and for it to happen in a scale that would change the decay rates enough to make earth 6000 years old... One thing tho is "sure" if that would have happened, and the half time of C-14 had changed enought that it would make any diffrence in age measurements, it would have caused catastrohic consequenses for all life on earth. Mayby even for the whole universe. Simple reason for this is that you cant only change the half time of C-14 it would be more wide spread. This kind of change in laws of physics would make the existing unstable nucleids less stable, and will also make currently stable nucleids unstable. Which would be very very '''very''' bad thing. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:54, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

While i remember, i would like to allso point out that the discussion about the "wrongly measured" Carbon rock/oil samples has no conclusion yet. If there is nothing you would like to add to it, i really think those examples should be removed on the basis off what i said on the discussion at the top of the page. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

For decay rates to change, you'd have to drastically change some of the laws of physics and/or the rest mass of several types of subatomic particles, if this were to happen, chances are entire solar systems will disintegrate and some chemical compounds would not be stable anymore, it is likely something as complicated as carbon based live would die: meaning ALL carbon based life in the universe.

Dirac's ideas about gravitation are highly speculative, highly criticized and deal only with small changes over billions of years, so minute they wouldn't even be detectable over the course of 60,000 years.

Speculation about changing laws of physics are a desperate attempt at creating confusion among those who have accepted evolution to be true.
They were inserted here by the same person who argued that there was no way to figure out the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over hundreds of thousands of years (there are, and carbon dating is limited to 60,000 years anyway) in an attempt to discredit carbon dating.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::That's really an answer here? Changing laws of physics? C'mon.... Will gravity be back tomorrow? I sure hope so. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:08, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== the 50,000 year mark ==

<s>The sentence "For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old" is factually incorrect. After 50,000 years carbon-14 would have undergone over 8 half-lives and essentially there rate of change has reached a screeching halt. It is the result of both the small amout of carbon-14 and the length of the half-life that prevent dating back to 50,000 years. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)</s> This was addressed in the time I wrote the comment.

== Creationwiki ==

I notice that one of the references used to support some of the stronger claims on this page is Creationwiki. Is that really a good source? Does it really belong here? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, where else can you get references in support of creationism?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Feel free to find more neutral sites. I'll do it myself eventually. Nothing there is controversial. The first criticism of it, in fact, was that it was too obvious to include.

: As to the other comments above, they are criticizing logic more than anything. Yes, many physicists (including Dirac) feel (have felt) that the laws of physics are not invariant over time. I'll find more cites but instead of distracting me on the talk page, you could find sites too. Someone said that life couldn't function unless C-14's half-life is constant. Really, do you think we need a 5000-year half life of C-14 to have life? None can exist without that fundamental decay rate? Physicists think other constants that are more fundamental have changed, so I don't attach much significance to a claim that C-14's decay rate cannot possibly change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I explained everything didn't I? Decay rates depend on rest-masses of subatomic particles among other things, these same rest-masses also determine which atomic particles and which chemical bonds can exist: imagine what would happen if all the nuclei in the universe would disintegrate...

I also explained Dirac's ideas were about minute changes over billions of years.

Do I have to explain myself again, or should I let a lawyer lecture me about Dirac's theories?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Yeah, you do have to lecture me if you think the laws of physics, including the decay rate for C-14, has never changed. And after you lecture me, lecture every physicist who ever studied the Big Bang, and all their students. And then lecture every one who has ever studied [[Karl Popper]] and understands what science is. And then nominate yourself for the Nobel Prize!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, the source you cites suggests that one law of physics has changed. However, Middle Man et al are right about how sweeping a change on the half life of carbon would be. In science, every piece interlocks with the other, such that a change to one implies a great change to the other. SO, changing the half-life of carbon to change would imply a change in the base atomic structure of carbon, which would prevent the ability of carbon to bond as readily as it does, which would destroy the reason that makes carbon the inherent building block of life. You can't just say "the laws of physics changed" without realizing the full extent of what you're saying - you're saying that the very nature of life, and the very structure of atoms, has changed within the past 6000 years. And I'm sure you realize that Karl Popper cuts ''against'' you - your little "theory" is unfalsifiable, aside from being absurd for the reasons stated above.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::I implemented those changes, since the challenges had been posed & unanswered in a while.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: It was my rebuttal that went unanswered.

::: There is no reason or evidence to think that life cannot function with a shorter half-life for C-14. Your comments reflect nothing more than a view that the world has to be a way that you believe it to be. More open-mindedness is expected of editors on this site. Yes, C-14 half's life may have been different, just as scientists are suggesting that many other aspects of the laws of physics were also different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Andy, you misunderstand. For carbon's half life isn't just a variable that gets changed like you change the value of X in algebra. Rather, it depends on subatomic masses of particles. So, to change C-14's half life, you'd have to change subatomic mass numbers. But if you change subatomic mass numbers, carbon can't bond as easily as it does, and life can't exist. I'm not saying "the world has to be my way" just because I like it that way - I'm saying "the world has to be my way" because otherwise there would be no life on earth. Finally, saying one law of physics might change doesn't mean that they're all up for grabs! And seriously, you're lecturing ''me'' on closed-mindedness?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:05, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, I'm sorry, but it is close-minded to insist that life can only exist a certain way. You won't find a single credible scientist to make such a close-minded claim. Be more open-minded and admit the obvious: it's possible that life could have existed with different half-lives for C-14 and other differences as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I'm telling you it's not. Part of the miracle of life in the universe is that it can only exist in a slim number of circumstances. Changing C-14 would change the whole thing. To analogize, it would not be "closed minded" to say that, if the charge of the electron were slightly larger or slightly less, life would cease to exist - it's just true (Hawking, ''Brief History of time''). Do ''you'' have a cite supporting the idea that changing C-14 would ''not'' prohibit life from forming? I ask because mainstream science disagrees with you, and before making such an outrageous claim, I'm '''''sure''''' you must've done some research. If your whole argument depends on me being "closed-minded," and yet you refuse to look up the science on it, I think it's fairly clear who's won.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Please find a source that specifically speaks to a change of the half life of Carbon-14 ''within the past 6000 years''. Your article discussing change in an unrelated matter of physics over billions of years just doesn't cut it. Then, discuss it here, and we'll include it after it's been fully discussed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== From radiocarbon dating ==

This is from an older entry entitled "radiocarbon dating". Please identify any information here that you feel might improve this entry. A redirect from radiocarbon dating is being inserted to send it to "carbon dating"

'''Radiocarbon dating''' is a method for estimating the age of organic material by measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 present.

The method is based on the fact that the carbon-12 [[isotope]] of carbon is more stable, and therefore more common, than the [[radioactivity | radioactive]] carbon-14 isotope. Most of the carbon in the earth is buried deep underground, where any carbon-14 [[radioactive decay | decays]], leaving behind carbon-12. Nitrogen-14 atoms in the stratosphere are often struck by neutrons, converting them to carbon-14 atoms. But carbon-14 in the atmosphere mixes with ordinary carbon-12 and finds it way into all living creatures. Therefore the concentration of carbon-14 is higher in living creatures and in the atmosphere than it is in dead or buried forms of carbon.

Thus, archaeologists use radiocarbon dating to measure the age of dead bodies, fossils, and burnt wood. If the concentration of carbon-14 is almost as high as in the atmosphere, then the specimen was recently alive. If it is much lower, then the specimen has been dead a long time.
The mathematical formula that is used to figure the time since death depends on the the measured concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and also on the [[half-life]] of carbon-14 (the time it takes for half the carbon-14 in a given sample to decay). The half-live of carbon-14 is commonly given as 5730 ± 40 years; however a global standard half-life of 5568 ± 30 years is also often employed.

Obviously, this formula depends on the atmosphere remaining roughly constant in its composition over time. Insofar as the natural level and distribution of carbon-14 varies over time, due to to atmospheric disturbances, the formula will need to be adjusted. For example, in the last few decades, testing of [[nuclear bomb|nuclear weapons]] in the atmosphere has increased the concentration of carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere. To account for this, standard calibration curves are used to take account of known chronological fluctuations, and results can be obtained which are rarely more than 700 years out.

Other isotopes with longer half-lives can also be used to date objects. However, each method has its own drawbacks.

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] point out that the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 would have been affected by the [[Great Flood|global flood]], as the flood buried massive quantities of living things,<nowiki><ref>Batten 2007, p. 71.</ref></nowiki> thus invalidating dating results from that era as secular science does not allow for this. As such dating results ''presume'' that there was no flood, the resulting dates are not ''proof'' that there was no flood, as anti-creationists often charge.

: The entire thing is important...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==See also==

[[radiometric dating | Radiometric dating methods]]

== Bibliography ==

* Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).
*Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).

* Batten, Don et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf ''What about carbon dating?''], Chapter 4 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', Creation Book Publishers, 2007, ISBN 978-0949906625.

== Notes ==
<references />

== I'm sure you have a good reason for reverting. ==

Please don't troll, and tell me why you reverted. The changes only made your science less misleading and wrong. As stated above...
#You give no source for the "carbon dating can only prove which is older."
#The carbon content of the atmosphere can be discerned by ice cores.
#Changing the C-14 half-life would require changing all of atomic physics in a very bad way.
#Carbon dating obviously doesn't work on oil, et al, and that shouldn't be portrayed as a "flaw."

I'm sure you have good answers to these points, or you wouldn't have reverted without using the talk page first, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Reference #2==
The article used for reference 2 says that Dirac's theory still hasn't been proven and that there isn't strong enough evidence that the laws have changed. Maybe this reference and claim should be removed until a better source (if one exists) can be found. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:To be honest, I'm really skeptical. If Dirac were right, he'd be the winner of a second Nobel Prize. And people usually listen to Nobel Prize winners. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 19:06, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Carbon dating verified through other methods ==

How do you explain the fact that carbon dating methods were verified through many other methods of dating? When Libby developed the method he checked his results using verified historical records pertaining to the life of Zoser during the thrid dynasty. Carbon dating has also been proven effective through comparing results from other unrelated aging methods such as U/T dating, Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL), Thermoluminescence, Electron Spin Resonance, Dendrochronology, and Potassium-Argon dating. I have personally tested the age of a buried hearth pit using carbon dating and OSL, and the results were he same. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 16:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Poor "reference" ==

Reference stated as support for the "older than 50,000 years, carbon-dating is bad" is [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html]

If you review that posting, it's sourced from someone's comment - not really good science. I think someone needs to volunteer to research the original Faure text on geochemistry

== Inability to date carbonate rocks -- false? ==

"Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include the inability to date carbonate rocks, which by confound the science behind the dating technique."

I don't want to remove the statement, in case someone has another reference, but in [http://www.arrhenius.ucsd.edu/pub/Precambrian.pdf This report] (watch out -- it's HUGE) clearly shows a carbon-dating experiment performed on carbonate materials. "We determined the carbon isotope ratio of carbonates on ground powders... by reacting them with concentrated H3PO4... and collecting the evolved CO2.... The evolved and frozen CO2 [was]... transferred to an Isogas precision isotope ratio mass spectrometer (PRISM) for isotopic determination. Error bars of measurements are 0.1‰" (page 336). Am I missing somehthing, or can I remove the statement? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Ok nobody is responding still, so I'll give 24 hours then remove the statement. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:43, 26 January 2008 (EST)

:: I'll look into this. Give me a day or so. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::Alright. I'm sure there's something I'm missing, but I can't figure out what. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:01, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::::Have you had time to take a look at it yet? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal of Information ==

Why is information being removed from the content page here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:The part about carbonate rocks I addressed two weeks ago (see the talk section directly above this one) and I thought I had waited sufficient time.
:The other part I removed because the exact same information is presented in the section below, so I didn't think we needed to say the exact same thing twice. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)

::We certainly don't need to say anything twice, but didn't you remove this essential paragraph:

:The rate of decay of 14C is such that 50% of the 14C in the sample will decay in 5730 years ... For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:: P.S. I waited also before reverting, by posting the first message above in this new section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:::I did, because I thought that what was written later said the same thing:
::::"Since the half-life of 14C is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present with precision enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old. However, isotopes with longer half-lives may be used."
:::Many of the phrases are the same and it looks like they were written using the same source.
:::After I edited this morning I had class till 4, so I wasn't able to respond to the talk page in time. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:46, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:::: OK, you're right, but the redundancy near the end is the one to remove, which I've done. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Thanks. I thought it was better to remove the first paragraph, but it doesn't really matter eaither way.
:::::What about the statement "Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include the inability to date carbonate rocks, which confound the science behind the dating technique"? As I mentioned in the section above, scientists ''were'' able to date carbonate rocks. This origonally had a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag, and when I went to find a reference which shows that this statement is true, it turns out I couldn't, but I could find a reference which directly refutes it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 21 January 2008 (EST)

== Calibration, Variable Rate of Intake & Atmospheric variability ==

As I am sure the poster is aware of, this phenomenon is well-known and documented. However, I have seen this phenomenon used to cast aspersions on the effectiveness of radiocarbon dating. Please see the wealth of information on the topic of carbon intake and reservoir correction available online. I'm not sure what sites pass as credible here, so I will only offer the suggestion to search for "carbon reservoir correction" on your favorite engine. I don't want to violate the 90/10 rule, but I wanted to get some discussion on this before attempting to edit the page. Thanks, -- [[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:31, 2 January 2009 (EST)
: What exactly in the article do you think needs changing? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I don't understand the point of mentioning these phenomena without also explaining the methods of accounting for them. So to answer your question, I believe an addition needs to be made explaining how and why intake rates vary and how and how and why they are corrected/calibrated. I understand that the point of the article is in fact to cast aspersion on radiocarbon dating, but I would not endorse doing so in a manner that is so easily controvertible by a quick google search. [[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:54, 13 January 2009 (EST)
: The article already touches on your points, and doesn't really say a lot about the phenomena otherwise, but I guess that the article could do with some expansion in that regard.
: The point of the article is to ''describe'' carbon dating, including its limitations. I believe that it does that reasonably well.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 14 January 2009 (EST)
I agree that the article describes carbon dating reasonably well and I understand that the target is a high school level audience. My point is that by not explaining how scientists attempt to cover the limitations of carbon dating Conservapedians highlighting these limitations may be caught off guard by the introduction of an unknown resource, for instance, reservoir correction tables. Conservapedian: "Carbon dating is limited by factors such as variable rate of intake." Liberal: "Not if you use reservoir correction." Conservapedian:"???" If you like, I will come up with something for your review.[[User:CWood|CWood]] 10:50, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:: Please do. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:58, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Don't censor info ==

Please add or clarify, but don't [[censor]] info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

== Young Earth ==

There is perhaps no greater attack upon science and rational thought than the doctrine of a recent creation. [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationists]] deny much of [[astronomy]], [[geology]], [[biology]], [[paleontology]], [[chemistry]], [[linguistics]], [[geomorphology]] and [[physics]] in favor of [[pseudoscience]] and their ''biblically'' based view that the world is more or less only 6,000 years old.

This article presents some of the reasons why we know that the world is not "young". The entries below are listed in alphabetical order, while in the contents box at the right they can be found listed by the approximate minimum they put on the age of the earth. It is also important to note that these dating methods are not mutually exclusive and where their range, accuracy and applicability overlap, the dates they produce are concordant with each other.

== Amino acid racemization ==
[[Amino acid]] racemization dating is a technique that is used to date fossilized objects up to several millions of years in age. Amino acid molecules usually possess an asymmetric carbon atom which will occupy one of two configurations; D (right), or L (left). The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal (with only one exception, naturally occuring amino acids are in the L form) and will decay to a balanced state in a process called ''racemization''. Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can give you an estimated age of the sample. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to '''several million years''' old.<ref>Michael D. Petraglia, Ravi Korisettar (1998). "Early Human Behaviour in Global Context". Routledge Education. Page 63. ISBN 0415117631.</ref>
While it is true that there can be great variability on the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young earth (under 6000 years) view are completely unreasonable.

== Baptistina asteroid family ==
The Baptistina asteroid family is a cluster of asteroids with similar orbits. This group was produced by a collision of an asteroid 60 kilometers in diameter with an asteroid 170 kilometers in diameter. Researchers from the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and the University of Prague have traced the orbits of these asteroids back from their current locations and have determined that the original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago.<ref>Sherriff, Lucy (September 6, 2007). [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/06/dino_killer/ "Dino-killing asteroid traced back 160m years".] ''[http://www.theregister.co.uk/ The Register]''.</ref>

== Coral ==
Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcerous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for '''25 million years''', and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least '''600,000 years'''. <ref>[http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/12437/Reef-Facts-01.pdf A “big picture” view of the Great Barrier Reef]</ref>

== Continental drift ==
[[Image:Snider-Pellegrini Wegener fossil map.gif|thumb|left|180px|Fossil areas across landmasses.]]
Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be very accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least '''200 million years'''.<ref name="SCC">Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). "[[Scientists confront creationism (book)|Scientists confront creationism]]". W. W. Norton & Company, Canada. Pages 35-36. ISBN 0393301540.</ref>

== Cosmogenic nuclide dating ==
The influx of cosmic rays onto the earth continually produces a stream of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere that will fall to the ground. By measuring the build-up of these nuclides on terrestrial surfaces, the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred. This technique can be used to date objects '''over millions of years old'''.<ref>Manz, Lorraine. "[https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/nl02s/PDF/insitu.pdf In-situ Cosmogenic Nuclides: Their Role in Studying the Age and Evolution of Landscapes, or what "as old as the hills" really means]". Accessed January 21, 2007.</ref>

 
== Dendrochronology ==
[[Image:Treering.jpg|thumb|left|Clearly defined tree rings.]]
Dendrochronology is a method of scientific dating which is based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings. The rings are the result of changes in the tree's growth speed over the year (since trees grow faster in the summer and slower in the winter). The age of a tree can be found by counting the rings.

Now, any date derived from this method is not in itself contradictory to the recent creation doctrine, since trees do not live longer than 5,000 years or so. However, it is possible to extend the chronology back over many different trees. Because the thickness of tree rings varies with the climate, a sequence of ''thick ring, thin ring, thin ring, thick ring, thick ring, thick ring, thin ring, thick ring'' is strong evidence that the corresponding rings formed at the same time. By observing and analyzing the rings of many different trees, including fossil trees, the tree ring chronology can be pushed back in some cases as far as '''11,000 years'''.<ref>Mark Isaak (2004). "[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG010.html Claim CG010]"(TalkOrigins). Accessed November 6, 2007.</ref>

 
== Distant starlight ==
[[Image:Hubble Ultra Deep Field part.jpg|left|thumb|Part of the Hubble ultra deep field]]
The fact that '''[[starlight problem|distant starlight]]''' can be seen on earth has always been a major problem for the young earth idea. Because the speed of light is finite, when you look at an object, what you are actually seeing is an image of that object from the past. On Earth, the delay caused by this phenomenon is incredibly minor — when you look at an object a mile away, you are seeing it as it was five microseconds ago. When you look at the sun, you are seeing it as it was 8.3 minutes ago.

But, on the cosmic scale of things, this delay is far from minor. When astronomers look at the closest star to earth (Alpha Centauri), which is roughly four light years away, they are seeing the star as it was four years ago. When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were over '''ten billion years ago'''.

Therein lies the problem for young earth creationism; if the universe is only 6,000 years old, how can objects billions of light years away — and therefore billions of years old — be seen?

== Erosion ==
Many places on earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The [[Grand Canyon]], for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/science/07canyon.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin] General scientific consensus had been 6 million years, but new research reported 17 million years as the time it took to form</ref> Nevertheless, Young Earthers insist it was cut in a few years following the Great Flood - but in order for this to happen the rocks of the Kaibab Plateau would have needed to have the solubility of granulated sugar. VenomFangX of YouTube claimed that the Grand Canyon would have formed in about "5 minutes", which at the very least would require the water to travel several times the speed of sound.

In the case of the Yakima River in Washington State between Ellensburg and Yakima, the river meanders with many oxbows typical of a slow-moving river on a plain, yet it is set within a deep canyon with visible layers of erosion. The only possible explanation is the pre-existing river maintained its original bed as slow tectonic forces caused the surrounding land to rise underneath and around it.

== Fission track dating ==
Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique that can be used to determine the age of crystaline materials which contain uranium. As uranium decays, it sends out atomic fragments, which leave scars or "fission tracks" in crystalline structures. Because decaying uranium emits fragments at a constant rate, the number of fission tracks correlates to the age of the object.<ref>"[http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/dat_fission.html Fission track]"(Minnesota state university). Retrieved on September 30, 2007.</ref> This method is generally held to be accurate, as it shows a high degree of concordance with other methods such as potassium-argon dating.<ref>Johns, Warren H. (1977). "[http://www.grisda.org/origins/04076.htm THE IMPACT OF TEKTITES UPON AN ESTIMATED 700,000 YEAR HISTORY OF DEEP-SEA DEPOSITS]"(Geoscience Research Institute). Retrieved on September 30, 2007.</ref>

== Geomagnetic reversals ==
A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the polarity of the earth's magnetic field. The frequency at which these reversals occur varies greatly, but they usually happen once every '''50,000 to 800,000 years''', and generally take thousands of years.<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geomagnetic_reversal&oldid=153776572 Geomagnetic reversal]" (2007, August 26), from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:37, October 6, 2007.</ref> This fact is obviously inconsistent with the young earth idea; around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the earth at least several millions of years old.<ref name="SCC"/>

== Helioseismology ==
The composition of the sun changes as it ages. The differing composition changes the way sound waves behave inside the sun. Using helioseismic methods (models of pressure waves in the sun), the age of the sun can be inferred. Using this method, an Italian team came up with an age of '''4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years'''.<ref>A. Bonanno1, H. Schlatt, and L. Patern. "[http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=bibcode&bibcode=2002A%2526A...390.1115BPDF The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS]". Accessed January 12, 2007.</ref>

== Human Y-chromosomal ancestry ==
The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one person alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has outcompeted the other strains and is now the only one left. Because the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome is mutation, measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backwards can tell you when this man lived. Calculations by the geneticist Spencer Wells have shown that this man lived around '''60,000 years ago'''.<ref>Hillary Mayell (2003). "[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html Documentary Redraws Humans' Family Tree]"(National Geographic News). Accessed November 17, 2007.</ref>

== Ice layering ==
[[Image:GISP2D1837.jpg|thumb|left|360px|A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.]]
Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.

Annual differences in temperature and irradiance cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.

Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an error rate of over 1000%, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young earth creationists.<ref>Matt Brinkman (1995). "[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html Ice Core Dating]"(TalkOrigins). Accessed October 8, 2007.</ref>

Nevertheless, the ''minimum'' age of the earth identified by these means is '''160,000 years'''. (+/- 15,000 years.)

== Impact craters ==
[[Image:MeteorCraterPanorama.jpg|thumb|320px|A crater 1,200 meters in diameter.]]
The number of impact craters can provide an ''extremely probable'' lower limit on the age of the [[Earth]]. Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on an order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrences; the chance of an asteroid with an Earth-crossing orbit actually striking the planet has been estimated at ''2.5 x 10-9 yr-1'', and when multiplied by the estimated number of earth crossing asteroids this approximates about one collision for every 3.2 million years.<ref>Shoemaker, Eugene M (1983). "[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1983AREPS..11..461S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf Asteroid and comet bombardment of the earth]". Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences '''11''': 461-494.</ref> If this frequency is correct, the number of impact craters on Earth were it only a few thousand years old should be very few. The most logical number of observable one km+ impact craters for a young earth would in fact be a something like ''zero'' — a number that is completely at odds with the observable evidence, since over one hundred such craters have been discovered .<ref>[http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CIDiameterSort2.htm Impact Structures listed by Diameter]</ref>

Even if creationists were to present some scenario in which many dozens of large asteroids could hit the earth in less then 6000 years, there are still tremendous problems with this idea. The largest asteroid impacts are some of the most catastrophic events the world has ever seen. In [[Antarctica]] there is a crater 500 km in diameter which is believed to have been caused by an asteroid 48 km in diameter roughly 250 million years ago.<ref>Gorder, Pam F. "[http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/erthboom.htm BIG BANG IN ANTARCTICA -- KILLER CRATER FOUND UNDER ICE]"(OSU Research). Accessed October 26, 2007.</ref> How the life we see today could have survived such an incident (if it had occurred in the last 6000 years) is a serious problem for YECs; an asteroid impact that big would have led to the extinction of all medium to large size species, an event that —given the creationist model; short time frame, no evolution— the world would have never recovered from.

== Lack of DNA in fossils ==
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C,
it would take around '''100,000 years''' for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels.<ref>Michael Hofreiter, David Serre, Hendrik N. Poinar,Melanie Kuch and Svante Pääbo (2001). "[http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/HofreiterAncDNA_NatRev2001.pdf ANCIENT DNA]" Accessed November 22, 2007.</ref>

If fossils of the dinosaurs were less then 6,000 years old, detectable fragments of DNA should be present in a sizable percent of dinosaur fossils, especially in the arctic and antarctic regions where the decay of DNA can be slowed down 10-25 fold. A claim that soft tissues in a ''Tyrannosaurus'' fossil had been recovered in 2005<ref>Leesem, Don (March 24, 2005). [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/ Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue] Accessed August 22, 2008.</ref> have since been shown to be mistaken<ref>[http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/07/29/new.research.challenges.notion.dinosaur.soft.tissues.still.survive New research challenges notion that dinosaur soft tissues still survive] (retrieved 12 February 2009)</ref>, supporting the idea that dinosaur fossils are extremely old.<ref>Aldhous, Peter (18 May 1996). [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020302.800-science--dinosaur-dna-fails-new-test-of-time.html Dinosaur DNA fails new test of time]" Accessed November 22, 2007.</ref>

==Length of the prehistoric day==
Work by John W. Wells of Cornell University, New York has shown that certain pieces of extremely old coral show evidence of a growth rate which reflects a time when a year had 400 days of 22 hours each.<ref>Wells, John W. (1963). CORAL GROWTH AND GEOCHRONOMETRY. Nature '''197''': 948 - 950.</ref> Because the rate of change of the rotation of the earth is relatively predictable—about 0.005 seconds per year—one can calculate the last time a year had 400 days, which was about '''370 million years''' ago (which is also about the same as radiometric dating of the coral).<ref name="HGATYEA"/>

== Lunar retreat ==
South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson indicate that at some point in time the moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it is today."<ref>[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/moonwhack_main_000901.html "Torn Away: The Moon's Violent Birth".] ''space.com''. Accessed August 9, 2008.</ref> The distance between the earth and the moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the moon is currently receding from the earth at a speed of 3.8 centimeters per year.<ref>According to Wikipedia's [[wp:Moon|article on the moon]]</ref>

== Naica megacrystals ==
The Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico is the home of some of the largest gypsum [[crystals]] on earth. Specimens in the area have been found to exceeded 11 meters in length and 1 meter in width. Based on classical crystal growth theory, these crystals are older than '''one million years'''.<ref>Fermín Otálora, Angels Canals, Carlos Ayora, Roberto Villasuso, Juan Manuel García-Ruiz (2007). "[http://giantcrystals.strahlen.org/library/garciaruiznaica.pdf Formation of natural gypsum megacrystals in Naica, Mexico]". Geology '''35''': 327-330.</ref>

== Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating ==
'''Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating''' is a method for determining the absolute age of charcoal samples with relative accuracy. This dating method works by measuring the ratio of oxidizable carbon to organic carbon. When the sample is freshly burned, there will be no oxidizable carbon because it has been removed by the combustion process. Over time this will change and the amount of organic carbon will decrease to be replaced by oxidizable carbon at a linear rate. By measuring the ratio of these two isotopes, one can determine ages of over '''20,000 years''' ago with a standard error under 3%.<ref>Douglas S. Frink (1995). [http://www.eprida.com/hydro/ecoss/background/applicationofocr.pdf APPLICATION OF THE OXIDIZABLE CARBON RATIO (OCR) DATING PROCEDURE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PEDOGENIC RESEARCH]. Accessed November 2, 2007.</ref>

== Permafrost ==
The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process. To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the [[global flood]], there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood.

Because earth is a good insulator and permafrost forms downward from the surface, it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost. In the Prudhoe Bay oil fields of [[Alaska]], the permafrost which extends over 600 meters into the ground is believed to have taken over '''225,000 years''' to reach present depth.<ref>Virgil J. Lunardini (1995)."[http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/CR95_08.pdf Permafrost Formation Time]"(US Army Corps of Engineers). Accessed November 28, 2007.</ref>

== Petrified wood ==
{{main|petrified forest}}
The process in which wood is preserved by permineralization, commonly known as petrification, takes extensive amounts of time. Gerald E. Teachout from the South Dakota Department of Game has written that "the mineral replacement process is very slow, probably taking
'''millions of years'''".<ref>Teachout, Gerald E. [http://www.northern.edu/natsource/earth/Petrif1.htm "PETRIFIED WOOD OF SOUTH DAKOTA".] Accessed May 13, 2008.</ref>

It is true that in the laboratory petrification can be archived in a matter of months, but petrification is far slower in natural conditions.

== Radiometric decay ==
[[Radioactive decay|Radiometric decay]] is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered to be one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects '''far older than 10,000 years'''.<ref>Chris Stassen (1996-2005)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html The Age of the Earth]"(TalkOrigins). Accessed October 9, 2007.</ref>

Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand the process of radiometic decay and just [[argument from incredulity|not believe]] it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods.

However, the most frequently used method of attack is to give examples of objects of known ages that were dated incorrectly. These instances are by far the exception rather than the rule and are usually due to unforseen contamination or other errors that can be quickly identified and compensated for. This is not "cheating" and forcing results to confirm to expectations as many young earth creationists may claim, it is making the data as accurate and precise as possible (if it is "cheating" then cleaning your camera lens to get a better and clearer picture is also cheating).

== Relativistic jets ==
[[Image:Gb1508 illustration.jpg|left|thumb|110px|A drawing of quasar GB1508 and its relativistic jet]]
A relativistic jet is a jet of plasma that gets ejected from some quasars and galaxy centers that have powerful magnetic fields. It is conjectured that the jets are driven by the twisting of magnetic fields in an accretion disk (the plate like cloud of matter) found encircling many celestial objects. In super-massive bodies, immensely strong magnetic fields force plasma from the accretion disk into a jet that shoots away perpendicular to the face of the disk. These columns of plasma have, in some cases, been found to extend far enough to refute the idea of a young universe.

For example, the quasar ''PKS 1127-145'' has a relativistic jet exceeding one million light years in length.<ref>Ron Cowen (2002)."[http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020216/fob5.asp X-Ray Universe: Quasar's jet goes the distance]". Science News '''161''': 101.</ref> Because the [[speed of light]] cannot be exceeded by any known form of matter, this column must be at least '''one million years old'''. Moreover, these jets are generally billions of light years from Earth, meaning they were at least a million years old '''several billion years ago''' due again to the speed of light. QED

== Rock varnish ==
Rock varnish is a coating that will form on exposed surface rocks. The varnish is formed as airborne dust acumulates on rock surfaces. This process is extremely slow; between 4 μm and 40 μm of material forms on the rock every thousand years, and instances of 40 μm of accumulation are very rare.<ref>Tanzhuo Liu and Wallace S. Broecker (2000). "How fast does rock varnish grow?". Geology '''28:''' 183-186.</ref> Because the rate of accumulation is generally constant, measuring the depth of the varnish can provide dates for objects up to '''250,000 years''' old.<ref>Tanzhuo Liu. "[http://www.vmldatinglab.com/ Rock Varnish Microlamination (VML) Dating]"(VML Dating Lab). Accessed October 19, 2007.</ref>

== Seabed plankton layering ==

Fossils of dead plankton that layer on the ocean floor is used to gauge temperatures from the past, based on the chemical changes of Crenarchaeota, a primitive phylum of microbe. Much like ice layering and dendrochronology, researchers drill through the ocean floor to extract samples which indicate annual temperature fluctuations in the plankton fossils, or "chemical rings" as it were. A 2004 pioneering expedition to the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole collected samples dating back to over '''56 million years''' of temperature dating.<ref>http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/01/news/pole.php</ref>

== Sedimentary varves ==
Varves are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. In the summer, light colored coarse sediment is laid down, while in the winter as the water freezes and calms fine dark silt is laid down. This cycle produces alternating bands of dark and light which are clearly discernible and represent, as a pair, one full year. As is consistent with the old earth view, many millions of varves have been found in some places. The Green River formation in eastern Utah is home to an estimated '''twenty million years worth''' of sedimentary layers.

The creationist response is that, instead of once per year, these varves formed many hundreds of times per year. There is, however, much evidence against accelerated formation of varves.

*Pollen in varves is much more concentrated in the upper part of the dark layer, which is thought to represent spring. This is what would be expected if varves formed only once per year because pollen is much more common at this time.<ref>Glenn R. Morton (2002). "[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/pollen.htm Pollen Order Presents Problems for the Flood]". Accessed October 17, 2007.</ref>
*In Lake Suigetsu, Japan, there is a seasonal die-off of diatoms ''(calcerous algae)'' that will form layers in the bottom of the lake along with the sedimentary varves. If the 29 thousand varves in the lake formed more than once per year, there should be several sediment layers for every layer of deceased algae. However, for every one white layer of algae in Lake Suigetsu, there is only one varve.<ref>Hiroyuki Hitagawai, Johannes van Derplicht (1998). "[http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/radiocarbon/GetFileServlet?file=file:///data1/pdf/Radiocarbon/Volume40/Number1/azu_radiocarbon_v40_n1_505_515_v.pdf&type=application/pdf A 40,000-YEAR CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: VARVE EXTENSION OF THE CALIBRATION CURVE]". Radiocarbon '''40''': 505-515.</ref>
*The varve thickness correlates with both the 11 year sunspot cycle and the 21 thousand year orbital cycle of the earth.<ref>John R. Dyni (26 June, 2000). "[http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/varve.ev.pdf VERIFICATION THAT GREEN RIVER VARVES ARE ANNUAL LAYERS]". Accessed October 14, 2007.</ref>

== Space weathering ==
''Space weathering'' is an effect that is observed on most asteroids. Extraterrestrial objects tend to develop a red tint as they age due to the effects of cosmic radiation and micrometeor impacts on their surfaces. Because this process proceeds at a constant rate, observing the color of an object can provide the basis for a generally reliable estimate. The ages provided by this dating technique '''exceed millions of years'''.<ref>Robert Jedicke, David Nesvorny , Robert Whiteley, Z eljko Ivezic & Mario Juric.(2004) "[http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~davidn/papers/sloan1.pdf An age–colour relationship for main-belt S-complex asteroids]" Nature '''429''': 275-277</ref>

== Stalactites ==
[[image:Stalactite.jpg|thumb|right|100px|A stalactite]]
A stalactite is a mineral deposit that is usually - though not exclusively - found in limestone caves. They are formed on the ceilings of caverns by the slow deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals as they drip, in solution, over the stalactite. These formations take extremely lengthy periods to form; the average growth rate is not much more than 0.1 mm per year (10 centimeters (4 inches!) per thousand years). With such a slow rate of formation, if the earth was less then ten thousand years old we should expect to see the largest stalactites being not much longer than one meter.<ref name="HGATYEA">Dave E. Matson (1994-2002). "[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?]"(Talk.Origins). Accessed October 6, 2007.</ref> In fact stalactites frequently reach from the floor to the ceiling of large caverns.

It is true that cases of accelerated growth have been observed in some stalactites, but rapid growths are only temporary, as the rapidly growing stalactites quickly deplete the surrounding limestone.<ref name="HGATYEA"/>

== Thermoluminescence dating ==
Thermoluminescence dating is a method for determining the age of objects containing crystalline minerals, such as ceramics or lava. These materials contain electrons that have been released from their atoms by ambient radiation, but have become trapped by imperfections in the mineral's structure. When one of these minerals is heated, the trapped electrons are discharged and produce light, and that light can be measured and compared with the level of surrounding radiation to establish the amount of time that has passed since the material was last heated (and its trapped electrons were last released).

Although this technique can date objects up to approximately '''230,000 years ago''', is only accurate on objects 300 to 10,000 years in age. This is, however, still over 4,000 years older than the creationist figure for the age of the earth.<ref>"[http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/thermoluminescence.html Thermoluminescence]"(Minnesota state university). Retrieved on September 30, 2007.</ref><ref>Thomas Berger (2001)."[http://www.ati.ac.at/~vanaweb/papers/archview.pdf Thermoluminescence dating]"(ATOMINSTITUT). Retrieved on September 30, 2007.</ref>

== Weathering rinds ==
Weathering rinds are layers of weathered material that develop on glacial rocks. The weathering is caused by the oxidation of magnesium and iron rich minerals, and the thickness of this layer correlates with the age of a sample. Certain weathering rinds on basalt and andesite rocks in the eastern [[United States]] are believed to have taken over '''300,000 years''' to form.<ref>Bryn Hubbard, Neil F. Glasser (2005). "Field Techniques in Glaciology and Glacial Geomorphology". John Wiley and Sons, United States. Page 355. ISBN 0470844264.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Lower limit on the age of the universe]]
*[[Radioactive decay]]
*The incontrovertible evidence for [[common descent]]
*[[Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in Young Earth Creationism]]

== External links ==
*Chris Stassen (1996). "[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html The Age of the Earth]".

*For a YouTube video that incorporates some of this information, see [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rslUZmP782g here].

==Footnotes==
<references/>


[[Category:Best of science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Entry point]]
[[Category:Lists]]
[[Category:Science]]