Carbon dating real age earth
Thus, it is concluded that the weight of all the scientific evidence favors the view that the earth is quite young, far too young for life and man to have arisen by an evolutionary process. 53-54) The problem with these 68 “ages” of the Earth is that they are all either based on false initial assumptions or have too many unknown variables for a reliable solution, or both.
The origin of all things by direct creation — already necessitated by many other scientific considerations — is therefore also indicated by chronometric data. Nearly all these methods have been aired in the scientific literature and found to be so worthless that scientists do not use them for determining the age of the Earth.
These calculations occur throughout the literature of creation “science” (e.g., 13, 77, 92, 116, 135), and they have been conveniently tabulated by Morris (93, 95) and Morris and Parker (97) (Table 10).
Concerning this tabulation, Morris and Parker (97) make the following statement: There are, as a matter of fact, scores of worldwide processes which give ages far too young to suit the standard Evolution Model.
Radiometric dating, in contrast, is based on a process (radioactive decay) known not to vary significantly with changes in physical or chemical conditions.
Creationists (e.g., 97) frequently claim that “evolutionists” use the principle of uniformity to interpret scientific data, but these authors badly misrepresent the modern meaning of uniformitarianism.
I do not discuss the remaining ages listed in Table 10 either because they are not within my area of expertise or because I simply did not have time to investigate them.
This variability, of course, simply reflects the errors in the fundamental uniformitarian assumptions.
Nevertheless, all things considered, it seems that those ages on the low end of the spectrum are likely to be more accurate than those on the high end.
This conclusion follows from the obvious fact that: (1) they are less likely to have been affected by initial concentrations or positions other than “zero”; (2) the assumption that the system was a “closed system” is more likely to be valid for a short time than for a long time; (3) the assumption that the process rate was constant is also more likely to be valid for a short time than for a long time.
Applying the reasonable premise that this planet never had a magnetic field as great as that of a magnetic star, one can note from Table 2 that the origin of the earth’s magnetic field had to be more recent than 8000 B. That is to say, the origin of the earth’s magnetic field was less than 10,000 years ago.
Just how much more recent than 10,000 years cannot be determined from present scientific knowledge.An inspection of the reference lists provided by Morris (93, 95) and Morris and Parker (97) shows that most of the calculations were done and published by Morris and his colleagues.