In regards to C-14 in petroleum deposits, I quote W. Libby, the originator of the C-14 technique: “The long time that coal or oil have been underground insures that the original radiocarbon in the plants which produced them would long since have disappeared.” (etler.com/docs/OSTI/ACC0338.pdf). Yet petroleum does contain C-14, as evidenced by this talkorigins page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html, which concludes, “I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!”

The site gives alternate theories for the existence of C-14, which is perfectly legitimate— I just object to the exclusion of the hypothesis that most easily satisfies the principle of parsimony, which is that the C-14 is original to the petroleum-bearing formation.

Also, this summer, a German scientist associated with a Catholic group, the Kolbe Center for Study of Creation, presented the results of C-14 studies in dinosaur bones at an AGU/AOGS conference in Singapore. Afterward, the presentation abstract disappeared from the online program without any explanation. Fortunately, it was recorded, and you can see the presentation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ

Again, what I object to here is not alternative theories for C-14 in organic materials, but censorship and suppression of data that doesn’t fit the prevailing paradigm.

Here is a list of reports of organic material that have been found in ancient rocks, many of them published after Mary Schweitzer’s 2005 discovery: http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue. She, by the way, maintains the radiometric age of her samples, despite the existence of studies to the contrary, including one published this year (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1748/4724.short).

I agree with you that there is a general order in rock layers, but I don’t think the biostratigraphic zonations are as precise as you think, because when fossils appear in layers where they’re not supposed to be, they’re labeled as “reworked.” For example, the presence of trilobite fossils in presumed Ordovician rocks was labeled as “reworking” at Green Point, Newfoundland (www.stratigraphy.org/GSSP/file42.pdf). A three toed track in western Washington was attributed not to a dinosaur, but to a giant bird, simply because it was located in rocks of presumed Eocene age, although the author admitted, “In rocks of Mesozoic age, tracks of this size and shape would likely be interpreted as having been made by a small dinosaur …” (nwgeology.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/giant-eocene-bird-footprints-paper-palaeontology.pdf) You can find other examples by searching for “reworking of fossils” on Google Scholar.

I can’t comment upon the physical constants argument because I don’t know enough about it. I agree with you that there are problems with the young earth hypothesis, though not necessarily the ones you give—here’s a list from a YEC geologist: http://thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/the-top-five-challenges-for-creationist-geology/

However, there are many problems with the old earth-evolution model as well. Ultimately, I think the main divide in this debate is not between old earthers and young earthers, or even between evolutionists and creationists. It’s between those who believe in God and those who don’t, between those who hold that all that exists is the material world which can be discerned by the senses, and those who believe that an order of being exists beyond that of the purely material. For the former, the assumption must be that natural laws are invariant, which excludes all possibility of miracles, including a supernatural cause for the creation of the universe.

For the latter, however, there is no inherent reason to exclude supernatural causes or to presume that natural laws have been invariant throughout time. This does not mean that a miracle must be proposed for every unexplainable phenomenon, but it does mean that miraculous causes should not be automatically excluded.

For me, the conflict between radiometric dating and the evidence of C-14 and preserved soft tissues is significant enough to conclude that the absolute dates provided by radiometric dating do not pass the burden of proof of reasonable doubt. The hypothesis of a one-time appearance in the not-so-distant past of all living kinds, with a built-in but limited potential for variation, is consistent with both the biologic and the geologic evidence, and should not be automatically excluded just because it doesn’t fit into the narrow philosophical domain of uniformitarian naturalism.

Thank you for your patience with this long post—you evidently took the time to look into the matter, so I felt I needed to adequately explain my reasoning.

Re: Why ‘inevitably’? Is it because that’s what the data says?

Yes, indeed, why inevitably? It all depends on whether you believe that science can eventually come up with some solid and undeniable results and conclusions. Can it? And if it cannot, then why pretend it can? And why then impose such “science” as absolutely true in schools?

This is the old debate of theology/religion vs. science — which one is ultimately superior and which can supply absolute knowledge?

S.J. Gould’s attempt at NOMA or “non-overlapping magisteria” tried to make science independent of religion, but is it?

One prediction of the young earth model is that C-14 should be found in petroleum-bearing deposits, and that has been a problematic issue for conventional geologists for a long time.

Y’know, I’ve been hearing about this for a long time. In fact, back in the early 90′s I actually chased some references because I could easily go to the university library. Oddly enough, I found that… well, read for yourself.

However, my point is that neither the young earth nor the old earth view is really pertinent to petroleum geology.

The article you yourself cited doesn’t agree.

For example, the fossil record can be viewed as either a record of appearance and disappearance of organisms in time, or as a record of worldwide catastrophic burial and ecological zonation.

Except that the zones are physically located on top of each other, and somehow never ever mix. And not just macrofauna, but microfossils like pollen are somehow sorted into very specific layers, and never appear in ‘younger layers’ and disappear after ‘older layers’.

such as the existence of preserved soft tissue and C-14 in fossils presumed tens to hundreds of millions of years old, when such material should have disappeared long ago.

Which specific cases are you citing? I’ve looked into a few, and they haven’t proved as spectacular as all that.

To return to something you said previously –

The presumed age of the earth depends ultimately upon the absolute dates provided by radioisotope dating.

There are far more problems than that for a young Earth. Ice cores, tree rings, varve layers (with included sorted fossils), etc. But radioactive dating has an incredible amount of supporting data – including from unexpected places. Ever heard of Oklo, Gabon, Africa?

There’s another problem with arguing against radioactive dating, BTW. A currently-fashionable argument for God claims that the structure of the universe is ‘fine-tuned’ for our kind of life. That even tiny variations in a even a single physical constant would totally mess up the universe as a life-bearing place. But if that’s the case, it would be impossible to accelerate radioactive decay by 750,000 times and have a recognizable universe…

Another prediction would be that shales and mudstones, which are the source rocks for petroleum reservoirs, should have been deposited in a short time. The shale argument has been used against the young earth model by Morton and others, because the traditional hypothesis was that they were formed by settling out of suspension over a long period of time, but the work of Jurgen Scheiber at Indiana University has showed that shales can be deposited in a short time by currents, so that argument, anyway, is not really valid. In addition, sequence stratigraphy, which was developed by a petroleum geologist, is very consistent with a catastrophic worldwide marine transgression.

However, my point is that neither the young earth nor the old earth view is really pertinent to petroleum geology. If the age of the earth was so important to exploration departments, they’d be hiring more paleontologists.

It’s also important to realize that much geological data is equivocal in regard to origins, depending upon the preconceptions of the researcher. For example, the fossil record can be viewed as either a record of appearance and disappearance of organisms in time, or as a record of worldwide catastrophic burial and ecological zonation.

However, there are some data that are unequivocably anomalous for the old earth position, such as the existence of preserved soft tissue and C-14 in fossils presumed tens to hundreds of millions of years old, when such material should have disappeared long ago.

Obviously, different people will weight different pieces of evidence differently. The C-14/soft tissue data just seem pretty significant to me.

Yes, geologists would be qualified to answer scientifically the age of the earth, but their answer will inevitably imply a certain “theology”, specifically aimed against the religion of American Fundamentalists.

Why ‘inevitably’? Is it because that’s what the data says? (Is it also ‘specifically aimed against’ the Hindu religion which postulates a universe hundreds of trillions of years old?)

And are parents really restricted from educating their children as they choose? What curriculum covers evolution in the lower grades, anyway? My son’s only learning about it now in the 7th grade…

Yes, geologists would be qualified to answer scientifically the age of the earth, but their answer will inevitably imply a certain “theology”, specifically aimed against the religion of American Fundamentalists.

Obviously you didn’t get the POINT of Chesterton’s article! — you don’t need theology or priests to instil a certain (today materialistic) world-view, professors can do that also based on what they teach and how they teach and insinuate implications. They have done an “excellent” job in that respect. In fact, this materialistic education in the English speaking world has been going on since Darwin, specifically since Darwin’s Bulldog T H. Huxley instituted such education for the British workers, and it has been the main culprit behind the general degradation of religion, morals and science. You can blame pretty much all modern evils on this “education” of the masses. Those who are familiar with the work of Chesterton, this is the main and the recurring theme in his works!

( Somehow I accidentally got an extra “f” in the word “education” I was typing, which, surprisingly, gave it the real meaning and I was tempted to leave it in, but I decided to take it out. For the online First Things editor – if you feel even this comment in the brackets is inappropriate, please take it out.)

Yes, geologists would be qualified to answer scientifically the age of the earth, but their answer will inevitably imply a certain “theology”, specifically aimed against the religion of American Fundamentalists. Rubio answered correctly, he didn’t claim to be a scientist or a theologian! And it is up to the American citizens to decide whether they want to uphold the real freedom of religion, or whether they want to continue with the sham “freedom” of religion and enforce materialistic education, especially in the lower grades where it is more important to teach good morals based on religion than some still controversial “darwinian” science.

Likewise teaching of professors like Stephen M. Barr — his theory of chance behind natural processes is muddleheaded and controversial, theologically and mathematically. He is free to publish it and defend it, perhaps something good will eventually come out of such “chaos”, but it would be ludicrous to teach such complex “theory” to elementary school kids as real proven science. Yet the equivalent of such a “philosophically, theologically and mathematically” fuzzy theory is actually being taught in biology classes all over the world, and it is such an unspecified muddled “theory” that is used to prove Darwinian evolution scientifically.

What you should have asked is why only “scientists” are qualified to answer that question. What makes scientists like Stephen M. Barr qualified and Rubio not qualified?

Would Rubio be as qualified to answer a question about biology as biologists? As qualified to answer a question about neurology as neurologists? As qualified to answer a question about physics as physicists?

I’d say “scientists” – geologists in particular – are qualified to answer questions about the age of the Earth because they study it in great detail all their lives as part of their profession. Is that not a good enough answer?