Sorry, but…not it doesn’t. Radiometric dating is the best evidence, yes, but not carbon. Plenty of other techniques.
As for a reason to trust the accuracy, that’s easy: Oklo.
4 Likes
I couldn’t resist asking Gemini Advanced AI engine how Young Earth Creationists address the Oklo situation:
Young Earth Creationists (YECs) generally interpret the Oklo natural nuclear reactor as evidence supporting a young Earth and challenging conventional geological timescales. Here are some of their key arguments:
1. Rapid Decay Rates: YECs often propose that radioactive decay rates were accelerated in the past, particularly during events like the biblical Flood. They argue that the Oklo reactor, which operated around 1.7 billion years ago according to conventional dating, could not have sustained a chain reaction for a significant period if decay rates were constant. They suggest that accelerated decay rates would have led to a rapid buildup of heat and fission products, making the reactor unsustainable over long periods.
2. Hydrothermal Fluid Flow: YECs often emphasize the role of hydrothermal fluids in the formation and operation of the Oklo reactor. They propose that these fluids, possibly associated with the Flood, could have transported and concentrated uranium, creating the conditions necessary for a natural nuclear reaction. They argue that conventional models, which rely on slow and gradual processes over millions of years, cannot adequately explain the formation of such a unique geological feature.
3. Preservation of Fission Products: YECs point to the preservation of fission products within the Oklo reactor as evidence against long geological timescales. They argue that if the reactor operated billions of years ago, these fission products would have migrated and dispersed over time, leaving little trace. They suggest that the preservation of these products indicates a much younger age for the reactor and the surrounding geological formations.
4. Challenges to Radiometric Dating: YECs often question the reliability of radiometric dating methods, suggesting that assumptions about initial conditions and constant decay rates can lead to significant errors. They argue that the Oklo reactor provides an opportunity to test these dating methods and that the results challenge the conventional age assigned to it.
5. Alternative Interpretations: YECs may propose alternative interpretations of the Oklo reactor, suggesting that it was not a natural phenomenon but rather a result of divine intervention or advanced technology from a pre-Flood civilization.
As Robert Ripley used to say: “Believe it or not.”
(I was tempted to say, “You just can’t make this stuff up.” But Young Earth Creationists do exactly that. Nevertheless, in all seriousness, these “arguments” are really quite amazing.)
2 Likes
Greetings PS! It’s been a while.
I was sitting here bored at my work and decided to bring up the PeacefulScience forum after a long hiatus. I immediately found this thread (fifth from the top). After a little hesitation, I decided to join back in on a PS thread; ignoring that voice saying “Why bother??” Perhaps I’m too bored at work…
Unfortunately I’m also leaving early in the morning for a long anticipated ski trip to CO (and still have to pack), and really don’t want to engage here during that trip. But I also don’t want this thread to die before having a chance to respond adequately. So I figured I’d post something in order to keep this thread alive for at least a week:
Got a few things to say in response (eventually). After decades of following YEC, I’m now convinced it’s definitely a more rational worldview than most people understand; and certainly more rational that FE. I’ve learned quite a bit on the topic and don’t mind sharing my thoughts.
Sorry @AllenWitmerMiller to just drop this and leave. But I do promise to get back to this and add more.
There… that should keep this thread alive until I get back (at least until the 7-day timeout).
On to the moguls…
-Jeff
2 Likes
Hey @jeffb 
I completely agree that ski trips get first priority. I’ve recently moved back west, and I’m still working on getting my ski-legs back after two decades in Wisconsin.
I just extended the topic timer to 3 months, which should give you plenty of time to respond. Have fun on the slopes! 
1 Like
3 posts were split to a new topic: A Downward Digression
Well it’s not really obvious that the Earth is a sphere from any vantage point on it’s surface. This always has to come down to an inference. You can travel the globe, but it’s not something you can “just do” on any given sunday.
Under normal circumstances you can get information that the surface isn’t flat, and is curving downwards. But it’s not obvious for how far out this continues of course. The true shape of the Earth does take some effort to infer from a number of experiments or observations you can do, if you can’t actually fly in an airplane, travel into space, or get satellite pictures.
The Earth spins around it’s axis which is why we have a day-night cycle, but of course people believed for millennia it was the sun that spun around the Earth.
I think perhaps one good clue is the moon. At least the moon makes it obvious to the naked eye that the universe contains spheres just hanging out in the darkness of space. It shouldn’t be much of an inference from that observation that perhaps the probably-not-flat Earth is another of them.
The true age of the Earth is less obvious than the Earth’s non-flatness. It took much longer to figure out. There isn’t anywhere on the globe you can go and just see how old it is. We might be able to go places and see things from which we can infer it must be much older than 6000 years, but they’re not just everywhere and anywhere, and it usually still takes some inference to put together.
All in all I would say it is less obvious that the Earth is much older than 6000 years, than how obvious it is that the Earth isn’t flat, from the perspective of someone just being able to go outside and try to piece it together.
But that’s not really the comparison. We live in 2025 now. We can all access the internet, there are satellites, etc. We all have access to a lot of information a person who lived 500 years ago didn’t have. They might not be exactly equal still, but both things are definitely in the “obviously ridiculous” bin. The comparison is fair. Both positions require vast conspiracies to entertain.
3 Likes
Before you judge the rationality of YEC you really need to understand the scale of the evidence against it. Joel Duff’s series on the Dead Sea (starting here Dead Sea Chronicles provides a lot of evidence - that’s still a small part of the whole.
1 Like
Welcome back! By all means, drop in again when you get the chance. (And your alternative view is exactly what I was hoping for when I started this thread. Sounds interesting.)
And even if something has timed out, you can always message me (or any other moderator) and we will either re-open a thread or come up with a good way to re-launch the topic.
And by the way, yours is probably among my favorite all-time user-descriptions. Friendly Mohawked YEC is one powerful word-picture! I like it.
You answered the question yourself right here:
Do you know any flat earth Ph.D.s?
I knew of four but only one of those did I know personally. To my knowledge none of them had a Ph.D. in sciences particularly relevant to flat earth concepts. It has been a very long time for my brain but I think two of the four had some sort of engineering Ph.D. I’m certain that three of the four are long deceased. Don’t know about the fourth.
Because it is also possible that some of them may have eventually changed their positions, I will not name names. Also I can say for certain that in at least one of the cases, their extended families found their very public position quite embarrassing and so I will not add to their embarrassment.
That said, do you think a more accurate tally of those with PhDs who affirm/affirmed flat-earthism would be relevant to the question of whether it is unfair to compare YECism with flat-earthism?
POSTSCRIPT: I have heard that there are not just a few PhDs in relevant scientific fields who have published their flat-earth viewpoints in Arabic-language journals. I’ve never researched this claim to see if it can be supported by evidence, in part because I don’t read Arabic and the automated translations can be quite poor. Nevertheless, just as there are Young Earth Creationists with valid science PhDs who insist that they MUST ignore all contrary evidence because they believe the Bible supports YECism, there are certainly Islamic scholars who insist that the earth is flat based upon their Quranic interpretations. Therefore, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if there are more than a few science PhDs in the Middle East in particular (even in very relevant fields to the topic) who affirm a flat-earth.
Perhaps diligent research would determine that YECism is a foible of some Christian sects while flat-earthism is more likely to be a foible of Islamic sects. If that is shown to be true, would it affect the “unfairness” of the OP question?
By the way, the only flat-earther PhD I knew personally held that view because of his very “literal view” of various scriptures.
4 Likes
If you think that matters, does the fact that almost all PhD’s in relevant fields accept that the earth is ancient, matter?
3 Likes
It matters to the point we are discussing, i.e., whether an ancient earth is an obviously ridiculous position like flat earth.
How many YEC Ph.Ds do you know of?
Does flat earth society have a yearly conference with 600 of them?
Does some flat earth group published peer reviewed technical journals?
This is a ridiculous thread, and I honestly can’t believe you are serious.
Ben has a point, in that the comparison could easily turn into a loaded question (“So when did you stop beating your Flat-Earther?”). I think we should be careful to limit the discussion to the original context:
If this discussion is to continue, let me suggest a framework to prevent a game of Brockian Ultracricket:
- We have three groups: YEC, FE, and EVO,with EVO as shorthand for science and/or “Evolutionists”.
- Each group thinks the other two are wrong. This is a starting assumption so no need to argue about it.
- Each group objects to being equated to any other.
Given these assumptions, what similarity and differences exist? Can the similarities and differences be used for “fair” comparisons?
1 Like
I will make one observation before stepping out to referee: I think it is is fair to say YEC and FE are more similar to each other than to EVO.
I’m honestly curious how YEC and FE see their differences.
1 Like
That would mean that those for whom, by training and daily work, involve understanding of topics relevant to the processes and age of the earth, almost universally regard a young earth as an obviously ridiculous position.
I will agree that FE is even goofier than YEC, because it is more immediate. At least some of it has to be there are always going to be egos who love being contrary and are horrified that they might not be somehow possess special knowledge, and I do not believe that is a dominant driver in YEC. Asimov’s degrees of wrongness apply - saying the earth is a sphere is wrong, but far less wrong than saying it is flat, but YEC is demonstrably wrong none the less.
But it is fair for Allen to point out there are commonalities between YEC and FE. As mentioned, one is the rejection of scientific consensus and ensuing slander of that community. Another is that a significant proportion of FE roots their cosmology in literal interpretation of scripture. YEC of course disputes that hermeneutic while maintaining their own literalism, but those arguments are very arbitrary and conveniently ignore the ANE context.
1 Like
This is not settling things down as I hoped. I’m setting Slow Mode for the weekend so I might get other things done.