Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? 1


DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing (a). Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years (b). This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves (c) and 11–425-million-year-old salt crystals (d). Dozens of plants and animals have left their DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old (e). DNA fragments are also said to be in alleged 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed (f) and in the scales of a 200-million-year-old fossilized fish (g). DNA is frequently reported in insects and plants encased in amber, both assumed to be 25–120 million years old (h).

These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit (i). They now claim that DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this claim (j).

a. This natural process is driven by the continual thermal vibrations of atoms in DNA. Just as marbles in a vibrating container always try to find lower positions, vibrating atoms tend to reorganize into arrangements with lower energies. Thus, DNA tends to form less energetic compounds such as water and carbon dioxide.

b. Bryan Sykes, “The Past Comes Alive,” Nature, Vol. 352, 1 August 1991, pp. 381–382.

“Many scientists still consider this idea [that DNA could last longer than 10,000 years] far fetched, but Poinar points out that not long ago few people believed any ancient DNA could be sequenced. ‘When we started, we were told that we were crazy,’ he says.” Kathryn Hoppe, “Brushing the Dust off Ancient DNA,” Science News, Vol. 142, 24 October 1992, p. 281.

c. Edward M. Golenberg et al., “Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species,” Nature, Vol. 344, 12 April 1990, pp. 656–658.

DNA disintegrates faster when it is in contact with water. In commenting on the remarkably old DNA in a supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leaf, Svante Pääbo remarked, “The clay [in which the leaf was found] was wet, however, and one wonders how DNA could have survived the damaging influence of water for so long.” Also see Svante Pääbo, “Ancient DNA,” Scientific American, Vol. 269, November 1993, p. 92. [Maybe those magnolia leaves are not 17 million years old.]

“That DNA could survive for such a staggering length of time was totally unexpected—almost unbelievable.” Jeremy Cherfas, “Ancient DNA: Still Busy after Death,” Science, Vol. 253, 20 September 1991, p. 1354.

d. “Fragments of 16S ribosomal RNA genes were detected by polymerase chain reaction amplification of DNA extracted from halite [salt, NaCl] samples ranging in age from 11 to 425 Myr (millions of years).” Steven A. Fish et al., “Recovery of 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene Fragments from Ancient Halite,” Nature, Vol. 417, 23 May 2002, p. 432.

e. Eske Willerslev et al., “Diverse Plant and Animal
Genetic Records from Holocene and Pleistocene Sediments,” Science, Vol. 300, 2 May 2003, pp. 791–795.

f. “Under physiological conditions, it would be extremely rare to find preserved DNA that was tens of thousands of years old.” Scott R. Woodward et al., “DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments,” Science, Vol. 266, 18 November 1994, p. 1229.

Some have charged that the DNA Woodward recovered from a large Cretaceous bone in Utah was contaminated with human, or perhaps mammal, DNA. Several of their arguments are based on evolutionary presuppositions. Woodward rebuts those claims in “Detecting Dinosaur DNA,” Science, Vol. 268, 26 May 1995, pp. 1191–1194.

g. Hoppe, p. 281.

Virginia Morell, “30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field,” Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, p. 1862.

h. Hendrick N. Poinar et al., “DNA from an Extinct Plant,” Nature, Vol. 363, 24 June 1993, p. 677.

Rob DeSalle et al., “DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications,” Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, pp. 1933–1936.

Raúl J. Cano et al., “Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil,” Nature, Vol. 363, 10 June 1993, pp. 536–538.

i. Tomas Lindahl is a recognized expert on DNA and its rapid disintegration. He tried to solve this problem of “old” DNA by claiming that all such discoveries resulted from contamination and poor measurement techniques. He wrote, “The apparent observation that fully hydrated plant DNA might be retained in high-molecular mass form for 20 million years is incompatible with the known properties of the chemical structure of DNA.” [See Tomas Lindahl, “Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA,” Nature, Vol. 362, 22 April 1993, p. 714.] His claims of contamination are effectively rebutted in many of the papers listed above and by:

George O. Poinar Jr., in “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” Nature, Vol. 365, 21 October 1993, p. 700. (The work of George Poinar and others was a major inspiration for the book and film, Jurassic Park. )

Edward M. Golenberg, “Antediluvian DNA Research,” [i]Nature, [i] Vol. 367, 24 February 1994, p. 692.

The measurement procedures of Poinar and others were far better controlled than Lindahl realized. That is, modern DNA did not contaminate the fossil. However, Lindahl is probably correct in saying that DNA cannot last much longer than 10,000 years. All points of view are consistent when one concludes that these old ages are wrong.

j. “We know from chemical experiments that it [DNA] degrades and how fast it degrades. After 25 million years, there shouldn’t be any DNA left at all.” Rebecca L. Cann, as quoted by Morell, p. 1862.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences30.html]

[Pahu]

Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? 2

Bacteria. Even living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25–40-million-year-old amber (k). The same bacteria, Bacillus, are found alive in rocks allegedly 250 million and 650 million years old (l). Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5 billion years old (m). Anyone who accepts such old ages for these rocks must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion. (Because these “old” bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)

Proteins and Soft Tissue. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins (n), soft tissue (o), and blood compounds (p) preserved in dinosaur bones and a large marine reptile (q). As with DNA, these remains should not last 65–150 million years, as is ridiculously claimed (r).

k. Raúl J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki, “Revival and Identification of Bacterial Spores in 25- to 40-Million-Year-Old Dominican Amber,” Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, pp. 1060–1064.

Many tests were preformed to rule out contamination. [See also F. G. Priest, Andrew T. Beckenbach, and Raúl J. Cano, “Age of Bacteria from Amber,” Science, Vol. 270, 22 December 1995, pp. 2015–2017.]

“When you look at them they don’t look any different from the modern ones, but these bacteria are ancient [supposedly 25–40 million years ancient] and they’re alive!” Joshua Fischman, “Have 25-Million-Year-Old Bacteria Returned to Life?” Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, p. 977.

l. “There is also the question of how bacterial biopolymers can remain intact over millions of years in dormant bacteria; or, conversely, if bacteria are metabolically active enough to repair biopolymers, this raises the question of what energy source could last over such a long period.” R. John Parkes, “A Case of Bacterial Immortality?” Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 844–845.

Russell H. Vreeland et al., “Isolation of a 250 Million-Year-Old Halotolerant Bacterium from a Primary Salt Crystal,” Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 897–900.

Other tests have confirmed Vreeland’s discover described above. [See Cindy L. Satterfield et al., “New Evidence for 250 Ma Age of Halotolerant Bacterium from a Permian Salt Crystal,” Geology, Vol. 33, April 2005, pp. 265–268.]

m. See Endnote 89 here:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1642060
n. Richard Monastersky, “Protein Identified in Dinosaur Fossils,” Science News, Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213.

Gerard Muyzer et al., “Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs,” Geology, Vol. 20, October 1992, pp. 871–874.

o. “‘I got goose bumps,’ recalls [Mary] Schweitzer. ‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” Virginia Morell, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype,” Science, Vol. 261, 9 July 1993, p. 160.

“Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels ...” Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex,” Science, Vol. 307, 25 March 2005, p. 1952.

“‘I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren’t supposed to be there, but there they are,’ said Schweitzer, lead author of the paper. ‘I was pretty shocked.’” Evelyn Boswell, “Montana T. Rex Yields Next Big Discovery in Dinosaur Paleontology,” Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005, p. 1.

Mary H. Schweitzer made these discoveries while completing her doctor’s degree under John “Jack” R. Horner, one of the world’s leading dinosaur researchers. Horner is the Curator of Paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies, and was a technical advisor for the film Jurassic Park.

When Schweitzer reported her discovery to Horner, he replied, “Mary, the freaking creationists are just going to love you.” Schweitzer replied, “Jack, its your dinosaur.” [See Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur (New York: Penguin Group, 2009), pp. 80–81.

p. Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Heme Compounds in Dinosaur Trabecular Bone,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 94, June 1997, pp. 6291–6296.

q. “Here we report on an exceptionally complete specimen (LACM 128319) of the moderately derived genus Platecarpus that preserves soft tissues and anatomical details....” Johan Lindgren et al., “Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur,” PloS ONE, 5(8) e11998, 2010.

r. “There is still so much about ancient soft tissues that we do not understand. Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?” Mary H. Schweitzer, “Blood from Stone,” Scientific American, Vol. 303, December 2010, p. 69.

Schweitzer and the Scientific American editors give no answer, but think blood comes from 67-million-year-old stone. The answer is simple; the soft tissue and blood found is less than 1/10,000th of the age they assumed. They don’t understand the flood and the origin of earth’s radioactivity. [See pages 106-362 here:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1016617]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences30.html]

[Pahu]

Human Artifacts

At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble (a), an iron pot (b), an iron instrument (c) an 8-karat gold chain (d), three throwing-spears (e), and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver (f). Other “out-of-place artifacts” have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails (g), a screw (h), a strange coin (i) a tiny ceramic doll (j), and other objects of obvious human manufacture (k). By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man. Again, something is wrong.

a. J. Q. Adams, “Eve’s Thimble,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, October 1883, pp. 331–332.

b. Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human Footprints in Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, March 1971, pp. 201–202.

c. John Buchanan, “Discovery of an Iron Instrument Lately Found Imbedded in a Natural Seam of Coal in the Neighbourhood of Glasgow,” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part 2, Section IV, 1853.

d. “A Necklace of a Prehistoric God,” Morrisonville Times (Morrisonville, Illinois), 11 June 1891, p. 1.

e. Robin Dennell, “The World’s Oldest Spears,” Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 767–768.

Hartmut Thieme, “Lower Palaeolithic Hunting Spears from Germany,” Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 807–810.

f. “A Relic of a By-Gone Age,” Scientific American, Vol. 7, 5 June 1852, p. 298.

g. David Brewster, “Queries and Statements Concerning a Nail Found Imbedded in a Block of Sandstone Obtained from Kingoodie (Mylnfield) Quarry, North Britain,” reported to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1844.

Rene Noorbergen, Secrets of the Lost Races (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1977), p. 42.

h. Ibid.

i. J. R. Jochmans, “Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth,” Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1979, p. 1.

j. Robert E. Gentet and Edward C. Lain, “The Nampa Image—An Ancient Artifact?” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, March 1999, pp. 203–210.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 297–300.

G. Frederick Wright, “The Idaho Find,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 2, 1889, pp. 379–381.

G. Frederick Wright, “An Archaeological Discovery in Idaho,” Scribner’s Magazine, Vol. 7, 1890, pp. 235–238.

k. Frank Calvert, “On the Probable Existence of Man during the Miocene Period,” Anthropological Institute Journal, Vol. 3, 1873, pp. 127–129.

J. B. Browne, “Singular Impression in Marble,” The American Journal of Science and Arts, January 1831, p. 361.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1260401]

[optimus]

Jesus. Lock this flucking thread.

[megadebt]

I don't know about the rest of ya. But, I no longer believe Evolution is the governing law of the universe. I've been thoroughly beaten into submission by Pahu's unyielding onslaught of fancy, well-indexed propaganda.

[Pahu]

Jesus. Lock this flucking thread.

Your prayer to Jesus is touching. Perhaps an appeal to the moderator would be more effective.

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, that’s fine. I believe the free exchange of ideas based on facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with known laws of physics and biology confirmed by the scientists being quoted, not me.

The mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the king’s idol.

Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den for worshipping God, contrary to the king’s decree.

Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.

His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.

Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church during the inquisition.

Hitler murdered millions of Jews, Christians and others because he disagreed with them.

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.

Muslims murder everyone who disagrees with them.

So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your worldview.


The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They’ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.

[megadebt]

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They’ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.

Dude, I can't believe that you're truly able to SEE what it is that you've actually just said here....yet, at the same time you're totally not able to see that this thing might apply to YOU, and not the atheistic secular humanist. Possibility?

[Pahu]

Dude, I can't believe that you're truly able to SEE what it is that you've actually just said here....yet, at the same time you're totally not able to see that this thing might apply to YOU, and not the atheistic secular humanist. Possibility?

You may have a point. Will you demonstrate which facts I have shared that are incorrect?

[megadebt]

You may have a point. Will you demonstrate which facts I have shared that are incorrect?

You must understand that this is a totally unrealistic goal. What, with the thousand-plus things you've already posted here. I read through the first few of them at the time and quickly detected that they were based on a full and total misunderstanding, or maybe much more likely - a total and deliberate perversion of the scientific method.

After I saw what you were doing, I stopped reading. I doubt that you've even read most of what you post here. But, in reply, I did post a couple very important points, actually 'irrefutable' points about the nature of this particular universe that we all find ourselves in, and how these particular points prove (to the rational/scientific-based minds), that 'Evolution' is THE overarching LAW of the universe.

There's a number of things that we encounter on a daily basis that prove that evolution is the one law that bridges all the many branches of science. I could go on and show some more. But, like you've already stated so eloquently above. When someone has so much vested in a contrary belief, they will not accept any amount of evidence, no matter how persuasive that evidence might be.

[Pahu]

You must understand that this is a totally unrealistic goal. What, with the thousand-plus things you've already posted here. I read through the first few of them at the time and quickly detected that they were based on a full and total misunderstanding, or maybe much more likely - a total and deliberate perversion of the scientific method.

It appears that you don't understand the modern scientific method. Science is a field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observations and experiments.

Broad, but increasingly precise and concise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

Notice, this does not mean that the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can give great insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning.

Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence, which is something that has been measured with instruments or detected with our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible physical explanations.

What is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves.

After I saw what you were doing, I stopped reading. I doubt that you've even read most of what you post here. But, in reply, I did post a couple very important points, actually 'irrefutable' points about the nature of this particular universe that we all find ourselves in, and how these particular points prove (to the rational/scientific-based minds), that 'Evolution' is THE overarching LAW of the universe.

All the evidence I have shared is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean that the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science.

There's a number of things that we encounter on a daily basis that prove that evolution is the one law that bridges all the many branches of science. I could go on and show some more. But, like you've already stated so eloquently above. When someone has so much vested in a contrary belief, they will not accept any amount of evidence, no matter how persuasive that evidence might be.

Evolution is based on erroneous preconceptions rather than science. Evolutionists’ refusal to debate this subject and their speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated also show poor science, especially when so much evidence opposes those speculations.

Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, “Even though evidence may imply a sudden beginning, creation is supernatural (not natural) and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation.” Of course, no one understands scientifically how the universe came into existence—how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began.

Others, not disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible—a document they wish to discredit—speaks of such a flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood, but in science, all starting points are possibilities. The key question must always be, “What best explains all the evidence?”

For more information on this subject, go to:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp2727001

[Pahu]

Parallel Layers

Because no worldwide or even continental unconformity exists in Earth’s sedimentary layers, those layers must have been deposited rapidly. (An unconformity represents a time break of unknown duration—for example, an erosional surface between two adjacent strata.) Parallel layers (called conformities) imply continuous, relatively rapid deposition. Because unconformities are simply local phenomena (a), one can trace continuous paths, which sometimes move horizontally, from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphic record that avoid these time breaks. The sedimentary layers along those paths must have been deposited rapidly and continuously as a unit (b).

Frequently, two adjacent and parallel sedimentary layers contain such different index fossils that evolutionists conclude they were deposited hundreds of millions of years apart. However, because the adjacent layers are conformable, they must have been deposited without interruption or erosion. [For an explanation of how conformable layers can have such different fossils, see pages 172-183 here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1100074] Often, in sequences showing no sign of disturbance, the layer considered older by evolutionists is on top! [See “Out-of-Place fossils” here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp3235321] Evolutionary dating rules are self-contradictory (c).

a. Geologists have known this for many years. [See Archibald Geikie, Text-Book of Geology (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1882), p. 602.]

b. Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, General Edition (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 113.

c. “Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on.” William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219.

George McCready Price, The New Geology, 2nd edition (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1923), pp. 486, 500, 504, 506, 543, 620–627.

George McCready Price, Evolutionary Geology and the New Catastrophism (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1926), pp. 90–104.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences32.html]

[Pahu]

A Young Universe?

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence:

Helium

One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young (a).

a. “What Happened to the Earth’s Helium?” New Scientist, Vol. 24, 3 December 1964, pp. 631–632.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10–14.

Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium?” Nature, Vol. 179, 26 January 1957, p. 213.

Joseph W. Chamberlain, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 371–372.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences33.html]

[megadebt]

All the evidence I have shared is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean that the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science.

You're a young-earth Creationist? Oh, no. You actually come across a tad more intelligent than that. You do realize that there were several 'flood' myths which pre-date the biblical tale, right? That India and Persia both have a 'flood' myth that predates the Israeli one by 700 or more years. And, I'm sure, by now, you've been forced to confront the close to '100' different scientific anomalies and logical absurdities associated with the biblical flood story. How in Yahweh's name can you still say that you believe that this redunkulously retarded event occured when it is logical and scientifically impossible on so, so, so many different levels? Why do you have so much vested in such a feeble-minded fable? Hey, Pahu, how would you react if I told you that I could prove that The Gospels are a total 100% 'forgery' solely using the four Gospels as my only evidence? If I did that right here and right now, would you renounce this silly malarky-laced religious nonsense?

[Pahu]

You're a young-earth Creationist? Oh, no. You actually come across a tad more intelligent than that. You do realize that there were several 'flood' myths which pre-date the biblical tale, right? That India and Persia both have a 'flood' myth that predates the Israeli one by 700 or more years.

Your pre-flood date is questionable. A gigantic flood may be the most common of all legends—ever. Almost every ancient culture has legends telling of a traumatic flood in which only a few humans survived in a large boat (a). This cannot be said for other types of catastrophes, such as earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, disease, famines, or drought. More than 230 flood legends contain many common elements, suggesting they have a common historical source that left a vivid impression on survivors of that catastrophe.


Figure 39: Chinese Word for Boat. Classical Chinese, dating to about 2500 B.C., is one of the oldest languages known. Its “words,” called pictographs, are often composed of smaller symbols that themselves have meaning and together tell a story. For example, the classical Chinese word for boat, shown above, is composed of the symbols for “vessel,” “eight,” and “mouth” or “person.” Why would the ancient Chinese refer to a boat as “eight-person-vessel”? How many people were on the Ark?

a. “It has long been known that legends of a great flood, in which almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world...” James George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1, (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1919), p. 105.

Byron C. Nelson, The Deluge Story in Stone (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1968), pp. 169–190.

“...there are many descriptions of the remarkable event [the Genesis Flood]. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets, and still others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient or modern times about which there is better evidence or more numerous records, than this very one which is so beautifully but briefly described in the sacred Scriptures. It is one of the events which seems to be familiar to the most distant nations—in Australia, in India, in China, in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America. It is true that many look upon the story as it is repeated in these distant regions, as either referring to local floods, or as the result of contact with civilized people, who have brought it from historic countries, and yet the similarity of the story is such as to make even this explanation unsatisfactory.” Stephen D. Peet, “The Story of the Deluge,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4, July–August 1905, p. 203.

C. H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, The Discovery of Genesis (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979). This excellent book shows that the classical Chinese pictographs contain many stories and details found in the early chapters of Genesis. The earliest people of China, 4,000–5,000 years ago, brought with them stories of past events that became imbedded in their language.

The Seemingly Impossible Events of a Worldwide Flood Are Credible, If Examined Closely.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1031450]

And, I'm sure you've been forced to confront the close to 100 scientific anomalies and logical absurdities associated with the biblical flood story.

How in Yahweh's name can you still say that you believe that this redunkulous event occured when it is logical and scientifically impossible on so, so, so many different levels? Why do you have so much vested in such a feeble-minded fable?

Yes, I think I’ve probably been exposed to all of them. What the skeptics ignore is the whole flood history was caused and directed by God.

Hey, Pahu, how would you react if I told you that I could prove that The Gospels are a total 100% 'forgery' solely using the four Gospels as my only evidence? If I did that right here and right now, would you renounce this silly malarky-laced religious nonsense?

Be my guest.

[Pahu]

Lead and Helium Diffusion

Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found (a).

Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals (b). Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old (c). Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in young zircons.

a. “Taken together, these results strongly suggest that there has been little or no differential Pb loss which can be attributed to the higher temperatures existing at greater depths.” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Science, 16 April 1982, p. 296.

Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, October 1982, pp. 13–14.

b. Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, April 1983, p. 13.

c. “In fact, considering the Precambrian age of the granite cores, our results show an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained at higher temperatures, and the reason for this certainly needs further investigation ...” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1982, p. 1130.

Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24 February 1984.

D. Russell Humphreys et al., “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 2003), pp. 175–195.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences35.html]

[Pahu]

Excess Fluid Pressure

Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock (a). If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently (b).

a. “It is certain that at the present time large areas of the Gulf Coast are underlain by zones containing water under pressure almost high enough to float the overlying rocks.” Parke A. Dickey, Calcutta R. Shriram, and William R. Paine, “Abnormal Pressures in Deep Wells of Southwestern Louisiana,” Science, Vol. 160, No. 3828, 10 May 1968, p. 614.

b. “Some geologists find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years. Creationists also use this currently puzzling situation as evidence that oil was formed less than 10,000 years ago.” Stansfield, p. 82. [Stansfield had no alternative explanation. W.B.]

Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, p. 341.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences36.html]

[Pahu]

Volcanic Debris

Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.5 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Therefore, Earth’s sediments seem to be much younger than 4.5 billion years (a).

a. Ariel A. Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 75–76.

“It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutín [a Mexican volcano that erupted in 1943] and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts.” Stansfield, p. 81.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1260581]

[Pahu]

River Sediments

More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport is diminishing as looser topsoil is removed and as erosion smooths out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old (a).

a. Stuart E. Nevins, “Evolution: The Ocean Says No!” Symposium on Creation V (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), pp. 77–83.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 69–71.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences38.html]

[Pahu]

Continental Erosion

The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years (a). However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years. Something is wrong.

a. Nevins, pp. 80–81.

George C. Kennedy, “The Origin of Continents, Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins,” American Scientist, Vol. 47, December 1959, pp. 491–504.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 65–67.

“North America is now being eroded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years ...” Dott and Batten, p. 133.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences39.html]

[Jam of Huzzah]

Yes, all you've posted is the same fucking retarded bullshit that has been refuted by actual REAL scientists for decades, but creatards are too dumb fucking ignorant to find another argument and so they stick with it. Creatards are as stupid as the dumb fuck flat earthers.

My condolences for being raped by a creationist as a child. It is time to let go of the harbored bad memories of which I presume make you froth; or am I mistaken and they have personally done nothing to you?

Just because one cannot conceive of a God, this does not mean that there is none. Our brains made up of "creation" could not possibly conceive of what is the creator. We will never know so fighting and debate is for those with nothing better to do.