101 evidences of a young Earth

[Xavier]

The evolutionary fairy tale goes something like this. Around 13.5 billion years in evolutionary time (YET) ago, the universe created itself from nothing, because that's what nothing does, you know, when nothing happens to nothing. After that, nothing evolved into everything. Although laws always arise from intelligence, nevertheless the laws of nature evolved, as Mr. Dawkins would have it, these laws prove there is no purpose underlying anything; though Sir Fred Hoyle and many other scientists considered the fine tuning of many physical constants necessary for life to form to be incredibly precise and demonstrably beyond chance occurences, nevertheless all these just happened at random. Finally the planets evolved from matter that had evolved; e.g. earth evolved and organized itself into a planet some 4.5 billion YET ago.

Much later, some 400-200 M YET ago, organisms evolved, and though DNA and hemoglobin cannot survive millions of years, nevertheless by some evolutionary mystery, organisms from bacteria to dinosaurs have preserved these for us in fossils. Finally, to fast forward a bit, man and woman evolved from monkeyish ancestors some 100 K YET. Mitochondrial Eve supposedly around 120 K YET and Y Chromosomal Adam around 80 K (estimates vary every few decades or so). Though all men alive trace their y chromosome to this patriarch, nevertheless he was allegedly not the sole living man at his time. Likewise, we are supposed to believe mitochondrial Eve, demonstrably the mother of every woman alive today, was not either and didn't live together with Adam; humans evolved allegedly in bottlenecks of a few 1000; creation scientists have shown it's perfectly possible our first mother and father lived together and alone around 7000 years ago.

http://creation.mobi/age-of-the-earth

The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.
1. DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
3. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
4. The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
5. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
6. Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really? Tubes of marine worms, ‘dated’ at 550 million years old, that are soft and flexible and apparently composed of the original organic compounds hold the record (original paper).
7. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).
8. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils ‘dated’ at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
9. Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
10. Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various ‘index’ fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The ‘Lazarus effect’: rodent ‘resurrection’!

[Quaremerepulisti]

The evolutionary fairy tale goes something like this.

The idea that everything happened by random chance is a fairy tale; the fact that the universe and earth are very old, however, is not a fairy tale.  True, OEC has difficulty with a few things, but YEC has difficulty with everything.

There is simply no young-earth explanation for why (in general) fossils are buried and arranged the way they are; why mother-daughter isotope ratios are the way they are; and how we don't all fry to death from radiation if the stars are as young as they say.  Every YEC attempt to do so ("hydrological sorting of fossils", "c-decay" or "cdk", "white hole cosmology", "starlight created in transit", etc.) has ended in pure absurdity.  There's even no credible YEC explanation for Lake Suigetsu in Japan, where annual lake varves have been correlated with C14 dates for about 100,000 years (granted, that doesn't prove billions).  All YECs can ever do is take potshots, because they simply cannot explain pretty much anything at all within their own paradigm.

Though all men alive trace their y chromosome to this patriarch, nevertheless he was allegedly not the sole living man at his time. Likewise, we are supposed to believe mitochondrial Eve, demonstrably the mother of every woman alive today, was not either...

These are simply facts about population genetics. "Y Chromosome Adam" doesn't have to have been the only living man at the time, and that there's nothing which would suggest he should be.

...creation scientists have shown it's perfectly possible our first mother and father lived together and alone around 7000 years ago....

Well, sure, it's possible.  The difficulty is accounting for all the genetic variance and common genetics with primates, which I am unable to do except by assuming later generations bred with non-human hominids.

http://creation.mobi/age-of-the-earth

We've seen these and similar kinds of potshots for years.  They never even bother to attempt to fit the data within a YEC framework, for if they did, it would quickly become apparent how weak the argument actually is.  For instance:

The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.

Then how come these things aren't found in all dinosaur bones, but only on an extremely rare occasion, an extreme outlier, if these things readily survive for a just a few thousand years?  But if you say that the (newfangled YEC) physics are such that they should all certainly disappear within that period of time, then you are in the exact same boat as the OEC: looking for some unknown set of physical circumstances that could explain the data.

[Scowler]

The evolutionary fairy tale goes something like this...

Ouch! I am sorry that you were exposed to a drooling idiot who said such incredible nonsense. Someone who has no idea about physics, cosmology, biology or even philosophy. If you see that nincompoop next time, just send him to me and will rub his nose into his stinking excrement. Rest assured, such a$$holes are very rare - even though I am sorry to say that they probably exist. Very unfortunate for you to run into someone like that. But what can you expect from a "young Earth cre(a)ti(o)n(ist)"? We can only hope that they will not propagate their genes and will not pollute the gene-pool any further... maybe we can correct his "brain" with a well-employed baseball bat... even though I hate violence. An old acquaintance of mine used a very wise saying: "idiots deserve to die". 

[Davis Blank - EG]

Scowler,

Your anger is most unfortunate.  I too used to feel and act similarly, so I empathize.  But with time and a return to the faith, I have made great steps towards growing out of it.  I hope you too will have such an experience.

[Scowler]

Scowler,

Your anger is most unfortunate.  I too used to feel and act similarly, so I empathize.  But with time and a return to the faith, I have made great steps towards growing out of it.  I hope you too will have such an experience.

No, there is no "anger" in me. There is disappointment for the intellectual bankruptcy that some people exhibit. How can someone seriously suggest that the universe "created itself" from nothing? "Nothing" is just a concept, not an ontological entity. Colloquially we can speak about "nothing" as if it could exist as the lack of everything... as if it were an empty space. One cannot point to something as declare: "that is nothing". After all in that case it would be "something". And this is not a semantic game.

All I wanted to point out that there are some semi-educated or uneducated people, and it is a waste of time to even acknowledge their existence.

[Davis Blank - EG]

I encounter the some-thing from no-thing belief all the time.  I do not look down upon these people nor consider them to be fools, but rather empathize with them for having gotten trapped into a complex web of ideas and beliefs that have formed a mental framework that conflicts with the Truth.  I've been in such frameworks before, I know how blinding it is.

[Xavier]

Hahahahaha. Thanks for a textbook example of evolutionist bullying, Scowler. You don't even remotely scare me, btw, but this is why scientists whose results contradict the mainstream paradigm are afraid of even publishing their findings and allowing the public to come to an unbiased conclusion from the data.

P.S. btw the op was sardonic and tongue-in-cheek. Yet, if you think no atheist or naturalist maintains literally that nothing gave rise to everything, you should take it up with Stephen Hawking who said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".

Now, not to mention the other problems such as assumptions of uniformitarianism (which is just methodological naturalism again - nobody claims God used natural laws during creation week; during creation week, everything was supernaturally sped up, ans natural laws were established after it, so you're going to get a wrong result with uniformitarianism, which doesn't falsify the hypothesis of special supernatural intervention during creation week at all; but even after that, there are many events like a recent global flood, for which we have independent evidence, which affect uniformitarian assumptions), there are falsifications of the 100 million year timescale. If bones were really 65+ million years old, all the carbon in them would have decomposed long ago.

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html see also
http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-found-dinosaur-fossils/

"Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed.  Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.  Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors ...

"Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating.  These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".

The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years.  The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years.  If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

Many dinosaur bones are not petrified.  Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, surprised scientists in 2005 when she reported finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones.  She started a firestorm of controversy in 2007 and 2008 when she reported that she had sequenced proteins in the dinosaur bone.  Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone.  Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies.  Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make. In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters. Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded.  That is, if they really are over 65 million years old, as the conventional wisdom says.

Dinosaur bones with Carbon-14 dates in the range of 22,000 to 39,000 years before present, combined with the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, indicate that something is indeed wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaurs ...

Collagen: Proteins that are the main component of connective tissue.  It can be as high as 20% in normal bone but decomposes over time so that there should be none after ~100,000 years.  Yet it is found in four-foot long, nine-inch diameter dinosaur femur bones claimed to be greater than 65 million years old.  The "Modified Longin Method" is the normal purification method for bone collagen.  Dr. Libby, the discoverer of Radiocarbon dating and Nobel Prize winner, showed that purified collagen could not give erroneous ages.

[Scowler]

You don't even remotely scare me, btw, but this is why scientists whose results contradict the mainstream paradigm are afraid of even publishing their findings and allowing the public to come to an unbiased conclusion from the data.

As soon as the new findings are substantiated, they will be accepted, no matter how outlandish they were. Of course they are not afraid, why would they be? When some people published their experiments about "cold fusion", their hypothesis was not discarded out of hand... only after the claim turned to incorrect. When a doctor started to assert that stomach ulcer is caused by infection, the whole establishment turned against him... until he could present the necessary evidence for is claim. That is the absolute beauty of science, there are no self-proclaimed "authorities", there are no "dawg-mah"-s, there is nothing "sacred". Even the most entrenched and almost fossilized ideas are up for criticism.

There is an old story about a Greek guy, who claimed that some time ago he performed an astonishingly long jump on the island of Rhodos. He was told: "His Rhodos, hic salta!

[John Lamb]

That is the absolute beauty of science, there are no self-proclaimed "authorities", there are no "dawg-mah"-s, there is nothing "sacred". Even the most entrenched and almost fossilized ideas are up for criticism.

Nonsense. Read Francis Bacon's New Atlantis: the "scientific establishment" was designed from the outset to be a naturalistic replacement of the Christian priesthood as the educators of Europe and of the world; it is, for the most part, the technical branch of the Masonic Lodge. It has a naturalist foundation and tends to exclude evidence and theories that would undermine that naturalism. Scientists, as an establishment, understand very well that if evolution was shown to the public to be built on thin-air, it would spark a revolution which would lead to revived religiosity and greater skepticism towards the "scientific community" and their claim to be the world's educators; their reputation and political power are on the line when it comes to the theory of evolution, so they will do everything they possibly can to maintain its public credibility, whereas if they were so free as bias as you imagine them to be the theory would have been blown away by now. Scientists are fallen men, not pure angelic beings who seek only the truth.

[Xavier]

Here are some other examples from the Kolbe centre for the study of creation, John. It's very, very clear what the evolutionists think they can do to us by bullying, selective reporting, enforced silence on those scientists that depart from the mainstream paradigm etc. What's not so clear is how we're going to turn the tide. It would require very dedicated and very learned Christian scientists, with much grace from God and much effort from man, before this heresy will fall, like every heresy before it has. http://kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/

"In 2005 and 2007, evolutionary scientist Mary Schweitzer reported on the discovery of what appeared to be blood cells in 65 million years old tyrannosaur bones.[13],[14] This presented a quandary for scientists, because organic material is not supposed to last that long based upon present decay rates.[15] When her work was called into question, Dr. Schweitzer obtained similar tissue in 80 million year old hadrosaur bones, went to extraordinary lengths to prevent contamination and perform rigorous tests on her samples, and defended her discovery in an article in Science that appears to have satisfied her detractors.[16] But nobody, including Dr Schweitzer, has called into question the high improbability of blood surviving 65-80 million years. [yeah, right, and as if if she or anybody else did, any mainstream journal would agree to publish a paper on it no matter how certain the empirical evidence was]

More ancient organic matter has been unearthed since Schweitzer’s original discovery.  Examples include:

Exoskeleton remnants discovered in 417 million year old eurypterid and 310 million year old scorpion (February 2011)[17]
Dark colored, soft tissue melanocytes found in 120 million year old dinosaurs[18] (May 2010)
Preserved ink sac from 150 million year old squid[19] (August 2009)
Original shell preserved from 189-199 million year old lobster[20] (September 2010)
Organic molecules preserved in 66 million year old hadrosaur[21] (July 2009)
Preservation of scaly soft tissue in 36 million year old penguin[22] (September 2010)
Remains of 50 million year old insects found preserved in amber[23] (November 2010)
Blood and eye tissues, skin and cartilage preserved in two 80 million year old mosasaurs[24],[25] (March, October 2010) and one 70 million year-old mosasaur[26](May 2011)
Bone marrow found in 10 million year old frog[27] (July 2006)
Muscle tissue found in 18 million year old salamander[28] (November 2009)
Original feather material found in 150 million year old archaeopteryx[29] (May 2010)
In a study published in April 2011, researchers in Sweden subjected soft tissue from a presumed 70 million year old mosasaur to a battery of tests to determine if the material was original to the organism.[30] Not only did they confirm that the tissue was indeed original, but the fibrous tissue absorbed dye just like connective tissue from a modern bone. Additionally, as chemist Dr. Jay Wile pointed out, the results came from a small bone found in sediments that should have been soaked in water for a long time, which makes it extremely hard to believe that the fossil had any special conditions that would help keep soft tissue and proteins from decaying away relatively quickly.[31] The survival of soft tissue under such conditions clearly demonstrates the conflict between known decay rates of organic material and the fossil’s age as determined by radiometric dating."

[Scowler]

Scientists are fallen men, not pure angelic beings who seek only the truth.

Absolutely! And that is why they can be taken seriously. Scientist crave recognition, they want fame and wish to be appreciated, get tenure, receive grants and high income. They are jealous, they want to prove that others are wrong. That is our "saving grace", the fallible nature of scientists. They do not accept the "ex cathedra" proclamations of their brethren, they want to find their discoveries incorrect - so that their own discoveries will "win". And when all the efforts of the adversaries prove to be futile, then we can be reasonably (not 100%!!!) assured, that we have a workable hypothesis. Triple cheers for the "fallen" nature of the scientists.

Even in the "ivory tower" of mathematics you can see the procedure bringing forth the desired result. For hundreds of years, mathematicians tried to prove Fermat's last theorem. Every attempts brought forth a plethora of criticisms, other mathematicians dissected the attempts, and showed their errors - because they wanted to be the "first"! The latest proof has withstood the criticisms, and it is generally accepted as correct. It does not mean that it is 100% correct... only that it has not been shown to be incorrect.

So, don't "badmouth" the fallen nature of the scientists. It is your protection to weed out the nonsense (like the YEC) and allow the correct hypotheses to be accepted.   

[red solo cup]

Google Bill Summerlin at Sloan Kettering or Google Cold Fusion.