Is There Really Evidence for a Young Earth? – Part III

Continuing from the previous post regarding the fact that so-called scientific measurements do not show, let along prove, an old Earth, but actually support a Young Earth. To show this, following are six specific difficulties encountered by Evolutionists, which in fact show a young, not an old Earth.

The structures appear are genuine remnants of soft tissue; they are not fossilized. Using a mass spectrometer, scientists carried out chemical analysis of the putative collagen protein and the candidate blood cells. They discovered fragments in the collagen of what look like amino acids - the building blocks of all proteins, and the chemical profile looked very similar to that obtained from the red blood cells of an emu, which, it is claimed, is a direct descendant of dinosaurs

1. Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived (Mary Schweitzer and Tracy Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57).
2. The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster (David Russell Humphreys, Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburg PA, 1986, p. 113–126).
3. Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only ¹/₂₀₀₀ of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks, which happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years (Larry Vardiman, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1990).
4. A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our Milky Way Galaxy, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion (Keith Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.E. Walsh, 1994, pp175–184).

At the rate of receding from the Earth, the Moon’s present position limits the age of the Earth to no more than 1.37 billion years (With this recession much faster in past ages, the time would be far less

5. The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks (Donald B. DeYoung, The Earth-Moon System, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2, ed. Robert E. Walsh and Chris L Brooks, 1990, 79–84).
6. Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age (Steven A. Austin and David Russell Humphreys, The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, 1990, p17–33).
    It should be noted that those who support a Young Earth cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist William Bill Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’
    Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.

Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.
    But there are problems in the Geologic Column upon which evolutionists base much of their theory. In fact, a major problem for the evolutionary theory would occur if the geologic column could be shown to be thousands and not millions of years old. Indeed, the theory of evolution requires great ages of time in order to occur at all. If it could be proved the ages do not exist, then the theory would collapse under the weight of evidence for special creation, for each layer of the geologic column represents millions of years to evolutionists. Shorten the time needed to compile each layer and evolution simply runs out of time.
    Paleontologists have long operated under the assumption that the layers of the geologic column represented millions of years old. A problem with this conclusion has more recently come to light in that proteins, DNA and cell tissue have been found among some fossil remains. In fact, whole organisms have been discovered sealed in the amber deposits. Why would this be a problem? Fresh tissue and living cells cannot possibly be millions of years old. The fact is that there is a “shelf-life” of proteins found in bone tissue that cannot exceed a few hundred thousand years (Mike Buckley, et al., Comment on “Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry,” Science. 319 (5859): 2008, p33c). 

Canadian paleontologists from the University of Toronto discovered a large fossil bed in China’s Yunnan province, containing fossilized dinosaur eggs that are apparently the oldest ever found, and within the nest, many of these eggs had been crushed, and the remains of several dinosaur embryos perfectly preserved—with Live Protein! 

One of the most telling discoveries has been in China where sauropod dinosaur eggs found in the Lufeng Formation, a flood deposited rock layer below the Jurassic layer in the geologic column. These eggs contain remnants of protein within their tiny embryonic bones! How could this be possible if these creatures were supposed to have lived hundreds of millions of years ago? These are the creatures that evolutions claim evolved into the dinosaurs of the Jurassic age. Yet, the proteins found inside the tiny embryonic bones in the eggs couldn’t be more than a few hundred thousand years old. Where’s the time necessary for evolution to work?
    Another problem with the geologic column is found in the fact that so many fossils are mixed together with other fossils that shouldn’t be together. For example, Wilfred Francis, M.Sc, Ph.D, discovered some interesting fossil deposits among the Amber beds of Poland:
    “Within the lumps of amber are found insects, snails, coral and small portions of plant life. These are of modern type that are now found in both tropical and cold temperature regions. Pine leaves are present, of the types now growing in Japan and North America…” (Wilfred Francis, Coal: Its Formation and Composition, 1961, page 17-18).
    So, not only are fossils from cold and tropical regions mixed together, but coral is found in amber, as well! If amber is formed from tree resin, how could coral from beneath the sea be found in amber? If uniformitarianism is an accurate indicator for the fossil record, why would we find coral in the Amber beds of Poland?
(See the next post, “Is There Really Evidence for a Young Earth?-PtIV,”for a specific list of 50 evidences for a young earth based on scientific measurements)