Monday, December 9, 2019

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

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. As pointed out in the last post, 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. Following are more factors in favor of a young Earth rather than an old Earth.
Based on this study, Bunce and his team put DNA's half-life at 521 years, meaning half of the DNA bonds would be broken down 521 years after death, and half of the remaining bonds would be decayed another 521 years after that, and so on, meaning the existence of DNA would disappear in a few thousand years.
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 much more than a few thousand years.
2. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago, not millions of years (John Sanford, Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years (John Sanford, et al., Mendel’s Accountant: A Biologically Realistic Forward-Time Population Genetics Program, SCPE, Vol.8, No.2, 2007, pp147–165).
3. The date for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans only a few thousand years ago.
4. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
5. Lazarus bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. In fact, biological molecules are immensely complex, and as such are very fragile. Take DNA for instance. Even if protected from moisture, heat and other forms of energy such as radiation, it will eventually ‘fall apart’ due to the random effects of molecular motion, consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is also impossible to protect it from natural background radioactivity.
    In fact, laboratory measurements indicate that after at most 100,000 years, there should be no DNA left, let alone the entire intact machinery which goes to make up a living thing (Bryan Sykes, The past comes alive, Nature, vol.352, (6334), 1991, pp381–382). As an evolutionist, Sykes believes that intact DNA in ‘old’ sediments is evidence that the laboratory data (he refers to only 10,000 years for DNA in this article, actually), not the age, must be wrong.
Fossil Tube Worms. One of the main limitations to understanding the evolutionary history of hydrothermal vent and cold seep communities is the identification of tube fossils from ancient deposits. In many cases, the taxonomic affinities of many tube fossils have remained largely undetermined due to difficulties in identification

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. As an example, Tubes of marine worms, ‘dated’ at 550 million years old, that are soft and flexible and apparently composed of the original organic compounds that could not be over a few thousand years.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Discontinuous fossil sequences, i.e., 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?
    Take for example, the case of the so-called Lazarus Effect, a situation where paleontologists claim an extinct animal that supposedly died out millions of years ago then suddenly reappears. What caused the extinction? Their mission from the geologic column record. But what caused the reappearance? No one knows. It is a mystery, yet cases are not infrequent, hence the term to described them—the Lazarus Effect. Might not it be possible that the geologic column is inaccurate, rather than animals going extinct for millions of years and then suddenly reappearing in our present time?
Top: Great Basin Bristlecone Pine 4,850 years old [California]; Guaitecas Cypress (Fitzroya) 3,645 years old [Chile]; Bottom: Giant Sequoia 3,220 years old [Nevada]

10. The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms: trees. These oldest of living things are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years, not millions.
11. Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal/herbivore fossils. The Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana, and the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day, which eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
    Visitors to Grand Canyon hear the usual geological interpretation involving millions of years. We are told that the horizontal formation at the bottom, the Tapeats Sandstone, was deposited 550 million years ago, and the Kaibab Limestone that forms the rim is 250 million years old. It is difficult to imagine the immense time involved in this interpretation.
    Interestingly, the Grand Canyon strata extend over 250 miles into the eastern part of Arizona. There, they are at least a mile lower in elevation. Supposedly, the uplift of the Grand Canyon area occurred about 70 million years ago—hundreds of millions of years after the sediments were deposited. One would expect that hundreds of millions of years would have been plenty of time for the sediment to cement into hard rock.
    Yet, the evidence indicates that the sediments were soft and unconsolidated when they bent. Instead of fracturing like the basement did, the entire layer thinned as it bent. The sand grains show no evidence that the material was brittle and rock-hard, because none of the grains are elongated.1 Neither has the mineral cementing the grains been broken and recrystallized. Instead, the evidence points to the whole 4,000-feet thickness of strata being still ‘plastic’ when it was uplifted. In other words, the millions of years of geologic time are imaginary. This ‘plastic’ deformation of Grand Canyon strata dramatically demonstrates the reality of the catastrophic global Flood of Noah’s day, and its recent occurrence in geologic time.
Cross section of Grand Canyon geology showing monocline and Kaibab Upwarp. One would expect that hundreds of millions of years would have been plenty of time for the sediment to cement into hard rock, but evidence shows that the sediments were soft and unconsolidated when they bent, producing bends rather than fractures like the basement did

12. Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing, such as the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon, which indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood.
13. Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (king billy pines, celery-top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests, as well as in Joggins, Novia Scotia, and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial/formation of the organic material that became coal.
14. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
15. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
16. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
17. Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
18. Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
19. Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when they formed. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata (T. Walker, Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe, Journal of Creation, Vol.14,(No.3, 2000, pp8–9).
20. Para (pseudo) conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a ‘flat gap’, i.e., Coconino sandstone/Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10-million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies between the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona (S.A. Austin, Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe, ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994 and Snelling, A., The case of the missing geologic time, Creation, Vol.14, No.3, 1992, pp31–35).
    We actually have a list of 80 of these examples showing more for a young Earth than an old one; the problem is, these are not published except by creationist sources—mainstream science will simply not allow such a discussion in their publications. But the fact is, the science abounds with anti-evolutionary examples, in fact far more than ones supporting evolution.
    The point is, when evolution is countered with factual data against it, then the time frame of the Earth is brought into question. And with that time frame, we find that the Earth is not billions of years old, but merely a handful of thousands of years. When that is understood, then the issue of the rising of the central part of the Brazilian Drainage area and the rising of the Andes mountains, occurred in the time of man.


  1. Creationism, even when perfectly scientific, is instantly labeled as "pseudo science" in order to destroy any credibility in its findings. One need look no further than Wikipedia to see Creationism mocked and discredited. That criticism is ironically unscientific, since science is supposed to follow the data and observations wherever they lead.

    1. Almost all those that believe and teach creationism (except Mormons) will ALSO teach that God created time, space and all matter and things OUT OF NOTHING.

      So even though I fully accept creationism, I also realize that in their rejection of the ex nihilo doctrine the scientists are correct.

      Do the scriptures really teach that all the stars that we see, which scientists say are multiple light years away suns and galaxies, were created 13,000 or so years ago?

      Looking at the stars is direct observation, not some theory like abiogenesis. Are these stars as far away as scientific observation claims? If so, the universe we are in must be millions of years old in the least.

    2. Yes, GW. That is why I always say that ICR has it mailed with the flood, but really struggles with the creation. They insist that everything in the universe was created in 6 Earth days, including light that had been traveling millions of years just to reach our eyes. They have no real scientific defense for that theory. But they have a lot of scientific defense for the flood. There is also a lot scientific disproof of the "big bang", but that's not too say that the universe hasn't been in existence for a very, very long time... There's no known way to truly measure how long.

    3. Yes I am aware that the Creationist scientists are "striking back" with some good explanations that support the Bible flood account.

      This video by the Genesis Apologetics channel includes many of the things that Del explained a while back.

      Noah's Flood on North America