Evidence for a Young Earth

by Perry 114 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LisaRose

  
  Millions of years is pretty slow!
  It is amazing how the mineral deposits know how to grow slowly in caves but quickly in environments that contradict the naturalism ideology.
  Conspiracy!

  I have explained it to you, but you don't want to accept it.

  One last time, then I give up.

  If you have a big pile of calcium carbonate just sitting there you can form stalagtites quickly.

  But if you have a limestone cave, the carbonate is not just sitting there, it has to get out of the limestone, and that process is very, very slow. It's a chemical reaction, it takes time. The stalagtites can only grow as fast as the carbonate is freed up from the limestone.
• 

  Perry

  You are not even taking the time to read my posts before you respond!

  
  

  Reposted:

  
  

  All Hell Creek Dinosaur bones smell like rotting corpses. That is what the scientists went on record as saying in Discover Magazine. Deal with it.

  
  

  Here is a bat that became part of a cave formation before it could decompose. Apparently he didn't know about the "millions of years" theory.

  
  

  Here's a lemonade bottle left in a cave in 1954. It certainly didn't take "millions of years" to get covered in minerals. No "just so" explanation for this.
• 

  LisaRose

  I found some information on the Hell Creek dinosaurs.

  The scientist who claims to have found tissue in fossils admits that she needs more work to prove this. Critics believe that the fossils were contaminated.

  This is where the scientific method works. This person comes up with these findings and it's interesting. But she has a long way to go before her findings are accepted in the scientific community. If what she found really happened she will be able to duplicate her results and other scientists will be able to duplicate the results using her methods. If true, they would have to revise common scientific thought on things. But that hasn't happened yet, it's one person, one experiment.

  Meanwhile, in the religious community of evolution deniers, this is passed off as proven science, because it confirms what they want to believe.

  
  Scientists agree on one aspect of Mary Schweitzer's research. The tissues she found shouldn't have been there, at least according to basic concepts of fossilization. Because of this, critics assert that what Schweitzer really found was a contaminated sample, not a breakthrough. Over 65 million years, there's plenty of time for other life forms to contaminate the bones of a dinosaur. Fossils also come into contact with human and other tissues during excavation. This presents a challenge for researchers trying to prove that a cell, tissue sample or DNA strand came from a specificextinct animal.
  After Schweitzer's first paper appeared in Science, some critics suggested that she published it before conducting enough analysis. Schweitzer agreed with this claim at least in part. She explained that the team published its findings as step to securing funding for later work [source:Yeoman].
• 

  LisaRose

  I admit I went through your post too quickly and didn't really understand what you were getting at, in my defence it was a bit confusing. I understand now about fossils and tissue, see my answer above.

  But you aren't reading my posts either. I have already said if you have a pile of calcium carbonate you can form stalagtites very quickly. The problem is that in limestone caves you don't have a pile of carbonate, it gets extracted slowly.
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Perry, nice to finally see you stay for the debate instead of just copy-paste-and-run ;-)

  First, can you state how old you think the earth is? Then at least we know what we're discussing.

  Then can you explain how the age of stalactites is relevant to the determination of the age of the earth? Is there any evidence that the earth cannot be older than the oldest (or youngest) stalactites?
• 

  kaik

  Again, the study of stalactites and stalagmites is well established for over a century. Even 85 years ago, there were published peer research papers that made a comparison between the formation of stalactites and stalagmites in the caves and on man-made structures like bridges. It is not the same material, it involves different processes and mechanism. Stalactites and stalagmites preserve information about the climate, various stages of glaciation, do have also isotopes for the radiometric dating. Also, stalactites and stalagmites do contain other elements like iron, copper, manganese, and nickel.

  Other information that can be revealed from the caves points to a plate tectonics like a closure of the seaways, which affected the precipitation and stalactites/stalagmites creations. Stalactites and stalagmites in the caves can reveal the Australian plate push northward, closing the Indonesian seaway and redistributing ocean current circulation; Messinian Salinity Crisis, and so on. All these finding are in line with information that can be observed from other fields that prove the Earth age be well beyond beliefs held by fundamentalists. Even top Catholic universities do not dispute it.
  
• 

  kaik

  lemonade bottle left in a cave in 1954

  if the average growth rate is 0.13 mm per year than the bottle will be covered with 8.06 mm since 1954 or about 1/3 of inch. It will take 1000 years to get it covered with just over 5 inches of the mineral deposit. How long it will take to be 10 feet or 10 meters?

  I do not know what is the growth rate in Jenolan cave (one site mentioned it is about 0.14 mm) where this bottle appears, but the pure math does not support notion that Earth is just 6000 years old when alone they estimate some of the large formation in that cave to be 500,000 years old based on their size.
  
• 

  Perry

  Meanwhile, in the religious community of evolution deniers, this [dinosaur soft tissue] is passed off as proven science, because it confirms what they want to believe.

  And a few in the atheist community of God deniers (not many now) still ignore 20 years of dinosaur soft tissue documented in science literature. because it is inconsistent with what they choose to believe.

  Other Soft Tissue documented:

  As listed by Dr. Walt Brown…
  - allegedly 17 million year old magnolia leaf contains DNA (Scientific American 1993)
  - allegedly 18 million year old salamander muscle and vessels filled with blood (Proc. Roy. Soc. 2009)
  - allegedly 40 million year old bee fossil contains LIVING bacteria (Science 1995)
  - allegedly 120 million year old insect fossil contains DNA (Nature 1993)
  - allegedly 200 million year old fish fossil contains DNA (Science. News 1992)
  - allegedly 400 million year old fish amino acids (Journal of Applied Genetics 2003).
  - allegedly 600 million year old rock contains LIVING bacillus (Nature 2000).

  
  

  Also confirmed is:

  
  

  intricate soft tissue structures in fossils, including the actual preserved brain of a 300 million-year-old fish from North America and actual muscle bundles attached to 380 million-year-old placoderm fishes from Australia. - Science Alert

  
  

  It makes little difference whether it is 65 or 380 "millions of years" old, soft tissue is everywhere these days it seems.

  
  

  Carbon dating puts these soft tissues at a few thousand years old, not millions:

  
  

  Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones (download details)

  Dinosaur (a)	Lab/Method/Fraction (b,c,d)	C-14 Years B.P.	Date	USA State
  Acro Acro Acro Acro Acro Allosaurus Hadrosaur #1 Hadrosaur #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #2 Triceratops #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #3 Apatosaur	GX-15155-A/Beta/bio GX-15155-A/AMS/bio AA-5786/AMS/bio-scrapings UGAMS-7509a/AMS/bio UGAMS-7509b/AMS/bow UGAMS-02947/AMS/bio KIA-5523/AMS/bow KIA-5523/AMS/hum GX-32372/AMS/col GX-32647/Beta/bow UGAMS-04973a/AMS/bio UGAMS-03228a/AMS/bio UGAMS-03228b/AMS/col GX-32739/Beta/ext GX-32678/AMS/w UGAMS-01935/AMS/bio UGAMS-01936/AMS/w UGAMS-01937/AMS/col UGAMS-9893/AMS/bio UGAMS-9891/AMS/bio	>32,400 25,750 + 280 23,760 + 270 29,690 + 90 30,640 + 90 31,360 + 100 31,050 + 230/-220 36,480 + 560/-530 30,890 + 200 33,830 + 2910/-1960 24,340 + 70 39,230 + 140 30,110 + 80 22,380 + 800 22,990 +130 25,670 + 220 25,170 + 230 23,170 + 170 37,660 + 160 38,250 + 160	11/10/1989 06/14/1990 10/23/1990 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 05/01/2008 10/01/1998 10/01/1998 08/25/2006 09/12/2006 10/29/2009 08/27/2008 08/27/2008 01/06/2007 04/04/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 11/29/2011 11/29/2011	TX TX TX TX TX CO AK AK MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT CO CO

  
  

  
  

  Information like this is OFTEN suppressed. In doing so, they many times become a "hostile witness" for the authenticity for the very information they would like to suppress:

  

  Notice how he didn't say the previous results were false.
• 

  LisaRose

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/t-rex-soft-tissue-discovery_n_4349214.html

  This is an article from the Huffington post. It discusses how they figured out what happened. It appears the iron in the blood preserved the tissue.

  Dinosaurs’ iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They’re also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.
• 

  LisaRose

  This is another article that discusses this issue. Basically what they are saying is that while soft tissue usually degrades in a certain number of years, in some cases , under some conditions it does not.

  Bottom line: Soft tissue in fossils do not prove that the fossilization happened quickly, it just means that tissue does not degrade quickly in certain environments.

  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soft_tissue_preservation
  

  The common thread in this claim is the great irony of creationists dogmatically adhering to the results of lab studies using uniformitarianpreconceptions of processes lasting millions of years which nobody has directly observed.