Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth Age Correlations


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#1 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 19 January 2009 - 01:07 AM

Young Earth Age Correlations


Helium Diffusion Dating

Helium diffusion dating gives an age of ~6,000 years +/- 2,000 for some of the earths oldest precambrian basement rocks.

http://creationwiki....elium_diffusion

Every possible counter argument has been taken into account including a colder origin of basement rocks, contamination, etc. and can be seen in a video in the following thread:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=28586


MTdna Eve

Measuring the mutation rate of Mtdna and comparing it to the total number of mutations gives an age for Mtdna Eve of ~6,500 years ago.

http://creationwiki....tochondrial_Eve


Carbon 14 in fossils

Every 57,100 years the 14C/C ratio decreases by a factor of 1,000. A 200,000-year-old specimen should have a present 14C/C ratio of 0.000 000 031 pmc or less. By the time we get back to 300,000 years, a sample should have less than one atom of carbon-14 in a gram of carbon as residual activity.3 This means that one million-year-old samples, or 350 million-year-old samples, should have no residual radiocarbon.

Fossil ammonites from lower Cretaceous mudstones in northern California, which are supposedly 112–120 million years old and biostratigraphic index fossils, were sampled along with fossil wood buried with them. Fragments of two fossil ammonite shells and four pieces of fossil wood yielded easily measurable radiocarbon (14C) equivalent to apparent 14C ages of between 36,400±350 and 48,710±930 years for the ammonites, and between 32,780±230 and 42,390±510 years for the wood. Any contamination with modern 14C due to the sample environment and handling was eliminated by the laboratory’s severe pre-treatment procedure. Any alleged contamination due to sample combustion or AMS instrument background was more than compensated for by the laboratory background of 0.077 pMC already having been subtracted from the reported results. The ammonite shells could not have been contaminated in the ground by replacement with modern carbonate 14C either, because they yielded almost identical 14C apparent ages as the wood buried and fossilized with them. It was concluded that the measured 14C is in situ radiocarbon intrinsic to the ammonites and wood when they were buried and fossilized. So once past conditions in the atmosphere and biosphere are taken into account, their true ages are consistent with their burial during the Genesis Flood only about 4,300 years ago, when the ocean waters washed sediments and ammonites onto the continents.

http://www.answersin.....bon-ages-for-...


Helium in the atmosphere

Air is mainly nitrogen (78.1%) and oxygen (20.1%). There is much less helium (0.0005%). But this is still a lot of helium—3.71 billion tonnes. However, since 67 grams of helium escape from the earth’s crust into the atmosphere every second, it would have taken about two million years for the current amount of helium to build up, even if there had been none at the beginning. Evolutionists believe the earth is over 2,500 times older—4.5 billion years. Of course, the earth could have been created with most of the helium already there, so two million years is a maximum age. (It could easily be much younger, such as 6,000 years in age.)

http://www.answersin...3/old_earth.asp

Decay of the earths magnetic field

The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

http://www.answersin...i2/magnetic.asp

Population growth indicates a young earth

To work out how quickly a population can grow, it’s very important to understand exponential growth. Starting from eight people after the Flood, the population would have to double only 30 times to reach 8.6 billion. Now there is a well-known ‘Rule of 72’, which says divide 72 by the percentage growth rate to get the time required for doubling.* E.g. if inflation is 8% p.a., then in 72/8 = 9 years, the cost of living will have doubled.

So what is a realistic growth rate? The Encyclopûdia Britannica claims that by the time of Christ, the world’s population was about 300 million. It apparently didn’t increase much up to AD 1000. It was up and down in the Middle Ages because of plagues etc. But may have reached 800 million by the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1750—an average growth rate of 0.13% in the 750 years from 1000–1750. By 1800, it was one billion while the second billion was reached by 1930—an average growth rate of 0.53% p.a. This period of population growth cannot be due to improved medicine, because antibiotics and vaccination campaigns did not impact till after WWII. From 1930 to 1960, when the population reached three billion, the growth rate was 1.36 % p.a. By 1974, the fourth billion was reached, so the average growth rate was 2.1% from 1960 to 1974. From 1974 to 1990, when the mark hit five billion, the growth rate had slowed to 1.4%. The increase in population growth since WWII is due to fewer deaths in infancy and through disease.

If the average growth rate were a mere 0.4 %, then the doubling time would be 180 years. Then after only 30 doublings or 5400 years, the population could have reached over eight billion.

If you want something more rigorous, there are standard mathematical formulû that can be used to calculate population growth. They must include birth and death rates as well as generation time. The simplest formula involves just a constant growth rate:

N = N0 (1 + g/100)t

where N is the population, N0 is the initial population, g is the percentage growth rate per year, and t is the time in years. Applying this formula to the population of eight surviving the Flood, and assuming a constant growth rate of 0.45% p.a. and 4500 years:

N = 8 (1.0045)4500 = 4.8 billion people.

Of course, the population growth hasn’t been constant, and would have been very fast just after the Flood. Thus this formula by itself cannot be used to prove a young earth. Look up the website article Young World Evidence—there is a section on population—if the world’s population had been in the millions for 100,000 years, then where are all their bodies?

http://www.answersin...rg/docs/537.asp


Enjoy.

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 19 January 2009 - 02:06 AM

RADIATION FROM JUPITER AND SATURN

Both Jupiter and Saturn radiate more than twice the energy they receive from the sun. Caculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from rad- ioactive decay or gravitational contraction. Solution: These planets have not existed long enough to cool off!!!

THE WHALE

An eighty-foot long baleen whale is standing on its tail in diatomaceous earth. At Lompoc, CA., the workers of the Dicalite Division of Grefco Corp. uncovered the fossil of a baleen whale standing on end in a deep deposit of diatomite earth. The whole fossil proves that the diatomaceous deposit was not formed over millions of years, but in an extremely short period of time.

"Workers Find Whales in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry", Chemical & Engineering News, 11 Oct. l976, p. 40

http://www.viddler.c...npit/videos/38/ Fossil Whales Challenge Radiometric Dating

THE POYNTING-ROBERTSON EFFECT

The sun acts like a giant vacuum cleaner. It sweeps up an estimated 100,000 tons of space dust and micrometeoroids each day. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson Effect.

If the solar system is actually billions of years old, it should have been "swept clean" by this effect. No longer should the solar system contain this dust and particles. Proceeding at its present rate, the sun would have "cleaned house" in less than 10,000 years as there is no known source of appreciable replenish- ment. However, micrometeoroids are copious throughout the solar system, and this fact speaks convincingly for a relatively young solar system.

Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, p. 29.

HIGH GAS AND OIL PRESSURES

High gas and oil pressures within relatively permeable rock implies these products were encased less than 10,000 years ago. If they were encased more than 10,000 yrs ago the pressure would have dropped to measurements significantly lower than those recorded today.

BRISTLE-CONE PINE TREES

If the Biblical Flood occurred about 5000 years ago and destroyed all dry-land plants, then the oldest any living plant could be is about 5000 years old.

Bristle-cone pines have been dated at about 5000 years old!

Maybe these trees began to grow shortly after the flood of the days of Noah!

RIVERS ARE YOUNG!

Every year the Mississippi River carries tons and tons of eroded dirt into the Gulf of Mexico.

Scientists have been measuring the growth of the Mississippi delta for many years.

At the present rate the entire delta would have accumulated in less than 5000 years.

Scientists are carefully watching Niagara Falls.

"Because the rim of the falls is wearing back at a known rate every year, geolo-gists recognize that it has only taken about 5000 years to erode from its origin- al precipice." [Dennis Peterson, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, vol. 1 (El Cajon: Master Books, 1988) p.39]

CONTINENTAL EROSION

If continents have existed for 1 billion yrs as evolutionists posit then erosion must have been vastly different in the past!

At present known erosion rates the continents would have been leveled in about 14 million years.

ELEMENTS ENTERING THE OCEAN

The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon, mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the seas is very rapid when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. Therefore the oceans must be much younger than even 1 million years.

OUR RECEDING MOON

Adding to the evidence for a young earth is our receding moon.

Scientists calculate that our moon is moving away from earth at a rate of about two inches per year.

If the earth is 4.5 billion years old then the moon should have drifted out of sight.

ISOTOPES OF URANIUM AND THORIUM ON THE MOON

The astronauts brought back samples of moon rocks containing large amounts of isotopes of uranium and thorium.

These isotopes are short-lived and should no longer be present in the moon rocks if the moon is 3-4 1/2 billion years old as NASA published.

OUR SHRINKING SUN

Astronomers have been measuring the size of the sun for 400 years.

Depending on which person you read, our sun would have been so big that as little as 1,000,000 years ago earth would have been too hot for life.

This means there was not enough time for any type of Evolution to happen!

#3 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 19 January 2009 - 02:21 AM

Supernova remnants prove a young universe

if these explosions have happened over millions of years (some estimate one every 25 years), then we should be able to detect millions of these remnants in our galaxy. Most of these would be detectable as in the final stage, where only the heat energy of the explosion is apparent.if it remains detectable for 55,000 years, then doing the math, we should have 2,200 supernova remnants.we have only detected 265, which is even slightly less than the number expected by creationists, and therefore is indicative of a young earth.

http://www.mrao.cam....k/surveys/snrs/

Exploding stars point to a young universe

#4 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 19 January 2009 - 12:14 PM

Supernova remnants prove a young universe

if these explosions have happened over millions of years (some estimate one every 25 years), then we should be able to detect millions of these remnants in our galaxy.  Most of these would be detectable as in the final stage, where only the heat energy of the explosion is apparent.if it remains detectable for 55,000 years, then doing the math, we should have 2,200 supernova remnants.we have only detected 265, which is even slightly less than the number expected by creationists, and therefore is indicative of a young earth.

http://www.mrao.cam....k/surveys/snrs/

View Post


That's a detection issue surely? Telescopes are getting better all the time.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 19 January 2009 - 01:42 PM

Hi jason,

That's a detection issue surely? Telescopes are getting better all the time.


Nasa has been using infared telescopes to detect SNR's that are not visibile with any other telescope.

Now that they can't hide behind dust and gas clouds because of infared,the number has only increased from around 220 to 265 SNR's.



Thanks.

#6 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 22 January 2009 - 05:47 PM

One of the nice things about Supernova remnants is that they provide a very straightforward clock allowing you to date the time of the original supernova. Basically, you measure the rate of expansion and then track that back to determine when the entire remnant would come to a point. One does not even need to consider the speed of light or the distance to the object to get the apparent age.

The technique can be used to date historical supernova like the crab nebula as well as much more ancient supernovae.

This is Simeis 147, one of my favorites
Posted Image
http://apod.nasa.gov...d/ap050324.html
Simeis 147 is relatively close - just 3000 light years away. If it was brighter it would be quite visible because it extends over a distance of 6 full moons. However, these old ones are very hard to see because they are so dim. However, if we calculate the age at which it went nova based on the rate of expansion we get approximately 100,000 years. If we add the time that the light took to get here, we get an age of 103,000 years.

There are quite a number of supernova in the 30,000 to 100,000 year range. Past that they get quite hard to see. The oldest ones, in order to still be visible, must have been quite tremendous explosions. They also must be in regions of the galaxy that have few stars since the gravitation of the surrounding stars will distort and dissipate the shell.

I think the oldest is this one which is dated at 4.3 million years based on the expansion.

http://www.ras.ucalg...~stil/CGPS.html

Posted Image

"We present the peculiar expanding HI shell GSH 138-01-94, discovered in the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (recently expanded into the International Galactic Plane Survey). This shell is unique because of its unusual location, in the outermost regions of the Galactic disk. The properties of the shell are discussed, as well as possible origins. This leads to the interpreattion that GSH 138-01-94 is probably the remnant of a supernova explosion that occurred 4.3 million years ago in the outer Galaxy. As such, GSH 138-01-94 is the largest, oldest supernova remnant known to date."

I certainly wouldn't consider this great evidence for a young earth. But some people like to think God would make the universe with "apparent age". I can not argue with that. In that case, I would argue that God did an excellent job making the universe look old.

#7 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 January 2009 - 06:51 PM

This is Simeis 147, one of my favorites
Posted Imagehttp://jumk.de/astronomie/img/simeis-147.jpg

View Post

I'm curious. How do they explain the largely 2-dimensional nature of this structure? I was under the impression stars should explode with a lot of force in every direction. You know, sphere vs. disk.

#8 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 22 January 2009 - 07:31 PM

I'm curious. How do they explain the largely 2-dimensional nature of this structure? I was under the impression stars should explode with a lot of force in every direction. You know, sphere vs. disk.

View Post


Yes, that is partly an illusion of the projection as explained here.
http://curious.astro....php?number=397

Why do supernova remnants look like rings rather than spheres?

When I see supernova explosions depicted on tv i.e. Discovery, tlc etc, the supernovae expansions are shown as a ring. Shouldn't they be in the form of a sphere? Doesn't the result of an explosion go outwards in all directions?


It is spherical, but it looks like a ring. Spherical shells tend to look like rings when projected on the sky. This effect is called "limb brightening". The idea is that if you're looking towards the center of spherical shell, you're not seeing much material along your line of sight, so it's transparent. But along the edges of the shell, you're looking through a lot of material, so it's opaque.


However, some supernova are asymmetrical depending on factors like the spin of the star. Even the Crab Nebula (the most famous) is not perfectly spherical.
Posted Image
http://www.lib.fit.e...Crab_Nebula.jpg

The Crab Nebula Supernova was seen in 1054 AD by Chinese astronomers. However, it is 6300 light years away. So it blew up around 5250 BC and was seen on earth 6300 years later.

James

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6965 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 January 2009 - 09:35 PM

If I were to answer the question:

What is the weakest part in your argument? It would have to do with our ability to detect light and its speed.

I think there are lots of great evidences against an old earth and they far outweigh the competing views but if I had to pick the weakest point in the young universe model it would have to be what we seem to observe occurring at great distances.

I firmly believe that God made a mature universe and that includes the light already present. However when we see a nova occur today it stands to reason that it actually took place as long ago as it took the light to reach us. I know there are assumptions involved and I believe the answer to this will be profound and simple at the same time but in the name of being transparent I admit this is one area that is a real noodle scratcher.

I started this thread a while ago and it kind of flopped:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1934

I was hoping to get some feed back on what we actually see and how they actually crunch numbers on things like movement and image enhancement.

The one thing that makes me feel like this isn't that big of an issue is the fact that I really don't think astronomers are as sure about what they're looking at as they purport.

Still, in the name of being transparent, this one still has me scratching my head.

Posted Image

#10 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 February 2009 - 04:23 PM

Hi James,

Basically, you measure the rate of expansion and then track that back to determine when the entire remnant would come to a point.


When an explosion occurs the energy diffuses rapidly from the epicenter. The slower expansion we see now is many orders of magnitude slower than the initial expansion.

Look at this article I found.

Ancient Supernovae Appear to Age SlowerThe effect is due to inflation, say astronomers By Gabriel Gache, Science News Editor

29th of April 2008, 06:51 GMT

A comparison between supernova explosions taking place today and those that occurred early in the life of the universe reveals that the latter appear to age slower, as if time was warped somehow. It may look as counterintuitive or even impossible to some of us, but in fact, this is confirmed by the inflation theory, stating that soon after the Big Bang the universe suffered a sudden expansion into space-time and is still expanding even today.

The expansion of the universe had been predicted through Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and later confirmed through a series of tests, amongst which the studies conducted by Edwin Hubble on the galaxies in the vicinity of the Milky Way. The expansion of the universe is also responsible for the 'redshift' of the light coming from cosmic bodies in the distant universe. As light travels through space and the matter of the universe expands, the wavelengths of the universe are stretched towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

This effect is in fact occurring all over the universe, regardless of its size, albeit it may remain undetectable on the small scale. Therefore, if a series of light flashes were generated in the distant universe, to us they would appear to arrive farther and farther apart and shifted towards the red end of the light spectrum. The same applies to the light coming from type Ia supernova explosions.

Time dilatation

Type Ia supernovae are determined by the thermonuclear explosion of white dwarf stars, most of which are present in the near vicinity of our galaxy. "Type Ia supernovae are just so predictable", says Notre Dame University researcher, Peter Garnavich. Because the spectrum of light emitted by such supernovae is well known, any changes in the wavelengths are immediately detected.

"At first, only the outer layers of the supernova are visible. As time passes by, the outer layers thin out, and we are able to see deeper and deeper layers of the supernova ejecta", Harvard University researcher and lead author of the study, Stephane Blondin.

As lower layers of the white dwarf become visible, they start emitting light characteristic to the chemical elements. "These changes in chemical composition as deeper layers become visible leave an imprint on the resulting spectrum", explains Blondin.

Two previous studies had already established that the time dilatation phenomenon is real. The new calculations show that supernova explosions in the early universe age by up to 60 percent slower than those seen today, and are directly linked to the redshift of light, thus space-time expansion is the most probable cause for the seen effects. "Any deviation from the predicted time-dilation factor would have profound implications for cosmology", concluded Blondin.


http://news.softpedi.....-Age-More-Slo...


As you already know,I don't agree with their assumptions,but it is interesting.




Enjoy.

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 02:21 AM

Coral - From "Coral Reefs—Diving for Answers" by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

"Unlike fossil dating in the dirt, coral cannot be assigned an ancient age by arbitrarily determining what strata it lies in. Using their own dating schemes, evolutionists have been unable to date coral fossils beyond about 5000 years old. The National Institute for Global Environmental Change published in its 1997/98 Annual Progress Report the ages of nine coral pieces. Using conventional carbon-14 dating schemes, these old pieces were shown to be from 333 to 5958 years before present. High resolution sampling was conducted on four of the pieces, with radiocarbon corrected-calendar ages of AD 230, AD 1660, AD 1665, and 3960 BC.— all times that are quite consistent with the Biblical record. The accumulation of corals around great reefs did not, as many evolutionists will tell you, take millions or thousands of years. Evidence demonstrates that coral reefs are quite capable of growing at a fairly rapid rate".

#12 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 02:22 AM

DNA survival.

In view of the fact that DNA degrades on death of the animal (From - ancient bear DNA), and even if preserved should not last more than a few thousand years, it is interesting to note the survival of DNA below, which perhaps brings into question generally accepted dating techniques? It could be argued that such DNA is contamination, but it is likely that the laboratories concerned took great care to avoid contamination.

1. DNA has now been reported in magnolia, leaves that evolutionists claimed to be 17 million years old. [E.M.Golenberg 'Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species' Nature vol.344 12April 1990 p.656-658.]

2. Fragments of DNA are also claimed to be in alleged 80 million-year-old dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed. [S.R. Woodward 'DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments' Science vol.266 18Nov.1994 p.1229-1232].

3. DNA found in the scales of a 200 million-year-old fossilized fish. [K.Hoppe 'Brushing the Dust off Ancient DNA' Science News vol.142 24Oct.1992 p.281].

4. DNA has also been reported in amber encased insects and plants that are supposedly 25-120 million years old. [H.N. Poinar 'DNA from an Extinct Plant' Nature vol.363 24June 1993 p.677].

5. And what about the protein preserved in dinosaur bones? As with DNA, no proteins should last 75-150 million years. [R. Monastersky 'Protein Identified in Dinosaur Fossils' Science News vol.142 3Oct.1992 p.871-874].

DNA sequences from a fossil termite in Oligo-Miocene amber and their phylogenetic implications. DeSalle R, Gatesy J, Wheeler W, Grimaldi D. Science 1992 Sep 25; 257 (5078): 1933-6.


This papers about ancient DNA (25-30 million years old). The 18S ribosomal subunit gene was sequenced, and was found to be similar to modern termites and roaches.


Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil.Cano RJ, Poinar HN, Pieniazek NJ, Acra A, Poinar GO Jr. Nature 1993 Jun 10; 363(6429): 536-8.


This one is from another insect, the weevil. This is even older, the weevil was found in Lebanese amber that is 120-135 million years old. Both 16S and 18S ribosomal unit genes were sequenced.


PCR jumping in clones of 30-million-year-old DNA fragments from amber preserved termites (Mastotermes electrodominicus). DeSalle R, Barcia M, Wray C.Experientia 1993 Oct 15; 49(10): 906-9.


More from the DeSalle group, also 30 million year old termites preserved in amber.



Further Reading:

  • Very old DNA. DeSalle R, Grimaldi D. Curr Opin Genet Dev 1994 Dec; 4(6): 810-5.
  • Ancient DNA: using molecular biology to explore the past. Brown TA, Brown KA.Bioessays 1994 Oct; 16(10): 719-26.
  • Implications of ancient DNA for phylogenetic studies. DeSalle R Experientia1994 Jun 15; 50(6): 543-50.
  • Rapid isolation of DNA from fossil and museum specimens suitable for PCR.Cano RJ, Poinar HN. Biotechniques 1993 Sep; 15(3): 432-4, 436.
  • The range of life in amber: significance and implications in DNA studies.Poinar GO Jr. Experientia 1994 Jun 15; 50(6): 536-42.


#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 02:32 AM

Earth rotation. Because of solar and lunar gravitational drag forces, the spin of the earth (now about 1,000 mph [1,609 kph]) is gradually slowing. If our world were billions of years old, it would already have stopped turning. Or, calculating differently, a billion years ago our planet would have been spinning so fast—it would have become a pancake. So, either way, our earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.


Escaping natural gas. Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out through the impermeable rock cap. The rate of gas escape has been found far too rapid to agree with long ages. If the theory were true, all the natural gas would now be escaped.

Source: "Based on the above calculated rate of destruction of commercial-size gas fields, the concept is proposed that gas accumulations in the subsurface have only a limited life in terms of geologic time scales. If this is true, known gas fields in older strata like lower Paleozoic reservoirs can be explained only by assumption of a relatively young accumulation age or by the assumption of a much longer duration of the hydrocarbon generation process than currently accepted."—*D. Leythaeuser, *R.G. Schaefer, and *A. Yukler, "Role of Diffusion in Primary Migration of Hydrocarbons," in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 66(4):408-429 (1982).

OIL SEEPAGE—A 1972 article by Max Blumer ("Submarine Seeps: Are They a Major Source of Open Ocean Oil Pollution?" in Science, vol.176, p. 1257) offers decided evidence that the earth's crust is not as old as evolutionary geologists had thought. Blumer says that oil seepage from the sea floor cannot be a source of oceanic oil pollution. He explains that if that much had been regularly seeping out of the ocean floor, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone long ago if the earth were older than 20,000 years.
In contrast, geologists have already located 630 billion barrels [1,002 billion kl] of oil that can be recovered from off-shore wells. Yet if our planet were older than 20,000 years, there would be no offshore oil of any kind to locate and recover through oil rigs.


LACK OF ANCIENTLY DESTROYED RESERVOIRS—All of the oil in the world must have been placed there only in the recent past. We can know this because if long ages of time had elapsed for earth's history, then we should find evidence of anciently destroyed oil reservoirs. There would be places where all the oil had leaked out and left only residues which would show in drilling cores! But such locations are never found. Coal is found in various stages of decomposition, but —oil reservoirs are never found to have seeped away.


"However, regardless whether one proceeds from organic or inorganic theory, one should observe geologically indisputable cases of ancient destroyed oil accumulations from the late Proterozoic to the present. One sees progressively metamorphosed coal accumulations in the stratigraphic record, but never comparably altered or destroyed oil accumulations."—*V. B. Porfir'ev, "Inorganic Origin of Petroleum," in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 58(1) (1974), p. 23.


OIL PRESSURE—Frequently, when oil well drillers first penetrate into oil, a geyser ("gusher") of oil spews forth. Studies of the permeability of the surrounding rock indicates that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but this obviously has not happened yet. The excessive pressures within these oil beds refutes the "old earth" theory, and provides strong evidence that these deep rock formations and the entrapped oil are less than 7-10,000 years old. The great pressures now existing in oil reserves could only have been sustained for a few thousand years.
These fluids are retained in the reservoirs under cap rock, but often the pressures are extremely high. Their containing rocks are porous enough that to retain these pressures for periods longer than a few thousand years would apparently be impossible. The fluids should long ago have leaked through their cap rocks to the surface.
Even more extreme are the high-pressure wells. The Lucas gusher oil well at Spindletop, Texas, blew its top in 1901 when it was first drilled. Thewell was 1,020 feet [3,109 dm] when it began to flow. The oil pressure was so great that it pushed 700 feet [2,134 dm] of drill pipe out of the hole, and the oil gushed up to a height of 200 feet [610 dm] in the air. The flow of Spindletop was 84,000 barrels [133,543 kl] of oil a day. Modern Saudi wells generally flow at about 10,000 to 12,000 barrels [15,898 to 19,078 kl] a day.
Because modern drilling techniques control underground oil pressures, gushers no longer occur and barrels-per-day are now predetermined. But the pressure is still down there! Oil pressure is the result of the pressure of the oil under the cap being greater than the weight of the overlying rocks. Gradually it seeps away and dissipates through the impermeable bed. A young earth is the only explanation for these high pressure oil wells which still exist today.
*Hubbert and *Rubey have worked out an exponential formula for the exhaustion of such fluid pressures in the earth. It is much too low for the demands of evolutionary theory on the age of the earth.


"Because of this continual leakage, abnormal water pressures are thus transient phenomena and require some dynamical activity to bring them into existence and to maintain them." —*M.K Hubbert and *W. W. Rubey, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting, " in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 70(2):115-205 (1959).




Molten earth. Deep within the earth, the rock is molten; but, if the earth were billions of years old, long ages ago our planet would have cooled far more than it now has. http://www.answersin...j/v13/n1/kelvin


A century ago, Lord Kelvin calculated an upper limit for the age of the Earth. By estimating how long it would take an earth-sized molten sphere to cool to today’s temperatures, he obtained a maximum age near 100 million years. Some of his contemporaries argued for a maximum age as low at 10 million years. It is not difficult to see why these values were distastefully low for both evolutionists in biology as well as uniformitarians in geology.


But, we are told, Kelvin’s calculations went out the window as soon as radioactivity was discovered. Typical of this attitude is the work of Burchfield. When discussing the discovery of radioactivity, his subchapter reads: ‘Kelvin Overthrown’.


But has this been established, or has it been supposed? As a matter of fact, it is freely acknowledged that radioactive heat sources within the earth do not account for its present internal temperatures if the earth had really existed for 4.5 Ga (1 Ga = 109 years):


‘Heat flow from the Earth’s interior is 4 x 1013 W. The energy of the decay of radioactive elements (235U, 238U, 232Th, and 40K) is of the same order of magnitude (2.4 x 1013 W) as that of the heat flow … .’


"The limitations of geological periods, imposed by physical science, cannot, of course, disprove the hypothesis of transmutation of species; but it does seem sufficient to disprove the doctrine that transmutation has taken place through 'descent with modification by natural selection." Kelvin, Lord William Thompson (1824 - 1907)



Volcanic eruptions. There are many extinct volcanoes, but evidence indicates that volcanic activity has only continued a relatively short time since the world began. Otherwise, there would be far more lava than now exists.

"It may come as a surprise to the reader to learn that if only four volcanoes of the same size and activity as Paricutin had been erupting each year here and there, on the average, for the last 4 to 5 billion years, about 3 x 109 cubic kilometers of lava would have been produced. This is approximately the volume of the continental crusts (3.3 x 109 Km3). Now, if a minimum of 1,000 volcanoes, had been producing lava at the rate Paricutin did, then the earth's crust would have taken just 20 million years to be formed by volcanic action alone.
"Actually, geologists are generally agreed that there is evidence of a much greater rate of volcanic activity some time in the past during the great uplifts of the world's great mountain chains than has been observed in the last 5 thousand years or so. Thus, there are many great 'shields' and other types of rock and ash of volcanic origin. However, only a small percentage of crustal rocks are obviously lavas. It appears that on the basis of the volume of lavas in existence and the great volcanic activity in the past, that an origin of the earth some 10,000 years ago is not unreasonable at all." —H. M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz Science and Creation (1971), p. 79.

Zircon / lead ratios. Lead gradually leaks out of radioactive zircon crystals, and does so more rapidly at high temperatures. Yet very little lead has escaped from zircon found deep in the earth at temperatures above 313oC. This points strongly to a young earth.

Topsoil. It has been calculated that 300 to 1,000 years are required to build one inch [2.54 cm] of topsoil. Yet the average depth of topsoil is about eight inches. On this basis, the earth could only be a few thousand years old.

River deltas. The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cm] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year—continually enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large. Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years (4,620 years, to be exact). If the world was 120,000 years old, that delta would extend all the way to the North Pole.—

#14 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 02:40 AM

Sea ooze. Soft mud from dead plants and animal life form on the floor of the oceans, at the rate of about one inch (2.54 cm) every 1,000 to 5,000 years. The depth of ooze indicates the earth is quite young.

Thickness of ocean sediments. If the earth was billions of years old, the ocean floor would be covered by sediments from land, measuring 60 to 100 miles [96.5 to 160.9 km] thick, and all the continents would be eroded away. Instead, we only find a few thousand feet of sediment. Based on known yearly sediment deposition, calculations yield only a few thousand years for our planet.

"The thickness of unconsolidated sediments on the ocean floor is much less than was anticipated in view of the probable great age and permanence of the great ocean basins. Why this is so is an unsolved problem at the present time." —*E. L. Hamilton, "The Last Geographic Frontier: the Sea Floor," in Scientific Monthly, Vol. 85, December 1957, p. 296.

The average depth of sediments on the ocean floor is only a little over 1/2 mile [.804 km]. But if the oceans were billions of years old, the rate of sediment deposit from the continents would have resulted in a minimum of 60 miles (96.6 km] of sediments on the ocean floors, and closer to 100 miles [160.9 km].
*Stuart Nevins, an oceanographer, has calculated that there is 8.2 x 10 to the 17thtons of sediment on the ocean floors. The present sediment deposit rate from the continents is about 2.75 x 10 to the 10th tons per year. Recent data from deep sea drilling in ocean sediments indicate that sedimentation rates in the recent past were 10 to 100 times greater than they are now. If to this is added the vast quantities of sediments dumped into the oceans at the time of the Flood, the present 1/2 mile [.804 km] sediment depth is understood.
Plate tectonics theory (see the chapter on Paleomagnetism) declares that gradually subducting plates bury themselves deep into the earth, carrying with them the sediments on top of them. But, according to that theory, this would only remove about 2.75 x 109 tons per year, or merely 1/10th of the annual new sediments being added from the continents!
The 60 miles [96.6 km] of ocean sediments needed by the evolutionists for their theory are hopelessly missing.



Growth of coral. Coral growth rates indicate the earth is quite young. No known coral formation is older than 3,500 years.

http://www.google.co...Kf7gNsw&cad=rja

Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased the rate of accreditation of this genetic load.)

Historical records. If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, we should find records extending back at least 500,000 years. Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a million years. But, instead, records only go back to about 2000-3500 BC. When writing began, it was fully developed. The earliest dates are Egyptian (Manetho's king lists), but should be lowered for several reasons. Well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600 BC.

Writing. The oldest writing (pictographic Sumerian) is dated at about 3500 BC. The earliest Western script (Proto-Sinaitic) somewhat before 1550 BC.

Civilizations. No really verified archaeological datings predate the period of about 3000 BC. More ancient dates come from radiocarbon dating, which, prior to about 600 BC., is known to be much less accurate. In every instance, our earliest aspects of civilization (crops, animal husbandry, metallurgy, building, cities, etc.) go back to the Near East. This agrees with the Bible record (Genesis 8:4).

#15 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 February 2009 - 03:38 AM

Hi James,

Look at this article I found.

Ancient Supernovae Appear to Age SlowerThe effect is due to inflation, say astronomers By Gabriel Gache, Science News Editor

29th of April 2008, 06:51 GMT

A comparison between supernova explosions taking place today and those that occurred early in the life of the universe reveals that the latter appear to age slower, as if time was warped somehow. It may look as counterintuitive or even impossible to some of us, but in fact, this is confirmed by the inflation theory, stating that soon after the Big Bang the universe suffered a sudden expansion into space-time and is still expanding even today.

The expansion of the universe had been predicted through Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and later confirmed through a series of tests, amongst which the studies conducted by Edwin Hubble on the galaxies in the vicinity of the Milky Way. The expansion of the universe is also responsible for the 'redshift' of the light coming from cosmic bodies in the distant universe. As light travels through space and the matter of the universe expands, the wavelengths of the universe are stretched towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

This effect is in fact occurring all over the universe, regardless of its size, albeit it may remain undetectable on the small scale. Therefore, if a series of light flashes were generated in the distant universe, to us they would appear to arrive farther and farther apart and shifted towards the red end of the light spectrum. The same applies to the light coming from type Ia supernova explosions.

Time dilatation

Type Ia supernovae are determined by the thermonuclear explosion of white dwarf stars, most of which are present in the near vicinity of our galaxy. "Type Ia supernovae are just so predictable", says Notre Dame University researcher, Peter Garnavich. Because the spectrum of light emitted by such supernovae is well known, any changes in the wavelengths are immediately detected.

"At first, only the outer layers of the supernova are visible. As time passes by, the outer layers thin out, and we are able to see deeper and deeper layers of the supernova ejecta", Harvard University researcher and lead author of the study, Stephane Blondin.

As lower layers of the white dwarf become visible, they start emitting light characteristic to the chemical elements. "These changes in chemical composition as deeper layers become visible leave an imprint on the resulting spectrum", explains Blondin.

Two previous studies had already established that the time dilatation phenomenon is real. The new calculations show that supernova explosions in the early universe age by up to 60 percent slower than those seen today, and are directly linked to the redshift of light, thus space-time expansion is the most probable cause for the seen effects. "Any deviation from the predicted time-dilation factor would have profound implications for cosmology", concluded Blondin.
http://news.softpedi.....-Age-More-Slo...
As you already know,I don't agree with their assumptions,but it is interesting.
Enjoy.

View Post

The explanation they speak of is polywrong. It contradicts itself two ways, right up front.

TIme dilation is difficult mumbo-jumbo mathematically (actually tedious - not really difficult difficult). But it's easy to remember the direction, and they need you to forget this. Time supposedly slows down for faster-moving objects. This is easy to remember because it's claimed time would stop altogether if one were to travel at the speed of light.

Now they've got slower-moving objects experiencing time at a slower rate than faster-moving objects. How do I know? There's an accepted principle in their own cosmology that says the farther away things are, the faster they're moving.

So, distant objects would be in slow motion - not fast motion.

The other problem they have is that if things are being "carried" by "space itself", rather than moving through the space, such motion shouldn't dilate time. The space is also carrying light, which means the speed of the object must be compared to the speed of the light within said space. They will never do this, of course, because the instant you bring it up they recognize they're caught contradicting themselves.

If space be allowed to "carry" objects - if the space itself is capable of accelerating things, there is an inertial frame-of-reference and Einsteinian relativity is toast. There is an aether. Einsteinian relativity cannot tolerate an aether of any sort, although it requires one. Calling the aether "the fabric of space" or "spacetime" does not change the issue. It's a cheap dodge - just like every evolutionologist in the world has come to expect from concepts that cannot stand on merit.

That which contradicts itself cannot be true. Calling it "the best" explanation is arguing from opinion, and in this case it's a difficult opinion to justify.

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:55 AM

The explanation they speak of is polywrong. It contradicts itself two ways, right up front.

TIme dilation is difficult mumbo-jumbo mathematically (actually tedious - not really difficult difficult). But it's easy to remember the direction, and they need you to forget this. Time supposedly slows down for faster-moving objects. This is easy to remember because it's claimed time would stop altogether if one were to travel at the speed of light.

Now they've got slower-moving objects experiencing time at a slower rate than faster-moving objects. How do I know? There's an accepted principle in their own cosmology that says the farther away things are, the faster they're moving.

So, distant objects would be in slow motion - not fast motion.

The other problem they have is that if things are being "carried" by "space itself", rather than moving through the space, such motion shouldn't dilate time. The space is also carrying light, which means the speed of the object must be compared to the speed of the light within said space. They will never do this, of course, because the instant you bring it up they recognize they're caught contradicting themselves.

If space be allowed to "carry" objects - if the space itself is capable of accelerating things, there is an inertial frame-of-reference and Einsteinian relativity is toast. There is an aether. Einsteinian relativity cannot tolerate an aether of any sort, although it requires one. Calling the aether "the fabric of space" or "spacetime" does not change the issue. It's a cheap dodge - just like every evolutionologist in the world has come to expect from concepts that cannot stand on merit.

That which contradicts itself cannot be true. Calling it "the best" explanation is arguing from opinion, and in this case it's a difficult opinion to justify.

View Post


Thanks CTD,

Since the older supernovas "alledgedly" age slower,would'nt that verify that they are actually younger?

At least,thats what I make out of it.

#17 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 February 2009 - 02:18 PM

Thanks CTD,

Since the older supernovas "alledgedly" age slower,would'nt that verify that they are actually younger?

At least,thats what I make out of it.

View Post

In the context, I'm not sure; but I think you've got it right.

To be consistent with conventional practice, the faster moving (more distant) ones must age in slo-mo.

#18 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 May 2009 - 08:54 PM

An incredible discovery that shocked the “millions of years” camp is back—with further verification.

Ten years ago, anyone—scientist or otherwise—claiming to have discovered soft (i.e., unfossilized) dinosaur tissue would have been ridiculed and dismissed by the scientific community as a quack or a young-earth creationist. Yet within the last decade have come two such crushing blows to the idea that dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago.

The first was the discovery of unfossilized dinosaur tissue at the center of a T. rex bone by Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University. That discovery—and, specifically, papers published by Schweitzer and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center scientist John Asara—started an intense debate about whether the bones truly contained dinosaur tissue (see News to Note, August 2, 2008, item #2).

Now Asara and Schweitzer have supported their previous find by confirming the existence of proteins in the soft tissues of a hadrosaur, a duck-billed dinosaur allegedly from 80 million years ago. Their new study, reported in Science, shows that “our T. rex discovery was not a unique occurrence,” said Asara, who continued:

“This is the second dinosaur species we’ve examined and helps verify that our first discovery was not just a one-hit wonder. Our current study was the collaborative effort of a number of independent laboratories, whose findings collectively add up to a robust conclusion.”

According to Asara, the team found nearly twice the number of amino acids that were found in the T. rex tissue. The fragments “showed marked preservation of original tissues and molecules, with microstructures resembling soft, transparent vessels, cells and fibrous matrix,” despite the fact that the fossil was found buried some 23 feet (7 m) deep in sandstone. The proteins the team confirmed were collagen, laminin, and elastin, as well amino acids including hydroxylated proline.

As with previous studies, similarities between the dinosaur proteins and those of chicken and ostrich are being held up as evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dr. David DeWitt responded to this claim the last time it was brought up.

Furthermore, it seems strange that dinosaur soft tissue from 80 million years ago would ever be a convincing exhibit in support of evolution (and the millions of years it would have required). “At the heart of the controversy is the idea that ancient protein can exist at all. When an animal dies, protein immediately begins to degrade and, in the case of fossils, is slowly replaced by mineral, a substitution process assumed to be complete by 1 million years,” ScienceDaily reports.

But evolutionists have there presuppositions, too, and one of them is the fixity of the fossil record and millions of years. ScienceDaily concludes, “But with this latest evidence, it appears that some proteins do indeed have real staying power.” The unchanging assumption is millions of years, even if the facts have to be bent to fit into that framework.



#19 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 12 May 2009 - 09:26 PM

One of the evidences that rates should be not presumed is the life spans of pre- and post flood man. The bible records hundreds of years.
So todays life span and the processes behind it are not the past.
In fact if these life spans were the same but the bible just didn't record it some creationists today might fight against any creationist who suggested their life spans in the past were longer. A creationist opposed might say NAW there is no evidence and prove the mechanism.
I'm saying creationists should be very open to past rates being very different in anything from tree rings, the universe, life spans, placentals becoming marsupials after entering some particular area. I say the last thing.

#20 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 May 2009 - 02:45 PM

There's much much more evidence that the universe is a lot older than the Earth. You can come up with as many young Earth theories as you like, but it doesn't make the fact that the universe itself is older go away.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users