1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Evidences given for a young-earth

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Kilk1, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:17 PM.

  1. Kilk1

    Kilk1 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2019
    Messages:
    125
    Ratings:
    +24
    Religion:
    Christian
    I've recently read Answers in Genesis's "10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth." I'm wondering about some of the following arguments:

    #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
    The third of the ten arguments is that soft tissue (with red blood cells) have been found in dinosaur fossils. How can dinosaurs living 65+ million years ago still have soft tissue?

    #4 Faint Sun Paradox
    Another argument AiG presents is the faint-sun paradox. Would the sun have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, preventing life from evolving?

    #7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
    Also, I've wondered about the carbon-14 found in ancient fossils, etc. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, how is it found in fossils dated to be millions of years old?

    #9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
    Finally, is the ocean only 1/70th as salty as we would expect if it came into existence naturally 3 billion years ago?

    These are the four I wanted to look at. Thanks in advance for the input!
     
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,318
    Ratings:
    +15,160
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Have you heard the term PRATT'S before? These all have been refuted to death.

    In fact none of them were ever scientific evidence against the theory of evolution even before they were refuted. Creationists cannot afford to understand that concept.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
  3. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,263
    Ratings:
    +3,855
    I suggest you start here: An Index to Creationist Claims

    Specifically:

    CC371: Tyrannosaurus blood

    CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone

    CE311: Faint young sun

    CD011.6: C14 date of old oil

    CD221.1: Amount of dissolved sodium in oceans

    Then if you need further detail, you should read through the material cited in each of those responses.
     
    • Informative Informative x 7
    • Winner Winner x 2
  4. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,896
    Ratings:
    +3,944
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Radiocarbon dating is only just one among a number of different radiometric dating methods.

    The limitations of C-14 datings are well known, so people studying paleontology, stratigraphy and other disciplines wouldn’t use it to date anything older than 58,000 years.

    Have you ever heard of potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating and uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating methods. These two are the most commonly used to date rocks and rock minerals over 100,000 years. Their half-life differed depending on which isotopes being used to measure radio decays.

    The K-Ar may have errors, but only with rocks would lose and regain argon isotopes that have been re-molten and re-crystallized, so U dating are preferred for any rock older than 2 million years old. But such events re-molten and re-crystallizing are not all that common with ancient stratas, and K-Ar method is only a problem with recent volcanic activities.

    But despite this possible problem with K-Ar method, it is still preferred over for dating rocks older than 100,000 years, and U-Pb is even better and more reliable, and can date oldest minerals that as old as the age of the Earth.

    Plus, more often than not, fossils are usually covered by sedimentary rocks than igneous rocks.

    Radiocarbon is most useful dating the antiquities of the Neolithic period (11,000 to 3100 BCE in the Middle East), and of the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations.

    The oldest layer of Jericho date as far back as 9700 BCE, predated the phony claim of the Earth being 6000 years old. Even the oldest layer of Uruk or Erech in most bible translations by 1000 years.

    The claims in Genesis 10 that Nimrod was responsible for finding Uruk, Accad, Babylon, Nineveh and Calah is pure make-believe myth, because archaeological evidences, showed that Uruk, Babylon, Nineveh and Calah to be first constructed in very different times. Uruk was first constructed 7000 years ago (about 5000 BCE), while Calah or Kalhu as it is called in ancient Assyrian, is about 3200 years old, built by Shalmaneser I, around about 1270 BCE. So the mythological Nimrod couldn’t have built both Uruk and Kalhu.

    In any case, the people from Answers in Genesis, are bunch of morons, who have repeatedly ignored other radiometric dating methods by only focusing on radiocarbon. It just show the levels of desperation and dishonesty among the authors of articles for AiG.
     
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,487
    Ratings:
    +3,147
    Religion:
    Christian
    Maybe in a few, but soft tissue is not found in all Dino fossils!

    This evidence is not for a young Earth, but rather, that some dinosaurs lived relatively recently.

    Some species’ existence no doubt spanned eons.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,487
    Ratings:
    +3,147
    Religion:
    Christian
    FYI, I believe the Scriptures....that being said, tell me, please: how would the Flood, covering the entire Earth, alter the salinity of the oceans? Do you think it might dilute their salt content?
    Of course.

    This, again, would not imply a young Earth.
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,318
    Ratings:
    +15,160
    Religion:
    Atheist
    "Soft tissue" has not been a problem for years. And the only scientific evidence for dinosaurs that lived recently can be found at KFC and Popeye's.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,318
    Ratings:
    +15,160
    Religion:
    Atheist
    But we know that the Floor was a myth. Once again, all of the scientific evidence tells us that it never happened.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,291
    Ratings:
    +6,412
    Religion:
    None
    Do you have the capacity to acknowledge that you
    are wrong about something when it is explained
    to you?

    Coz if not you are just here to be tiresome.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,679
    Ratings:
    +5,207
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    What is called soft tissue fossils are indeed fossilized tissue 65 million years of more older. Thees are indeed not paradoxes, Creationist hoaxes.

    Faint sun? total unbelievably bogus. The sun has been as briant and hot billions of years ago as it is today.

    Carbon 14 is only valued in recent dating, ie confirming dating Biblical events. There are much better radiometric and other dating methods, all pretty much agree, and the best foundation is stratigraphy sedimentary rocks like hundreds of thousands of consistent lake lamella.

    False, the oceans are in equilibrium with the environment of the earth and not expected to be different 3 billion years ago up to today.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,887
    Ratings:
    +711
    Religion:
    Christian
    They appear to be good arguments.
     
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,318
    Ratings:
    +15,160
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Only to the scientifically illiterate.
     
    • Winner Winner x 6
  13. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,054
    Ratings:
    +1,238
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    Just one tiny bit of a problem with the young Earth hypothesis, various scientifically proven dating techniques collectively converge on showing the Earth's age a tad bit older than 10,000 years. ....:D
     
  14. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    15,518
    Ratings:
    +10,955
    Religion:
    None
    How the soft tissue was preserved is fully explained, try a google search

    Ehm??? Sun.. hot, hot since it formed, where does the silly idea that it was below freezing come from??? Ahh right creationists who know ziltch about cosmology but need to make up rubbish to justify their delusion.

    C14 dating is only used for artifacts under 50k years old. The half life is not a measurement of time but decay. As time progresses the decay slows.

    There are other dating methods used in conjunction with C14 dating to validate its accuracy. And other dating methods more suited to checking the age of artifacts that fall outside the C14 range.



    Another creationist misrepresentation based on very faulty maths that conveniently forgets to account for most of the factors.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  15. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,303
    Ratings:
    +10,436
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    The following explains how, all of which eliminates soft fossil tissue as "Evidence From Science That Confirm a Young Earth."


    "The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.

    The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana.

    The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.

    Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.

    The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.

    "The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.

    The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

    source and more



    A Solution to the Faint Young Sun Paradox, from the MIT Technology Review. all of which eliminates Faint Young Sun Paradox as "Evidence From Science That Confirm a Young Earth."

    "When it comes to the origin of life on Earth some four billion years ago, there’s a problem. At that time, the young Sun was approximately 75 percent dimmer than it is now. That would have made the Earth significantly colder, in fact, too cold for liquid water.

    However, we know that liquid water is essential for life and we know from the fossil record that life existed on Earth at the time. Liquid water must have been present. So what was keeping the water warm?

    This problem, known as the faint young Sun paradox, has troubled astronomers since the 1970s, when it was pointed out by Carl Sagan and friends. He proposed that the Earth’s atmosphere at that time must have been rich in carbon dioxide and that the consequent greenhouse effect was responsible for the warming. Other evidence, however, suggests that the atmosphere could not have had enough CO2 to do the trick. The arXiv Blog has looked at other possible solutions in the past too.

    Today, Christoffer Karoff at the University of Birmingham and a mate make a new suggestion based on their study of kappa Ceti, a star some 30 light years away in the constellation of Cetus which is very much like our Sun as it would have been four billion years ago.

    It turns out that Kappa Ceti is little more interesting than astronomers once thought. This young star, says Karoff, produces flares and coronal mass ejections at a rate that is three orders of magnitude greater than our Sun today. The implication, of course, is that our Sun must have been just as active when it was the same age as kappa Ceti (about 700 million years old).
    .
    .
    .
    And that’s what kept water liquid on the Earth’s surface four billion years ago.
    source and more



    The solution to the C-14 dilemma, all of which eliminates it as "Evidence From Science That Confirm a Young Earth."

    "Radiometric dating in general, of course, poses a huge problem for people who believe that the universe is 6000-odd years old. A favorite tactic of Young-Earthers involves citing studies which show trace amounts of C14 in coal or diamond samples, which — being millions of years old — should have no original atmospheric C14 left. Recent studies, however, show that C14 can form underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create C14 from C12.[3] Indeed, this results from a unique decay mode known as "cluster decay" where a given isotope emits a particle heavier than an alpha particle (radium226 is an example).

    This fact is extremely inconvenient to YECs, and creationist literature, accordingly, usually does not mention it.
    source

    The solution to the "little salt in the sea," which eliminates it as "Evidence From Science That Confirm a Young Earth.

    "Most sea salts come from water-caused erosion, whereby rivers ultimately carry the dissolved salts to the oceans. Absent a few key processes, the ocean’s salinity would continuously increase; however, there are several mechanisms, called “salt sinks,” that help remove salts from the oceans at pretty much exactly the same rate as they are added.

    One major sink is thanks to the evaporation of water. Once the seawater evaporates, the salt concentration increases. How does that remove salt from the water? Ultimately the water will become supersaturated in certain places and no longer capable of keeping all the salts dissolved, resulting in the formation of evaporite deposits in the sediment that eventually cement into sedimentary rocks.

    A second, related sink, uses the wind to spray seawater back onto the land, where the water evaporates, leaving behind salt deposits.

    Other sinks rely on chemical processes. For example, lava on the ocean floor will react with dissolved salt ions (like Mg2+), removing them from the water. In addition, certain clays absorb some salts (e.g. Mg2+ and K+), and some hydrogenous minerals, like ferromanganese nodules are also formed by using salts, all resulting in a decrease of ocean salinity.

    Sea life also help to remove salts from the ocean. Many animals ingest or otherwise extract salts from the water, and this can become incorporated into the organism, such as with a shell (from salts like Si4+ and Ca2+), or it can be excreted (read: pooped). These fall to the ocean floor and become part of the layer of sediment there. Similar to evaporite minerals, these are eventually incorporated into sedimentary rocks.

    Beyond salt sinks, freshwater from rivers, melting ice, and the like also supply a steady stream of comparatively fresh water to the oceans, helping to balance out the loss of water via evaporation.

    Together, these inputs and outputs ultimately keep global ocean salinity in a relative state of equilibrium, though there are always regions of the oceans that are more or less salty depending on a variety of factors".
    source


    Now obviously all these answers were close at hand, if they weren't I wouldn't have bothered trying to find them. So why does AiG ignore them? Because they count on people more willing to buy into their propaganda than looking to see if it's credible or not. All of which works in AiG's favor. And what does this tell you about the integrity of AiG? It's nonexistent.

    .


    .
     
    #15 Skwim, Oct 12, 2019 at 3:54 AM
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019 at 1:41 PM
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,679
    Ratings:
    +5,207
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Only for the self-imposed ignorant of science with a Fundamentalist Creationist agenda believe these fairy tales. Very basic high school science is all that is needed to determine these are phony 'paradoxes.'
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    14,272
    Ratings:
    +3,214
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    AiG does not know what a star is and their own argument is refuted by their counter-point of "no evidence"
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,896
    Ratings:
    +3,944
    Religion:
    Pi π
    @Kilk1

    None of the claims made by AiG are “evidence” for creationism.

    They just show the high levels of ignorance to science, as well as dishonest practices of propaganda, by Ken Ham and his toadies.

    The one about faint sun paradox, with sun being below freezing, just only demonstrated how little they understand astronomy and astrophysics.

    They are making claims, but there are no evidence for each and every one of those claims they have made.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,679
    Ratings:
    +5,207
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    I do not consider it ignorance in and of itself, except for many of the followers who are indeed ignorant and except blindly the 'dishonesty of Ken Ham and his 'loadies.'

    The 'scientists?' and others at the Discovery Institute, and Ken Ham's 'toadies' are indeed unashamedly dishonest, because they have the education to know the science that demonstrates their claims are completely false.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,291
    Ratings:
    +6,412
    Religion:
    None
    Pyrite appears to be gold.
    We call it "fools gold".
     
    • Like Like x 6
Loading...