One author wrote that even in liquid nitrogen, it wouldn't have lasted 65my. He was referring to the dino soft tissue discovered in the femur of a T-Rex fossil by Dr. Mary Schweitzer on a dig in Montana. They had to break the bone to helo-lift it and she analyzed a sample from inside it, by demineralizing it in the lab and surprise, there was still material left. Unfossilized material. This type of discovery has occurred over a dozen times since. Some pics: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=dino%20soft%20tissue&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1004&bih=612 .
This is one of my favorite creation science topics, but it fascinated me to see how entrenched is the secular, deep-time paradigm, to the point that a mysterious preservation mechanism was immediately sought, rather than making age calculations based on the known decay rates in that environment. After her colleagues looked into the microscope and perceived blood cells, Schweitzer asked, "How can that be, when [the sample] is 65myo?" Some Christians (like Schweitzer) accept theistic evolution, some reject it (like me, although I used to accept the possibility), but atheism needs it. Dino soft tissue discovery has been confirmed (careful on the dates of your sources if you follow up) and is here to stay, so interpret it as you will, but my question: Is this the providence of God, giving yet another chance for the light of Christ to shine on you? Think deep.
Bit,
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for an old (very, very old) earth is so comprehensive and so mutually-corroborating along so many different lines of evidence that it would be ridiculous to throw out everything we know about the planet based on a few discoveries we don't yet fully understand.
As a YEC, what would you say is the strongest evidence that the earth is young and, approximately, how old do you think it is?
Cheers,
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"The evidence for [old earth]..."
I accept the Bible as the revealed word of God, so it's the strongest, but there are evidences in nature as well that cumulatively convince. The dino soft tissue is one that deserves serious consideration. Based on what we know, discovery of a 65my soft tissue preservation mechanism is highly unlikely. I believe it to be under 7kyo.
Hard scientific data did not introduce the myo concept, but rather an anti-Biblical bias. Interesting article at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/where-did-millions-of-years-come-from
I am willing to discuss the old earth evidence, one at a time. Radiometrics is usually top of the list, but whatever you like. I used to accept the possibility of theistic evolution, and you might also be surprised.
Bit,
ReplyDelete"I accept the Bible as the revealed word of God, so it's the strongest,"
That's fair enough, of course, and I wouldn't expect anything else. However, if it is true then the physical evidence should match up with it too.
"but there are evidences in nature as well that cumulatively convince"
Aside from the dino tissue thing, what else is there?
"Hard scientific data did not introduce the myo concept, but rather an anti-Biblical bias. Interesting article at:"
I don't see anything in that article that provides evidence that 'anti-biblical bias' was the basis for accepting an old earth; could you be more specific?
"I am willing to discuss the old earth evidence, one at a time. Radiometrics is usually top of the list, but whatever you like."
How about meteor impact craters?
There are too many large meteor impact craters for them to have all occurred within a 6-7k year period (without wiping out all life).
Your thoughts?
"I used to accept the possibility of theistic evolution, and you might also be surprised."
I am not averse to the idea of theistic evolution. It's just that the 'evolution' part has lots of evidence and the 'theistic' part doesn't.
Cheers,
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"too many large meteor impact craters for...6-7 ky period"
I'm glad you mentioned that, because it's very true, of earth and all other major bodies in our solar system - at the current frequency of meteor impact. However, could the asteroid belt have been another planet that was smashed by an incoming object, showering the solar system with debris and leaving a swath of asteroids in a belt between Mars and Jupiter?
I personally suspect that cratering and the global flood are somehow linked. If the Earth's granite crust was at one time mostly uniform, with a hydroplate layer beneath it, a large impact(s) could have cracked it round about, releasing the water at unimaginable pressures as "the fountains of the deep".
[lack of evidence for theism]
What kind of evidence are you looking for? It's unlikely you'll get a personal visit, b/c even if miracles are occurring today (which I doubt), they are extremely rare.
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete[Article fails to provide evidence of an anti-biblical bias]
I've also read "Why Scientists Accept Evolution" by Bales and Clark as well as other sources explaining the history of origins thinking, and the correspondence preserved from these men especially bears out the bias.
Craters:
ReplyDeleteThere are craters found in-between layers of sediment, as well as craters overlapping other, already-weathered, craters - I'm not sure how this would be possible during a global flood.
Not only that, but the number of meteors we're talking about here would be enough to vapourize the earth's oceans if they all happened at once (during the flood). Needless to say, no sea-life would have survived.
Also, there's no evidence for Noah's Flood.
I've also never heard of any evidence to support the existence of a 'hydroplate'; could you enlighten me?
Evidence for theism:
I'm not sure there can be any! By definition we're talking about the supernatural so it wouldn't be physical evidence in the sense that we use to determine everything else, would it? I've never had a 'spiritual' experience of any sort, nor witnessed any healings or what have you.
Any advice?!
Anti-biblical bias:
Yes, but does that article you linked me to provide any evidence of anti-biblical bias? I was under the impression that it was creationist geologists who first proposed that the earth was old?
Cheers,
Bit?
ReplyDeleteWups, sorry for the delay, Matt. I thought I responded to that one.
ReplyDeleteHow many craters are confirmed on the earth? How many between sediment layers and how are they discovered? More detail on the overlaps and weathering? Is there a reference article that explains most of it? I'm interested.
I suspect that prior to the global flood, more of the earth's surface was land than water. Would that allow for the bombardment evidence you mention?
No, I don't think Creation geologists first suggested an old earth, but clergy did start interpreting the idea into the Bible shortly after the idea came out. The book, "Why Scientists Accept Evolution" by Bales and Clark, 1961 has samples of correspondence from Hutton, Lyell, Darwin, etc and is quite revealing on their attitudes prior to and during their work and publications.