Dr. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 method, which won for him a Nobel prize, expressed his shock that human artifacts extended back only 5000 years, a finding totally in conflict with any evolutionary concept. Older dates were found to be very unreliable (CRSQ , 1972, 9:3, p.157). By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions. One example given was Ice-Age materials that were dated by C14 to fall within the (CRSQ era, 1969, 6:2, p.114). In his book on prehistoric America, Ceram notes a classic case of the difficulties that befall C14 dating. Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years (Ceram, 1971, p.257-259). Another classic C14 problem was noted for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northern Iraq. Eleven samples were dated from the various strata and showed a 6000-year spread from oldest to most recent. Analysis of all the archaeological evidence, however, showed that the village was occupied no more than 500 years before it was finally abandoned (Custance, 1968, Mortar samples can be given normal C14 tests since mortar absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. Mortar, however, from Oxford Castle in England gave an age of 7,270 years. The castle was built about 800 years ago. The kind of contamination is unclear. Living trees near an airport were dated with C14 as l0,000 years old, because the wood contained contamination from plane exhaust (CRSQ , 1970, 7:2, p.126; 1965, 2:4, p.31). p.19). [I wouldn’t be surprised if these last 2 examples have simple explanations.] C14 analysis of oil from Gulf of Mexico deposits showed an age measured in thousands of years - not millions. Data produced by the Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New Zealand, showed that petroleum deposits were formed 6,000-7,000 years ago. Textbooks state that petroleum formation took place about 300,000,000 years ago (Velikovsky, 1955, p.287; CRSQ , 1965, 2:4, p.10). Fossil wood was found in an iron mine in Shefferville, Ontario, Canada, that was a Precambrian deposit. Later the wood was described as coming from Late Cretaceous rubble, which made it about 100 million years old instead of more than 600 million years old. Two independent C14 tests showed an age of about 4000 years (Pensee , Fall 1972, 2:3, p.43). The last major glacial advance in America was long dated at about 25,000 years ago. C14 dates forced a revision down to 11,400 years. The United State Geological Survey carried out studies that gave a C14 date as recent as 3300 years ago, but no text treats such a puzzling find that falls well within historic times (Velikovsky, 1955, p.158-159; CRSQ , 1968, 5:2, p.67). Here is a remarkable example of C14 difficulties in a book published by Stanford University Press. Six C14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the formation of the Bering Land Bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to 15,500 Before Present. The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom to top of the core that no two samples were in the correct order. Then the oldest date was discarded because it was ‘inconsistent’ with other tests elsewhere. Next the remaining dates were assumed to be contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded that the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago (Hopkins, 1967, p.110-111). ... Even more astonishing is this cynical statement made at a symposium of Nobel Prize winners in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1969: If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it (Pensee , Winter 1973, p.44). ________________________________________ As for the contamination issue, someone asserted that any C14 date of 30,000 years or more is due to contamination. If this is so, then why do they say the method is accurate to 50,000 years? If any C14 date has ever yielded a value over 30,000 years, this implies that such contamination is not ubiquitous. Of course, it could be that older measurement techniques were less accurate. Now, 30,000 years is about 5 half lives of C14, which means that a contamination of 1/32 (slightly less) would be required to achieve this date for a sample of infinite age. This is a substantial contamination. Anyway, as for C14 dating in general, it seems clear that many, many results are much too young according to the standard view, and that explaining away one or two of them does not appreciably diminish the problem. Here is another instance of an anomalously young carbon 14 date: At the 1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference, there was a paper presented called “Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and Other Evidences for Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)”. Among other things, the results of carbon-dating of Acrocanthosaurus bones are given. The authors noted that dinosaur bones are frequently (“as a rule”) found with a black carbon residue of some sort on the bones. The authors speculated that this residue could be the leftovers of the decayed skin and flesh: they quote the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia’s definition of “carbonization”: “Carbonization; the reduction of organic tissue to a carbon residue. An unusual kind of fossilization in which the tissue is preserved as a carbon film. Plants are commonly preserved in this manner, soft-bodied animals more rarely.” Since this material is organic, it can be used to carbon-date the fossils. The authors describe in detail the measures taken to ensure that no other source of carbon contamination was present inside or outside the bones. When the bones were ground up and carbon-dated, the dates they received from the lab from different methods were 9,890 to 36,500 years BP (before present). ________________________________________ Some have claimed that this bone was covered with shellac, causing the carbon 14 date to be young. Concerning this issue, one individual sent me the following information: The papers of Miller’s that are cited by Lepper are: Fields, W., H. Miller, J. Whitmore, D. Davis, G. Detwiler, J. Ditmars, R. Whitelaw, and G.Novaez, 1990, “The Paluxy River Footprints Revisited,” in _Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism held July 30-August 4, 1990, Volume 2, technical symposium sessions and additional topics_, edited by R.E. Walsh and C.L. Brooks, pp. 155-168, Christian Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh. and Dahmer, L., D. Kouznetsov, A. Ivenov, J. Hall, J. Whitmore, G. Detwiler, and H. Miller, 1990, “Report on Chemical Analysis and Further Dating of Dinosaur Bones and Dinosaur Petroglyphs,” same proceedings, pp. 371-374. The above two articles are the ones that purportedly refer to carbon 14 dating of a dinosaur bone covered with shellac. The article I referred to is the following: “Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and Other Evidences for Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)” (1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference). In this paper, the authors describe in detail the measures taken to ensure that no other source of carbon contamination was present inside or outside the bones. The fact that these are separate papers, and the fact that every attempt was made to avoid contamination, suggests that these are two different incidents. I also received the following information from another person: As far as I can ascertain from the paper, the researchers responsible specifically mention that the dinosaur bones being dated were not coated with shellac (page 10). Otherwise, the details of the material at your website are as in the paper, and the comment about a black carbon residue around fossilised dinosaur bones is referenced in their paper to a secular source, so it is not simply their observation. The comments from the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia merely add to their case. However, of the results they give in their paper, I personally would only be comfortable with the AMS results obtained on the same sample in two different laboratories - the one at 25,750+/-280 years BP and the other at 23,760+/-270 years BP. The other results were obtained on unspecified equipment or via the less reliable older beta technology and generally appear not to have been cross-checked in another laboratory. Again I confirm that the claim about the shellac appears to be totally false and merely a smokescreen to avoid the implications of an uncomfortable radiocarbon date. Gentry’s Radiohaloes in Coalified Wood Back to top Here is some more material from my web site bearing on the question of the age of the geologic column: It is also of interest in regard to radiometric dating that Robert Gentry claims to have found “squashed” polonium haloes as well as embryonic uranium radiohaloes in coal deposits from many geological layers claimed to be hundreds of millions of years old. (See the Oct. 15, 1976 issue of Science.) These haloes represent particles of polonium and uranium which penetrated into the coal at some point and produced a halo by radioactive decay. The fact that they are squashed indicates that part of the decay process began before the material was compressed, so the polonium had to be present before compression. Since coal is relatively incompressible, Gentry concludes that these particles of uranium and polonium must have entered the deposit before it turned to coal. However, there is a very small amount of lead with the uranium; if the uranium had entered hundreds of millions of years ago, then there should be much more lead. The amount of lead present is consistent with an age of thousands rather than millions of years. It’s hard to believe, according to conventional geological time scales, that this coal was compressed any time within the past several thousand or even hundred million years. ________________________________________ Here is a quote from Coffin, page 306, about Gentry’s findings: “Coalified wood from Triassic and Jurassic sediments (225- to 135-million-year conventional geologic age) contains radiohaloes. Published lead-206/uranium-238 ratios for their inclusion centers may be expressed in terms of uranium-lead radioisotope ages ranging between 236 thousand and 2.9 million years. No presently available experimental evidence would exclude the possibility that essentially all the lead-206 in the halo centers was introduced together with the uranium (either directly or as parent polonium-210 or lead-210) and thus did not accumulate from uranium.” In fact, a couple of the haloes have ages consistent with an origin thousands of years ago. Thus the amount of lead with the uranium is consistent with an age in the hundreds of thousands to millions of years range, much too small for conventional geologic time. And it is reasonable to assume that almost all of this lead came with the uranium, rather than being a result of decay, suggesting that the true age could be much younger than this. Note that this phenomenon of squashed haloes appears in different coal deposits in different geologic formations, and all give about the same U-Pb ages. The squashing is in the vertical direction, and I can’t think of any way this could happen at a time later than the burial of the logs or whatever under a lot of sediment. Coal is not water soluble (at least, coal cars aren’t covered, and no one seems to worry about thunderstorms dissolving the coal away), and wood is waterproof, so one would expect that coalified wood would also be waterproof. Coal has small pores. If it had cracks, they would have to be small, since the cell structure is still visible. And if there was a flow of water, it would be more likely to remove soluble uranium than insoluble lead, making the date older. But it is possible that small cracks exist and that uranium could be deposited by a flow of water at some more recent date. If there were such cracks, we would expect uranium to be entering at regular intervals, and to give a range of ages up to about 225 million years or even higher due to lead being introduced with the uranium. But note that all of the haloes give young ages. The fact that all the ages are so young suggests that the coal is young, too. It seems most likely that the uranium entered at the same time as the polonium. The fact that so many of the polonium haloes are squashed indicates that the polonium entered before the wood was covered with sediement. I think the most reasonable explanation is that this coal has an age at most a few millions of years old, possibly much younger, and that the geologic time scale is in error. Some of the haloes have ages of 200,000 or 300,000 years, so the true age would have to be this or younger. This applies to several geologic periods. In fact, a couple of the haloes have such low ratios as to imply an age in the thousands of years Frank; Long ages is a relatively new concept within the thousand of years timeframe man has been observing our universe. Over those thousands of years of observation man has tracked and documented the facts below and gone back over them exhaustively because some things do look old when lacking scientific instruments to measure precisely.. Y.oung E.arth S.cience came about through those thousands of years and gave us real data that has always proven by scientific method that Earth is far younger than it looks or the age evolutionist say is needed to spontaneously generate every living thing from nothing.. The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000 years old. Clock Age Estimate 1. Receding Moon 750 m.y.a. max 2. Oil Pressure 5,000 - 10,000 years 3. The Sun 1,000,000 years max 4. The Oldest Living Thing 4,900 years max 5. Helium in the Atmosphere 1,750,000 years max 6. Short Period Comets 5,000 - 10,000 years 7. The Earths Magnetic Field 10,000 years max 8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones 10,000 - 50,000 years 9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA 5,000 - 50,000 years 9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones 5,000 - 50,000 years 9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments 5,000 - 50,000 years 10. Axel Heiberg Island 5,000 - 10,000 years 11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere 10,000 years max 12. The Dead Sea 13,000 years max 13. Niagara Falls 5,000 - 8,800 years max 14. Historical Records 5,000 years max 15. The San Andreas Fault 5,000 - 10,000 years 16. Mitochondrial Eve 6,500 years 17. Population Growth 10,000 years max 18. Minerals in the Oceans Various (mostly young) Ages 19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years 20. Carbon 14 from Old Sources 10,000 to 50,000 years 21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies 1 million years (max) 22. Helium and lead in Zircons 6,000 years… This is straight CSI Science. We are pledged to REAL Science no matter where it leads us. When crime went up over 6000 percent after kids were told the universe was much older than real science has always proven is when we had to let those with an open mind know our findings. That is the way real science works. If more CSI’s would follow the facts no matter where they lead fewer innocents would be in jail and there would be far fewer bad guys threatening the public… The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000 years old. 1. Receding Moon: The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon.1 This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung: One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1 Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4 Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning. See also: What does the Moon have to say about all this -- Creation going on...? 2. Oil Pressure: When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim millions of years for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesnt. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noahs Flood only about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left. 5,6,7,8 Heres More. 3. The Sun: Measurements of the suns diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests. See also: Global Warming - Is the Sun to Blame?, The Young Faint Sun Paradox, and Speedy Star changes Baffle Long-Agers 4. The Oldest Living Thing: The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. The fact that these trees are still alive and growing older means that we dont yet know how old they will get before they die. It also strongly suggests that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15 Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle says 1700. This is significant since we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1800 years before the Noachian Flood described in the Book of Genesis. See also Evidence from Living Things 5. Helium in the Atmosphere: Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. As uranium decays, the helium produced escapes from the earths surface and accumulates in the atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earths crustal rocks. From this they estimate the amount of helium that should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time. They also know how much helium is currently in the atmosphere. If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make -- i.e.: no initial daughter/byproduct (or helium) in the earths early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium -- then the earths atmosphere is at most 1.76 million years old. 16,17 Other estimates say it is much less: or only 175,000 years. 18 For a much more detailed discussion see: Helium Evidence for a Young World Remains Crystal Clear, and Helium Evidence for A Young World Overcomes Pressure, by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. 6. Short Period Comets: Short period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less.19 With each revolution they lose 1-2% of their mass. After several hundred revolutions they disintegrate. At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of which have periods of less than 20 years.20 Since comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar system. 21 This, plus the fact that they have not all disintegrated, suggests that either the solar system is young, or that new comets are continuously being added. Evolutionists have come up with theories to explain the existence of comets, and how new ones are being added. One is called the Oort Cloud theory, named after J. Oort. This suggests that a hypothetical cloud surrounds the solar system that is said to extend past the orbit of Pluto.21 The other theory is called the Kuiper belt theory, and it is directed at short period comets, as opposed to to Oort Cloud theory, which is directed at both long and short period ones. Although some people claim that the Kuiper belt has been discovered, to this authors knowledge that is not the case. Nor has even one hypothetical object (i.e. asteroid of comet material) been observed to transform into a would-be comet. See reference 20 for more on this. See also the Astronomy section of the Young Age of the Earth and Universe Q&A page. The existence of short period comets suggests that our solar system is less than 10,000 years old: otherwise they would have burned out long ago.22 7. The Earths Magnetic Field: The Earths magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earths magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth. 23,24,25,26 In other words, it seems likely that the Earths magnetic field is quite young, and suggests that the earth itself is also young. The fact that the earths magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphreys work suggests. A brief portion of Dr. Humphreys findings are quoted below. Shortly after that I published a review of the evidence for past polarity reversals, reaffirming their reality (Humphreys, 1988). Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid (meters per second) motions of the core fluid would indeed cause rapid reversals of the field’s polarity (Humphreys, 1990). I cited newly discovered evidence for rapid reversals (Coe and Prévot, 1989), evidence in thin lava flows confirming my 1986 prediction. Since then, even more such evidence has become known (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995). The reversal mechanism of my theory would dissipate magnetic energy, not sustain it or add to it, so each reversal cycle would have a lower peak than the previous one. In the same paper (Humphreys, 1990, p. 137), I discussed the non-dipole part of the field today, pointing out that the slow (millimeter per second) motions of the fluid today could increase the intensity of some of the non-dipole parts of the field. However, I concluded (that) ... the total energy of the field would still decrease. Despite these ... answers, skeptics today still use Dalrymple’s old arguments to dismiss geomagnetic evidence. Much of that is probably due to ignorance of our responses, but some skeptics are still relying on the non-dipole part of the field. They hope that an energy gain in the non-dipole part will compensate for the energy lost from the dipole part. I said, “hope,” because it appears that since 1967, nobody has yet published a calculation of non-dipole energies based on newer and better data. So that is what I will do below. It turns out that the results quash evolutionist hopes and support creationist models. 27 Emphasis Added Another major problem with old-earth beliefs in this regard is the timing of the earths last reversal. Old earth believers claim that it took place 780,000 years ago; however, at current rates of decay, only about 10,000 years ago the earth would have been so hot that no life could have survived on its surface. And even if we assume that in the past the earths magnetic field decayed much slower than today, we are still only looking at about 20,000 years ago that life could have existed on the earth. This indicates that old-earth dates for the earths past magnetic reversals (arrived at using radiometric method) are probably incorrect, and suggests that the assumptions used in old-earth (radiometric) dating were (and are) incorrect. See also: Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth, and Continental Drift and the Age of the Earth and the Links associated with these articles. See also: The Mystery of the Earths Magnetic Field and Magnetic Evidence on the Ocean Floor 8. Direct Dating of Dragon Bones: By evolutionary reasoning, dragon bones only occur in the so-called Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic eras.28 According to the geological time chart such creatures (now called dinosaurs) died out between 65 and 220 million years ago. What is not well known about these eras is that they are based upon the theory of evolution -- which requires extremely long periods of time. When evolution-biased scientists say that they know such things, they not being forthright. For while they may, in fact, believe such things, if they were honest they would admit that such dates assigned to these eras are highly questionable. See Are Dinosaur Bones Millions of Years Old for why dinosaurs probably became extinct in recent times. So how can we date dragon bones? One piece to the puzzle is the fact that many dinosaur bones are not permineralized or turned into stone. This means they can be directly dated by the Carbon-14 method, the exact same way a mammoth or Neanderthal bone is dated. This has also been done on numerous occasions by various laboratories in the United States and Europe, and the dates indicate that dinosaurs were alive from 9,800 -- 50,000 years ago.29,30,31 This author discussed this with Paul LeBlond, Professor of Oceanography at the University of British Columbia. Dr. LeBlond said that any C14 date over 5,000 years is highly questionable.32 Therefore, despite what popular publications may report,33 we can establish that all mammoths, Neanderthals, or other bones dated over 5,000 years by the C14 method are likewise questionable. If we accept any, then we must accept them all: including those that are incompatible with evolution-based ages associated with the Geological Time Chart. However, the very fact that many thousands of dinosaur/dragon bones contain organic material is a strong indication that these creatures became extinct in the recent past. This is discussed in greater detail in the sections below. See also C-14 Dating. 9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA: Before the existence of supposedly ancient organic material had been well publicized, it was predicted that no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years. 34 This prediction was based upon the observed breakdown of DNA. Not long after this prediction was made, very old DNA started turning up. For example, at the Clarkia Fossil Beds, in Idaho, a green magnolia leaf was discovered in strata that was said to be 17 million years old.35 Because it was so fresh-looking and even pliable, scientists decided to see if any DNA was present. And to their surprise they discovered that there was: and that it matched the DNA of modern magnolia trees. Since then, DNA claims have been made for supposedly older material such as dinosaur bones,36,37 and insects in amber.38 It was said that the reason the magnolia leaf was preserved was because it was buried in clay; 39 however, the 17 million year date is still doubtful. Likewise, scientists say that DNA from the insects was preserved because they were entombed in amber. However, a serious problem arises when we come to the dinosaur bones; for these were not entombed in amber or clay, but in sandstone.40,41 And because sandstone and bone are both porous, this means that ground and rain water would be able to seep into the rocks, and thus into the bones as well. The fact that the outer part of one of these bones was mineralized 42 gives strong evidence that water -- and thus oxygen -- had access to the bones. The fact that the inside of the bones are not mineralized is an indication that they are young. The fact that the partially mineralized bone had (what looked like) red blood cells in it 43 is a strong indication that it is young: probably less than 10,000 years old. When Mary Schweitzer first saw the bones under a microscope, she said: I got goose bumps,...It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But ... I couldnt believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long? 44 Emphasis Added This is good question indeed; however, the answer from the scientific establishment says even more. For they refuse to consider the likely possibility that the bones are (perhaps) as much as 64,995,000 years younger than what they have told the public to believe. Note: Although it was claimed that DNA was isolated in the dragon bones from Montana and Utah, it was so fragmented that the results have (thus far) not been replicated.45,46,47 However, laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of collagen and Heme and other organic protein molecules in the tyrannosaurus from Montana -- the one with little round things that looked just like red blood cells.48,49 Remember that the ancient DNA from the magnolia leaf discussed above was supposed to last for a maximum of 10,000 years before decaying into inorganic matter. Therefore, if the 17 m.y.o. date is correct, then scientists were off by a factor of 1,700 in their (observation-based) prediction with regard to the breakdown rate of DNA. So much for using science when it seems to HINT that something is amiss with the evolution-based Geological Time Chart. More recently, DNA has been extracted from two 30-million-year-old insects (a beetle and a bee) that were trapped in amber. In this case they were off by a factor of 3,000 with regard to the observation-based prediction of DNA preservation. However, the organic dinosaur remains present the greatest difficulty for the scientific establishment to overcome. This is due to the alleged greater age involved and because of the much greater exposure to the elements. Because sandstone and bone are porous,50,51 and because the bones were partially mineralized, it is virtually certain that water could (and did) get to these bones. Because DNA only lasts for about 10,000 years before it disintegrates, it is likely that no organic matter at all would survive much longer than 20,000 years. This means that the prediction with regard to how long organic matter can survive was off by a factor of over 3,000 or that something is seriously wrong with the evolution-based dating system and the geological time chart. Either the scientific methods used to estimate the rate of breakdown of organic matter are grossly in error, or the great ages associated with these organic remains are off by a factor of over 3,000. This, coupled with the fact that such unfossilized dinosaur bones can be (and have been) dated by the Carbon 14 method, and yield dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old, suggests that the great ages promoted by the evolution-believing establishment are in error. See also The scrambling continues and the Links below for more info. However, even beyond this are (the purported) 165 million-year-old Ammonites (discussed below) with their organic ligaments still intact, that were buried in mud, and the supposedly 300 m.y.o. fossil wood (impregnated with limestone) that still has its organic woody structure intact. Then there is the case of bacteria preserved alive in salt crystals for (a purported) 250 million years. Such anomalies strain the credibility of supposedly objective scientists who are willing to bend and strain the facts of science to promote the Story of how they think that life just might have -- against all odds -- arose on earth without any intelligence behind it over millions and millions of years. Even worse: they Demand that our children be taught such things in school as if they were facts. In a More recent article, about: what appears to (be) a soft tissue inside the bone, with what appears to be blood vessels and cells... similar to a stretchy bone matrix, we are told that: the tissue... has revealed organic components that somewhat resemble cells and fine blood vessels. The discovery was quite an unexpected one. The leader of the research team Mary Schweitzer had routinely tried dissolving pieces of the bone to understand its mineral composition, when she found something unusual: a transparent filament that closely resembled blood vessels. She even found traces of what appear to be red blood cells, osteocytes (bone-building cells). Emphasis Added The article also stated that the fossilized bone was dated back some 70 million years ago. Mary also speculated that: It is possible that the outer parts of the leg fossilized while the vessels were trapped within mineralized bone and remained intact all these millennia. Emphasis Added Of course it is also possible that the bones are not 70 million years old, but rather only a few thousand. But such a scenario, would eliminate any possibility of evolution playing anything other than an extremely minor role in the Creation of life on Earth, while also pointing in the direction of a Creator/God: something that old-earth bigots dont want discussed in public classrooms. And so they continue to speculate about how the Impossible just might have possibly occurred: a long, long time ago, in a land far away: while ignoring the evidence that strongly suggests that such would simply not happen in trillions of years, even on a so-called suitable planet that was covered with water, and full of Bubbles and lightning: unless an outside Intelligence acted upon and ordered it. In other words, the belief that we are a byproduct of Nature is, for all practical purposes, outside the realm of empirical (i.e. observable and testable) science. Some of these dedicated believers also claim to believe in God, yet they dont think that the Creator should get much (if any) of the credit for the Creating, but instead Mother nature. These people think that the words Creation and Creator must never be mentioned in public classrooms, but rather only such words that support their beliefs. So much for keeping religion out of the classroom, while at the same time displaying ones ignorance with regard to what the Founding Fathers intended, and which was practiced for over 200 years in the United States of America. But that was before the modern age of ignorance, political correctness, and the mass media Agenda of coercing the public to believe in things that are based more on wishful thinking than on empirical and testable science. Some may say I am ranting but check out the facts for yourself and make up your own mind, rather than simply believing what our left-leaning media wants you to believe: i.e. that the Creation doesnt even have a Creator, but simply blew itself into existence. For more on why Dinosaurs and Man must have lived together see: Evidence that Humans and Dinosaurs Lived Together at the same Time. See also Are Dinosaur Bones Millions of Years Old?, and Oldest DNA .... For facts on the complexity of Living organisms, see: How Life Began and The Facts of Life. 9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones: A 1987 article in the Journal of Paleontology begins as follows: Hadrosaur bones have been found on the Colville River north of Umiat on the North Slope of Alaska. 52 What is perhaps most interesting about these many thousands of bones is that they lack any significant degree of permineralization. 53,54 In fact, the people who discovered them didnt report it for 20 years because they thought they were bison bones. Because the bones were partially exposed in a soft, brown, sandy silt, 55 and because every year the snow melts and subjects them to the elements for two to three months, these bones also call in question the evolutionary-based ages of dinosaurs, and the Geological Time Chart itself. See also 8 and 9A above. For more on Dragons and Man living together at the same time see Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones. See also this CBS News story and USA Today article for more on organic dinosaur remains. 9C. 165 Million Year Old Surprise: In May of 1996 it was reported that ammonites in pristine condition have been found in a mysterious network of mud springs on the edge of the market town of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England. 56 What is so interesting about these purportedly 165 million-year-old ammonites is that: many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells ... (and) they retain their original... aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] ... The outsides also retain their iridescence... And... in the words of Dr. Hollingworth, There are shells ... still have their organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old.! 57,58Emphasis Added It is a fact that water is a component of mud. It is also a fact that oxygen is a component of water. Oxygen allows oxidation to take place. Oxidation causes things to break down. These mud springs are further evidence that something is wrong with the current evolutionary scheme for dating fossils. 10. Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands: Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands are located in northern Canada, above the Arctic circle. The winters are so cold there that the only trees able to grow are small shrubs less than a foot in height.59 However something very strange has been found on these islands that testifies to a very different past: i.e. numerous large trees and tree stumps lying on, or buried just beneath the surface.60,61,62 How did they get there? And more importantly, when did they get there? It is claimed that the trees are leftover remnants of forests which inhabited this area 40-65 million years ago. 60,61,62 The scientific data suggests otherwise. For instance, they are not petrified, 60,61,62 but can be sawed and burned. In addition, pine cones, pine needles, and leaves are also preserved in the sandy/silty soil. 60,61,62 Another clue to the puzzle is that the roots of these trees are missing. 60,61,62 This suggests that they didnt grow here but were uprooted by a catastrophic event and later re-deposited at different levels. This is exactly what has happened in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens; however, the upright trees on the bottom of this lake are still under water. At some time in the future, they may be left standing upright -- looking as if they grew there. 63-70 In regard to this, Quiring, states : During the eruption many trees from the surrounding hillsides were washed into the lake. Today, thousands of logs, protected within the monument, float back and forth with the changing winds. As some of the trees sink, roots first, they settle upright on the lake floor to form a sunken forest. 71 In regard to the preservation of the organic matter on Axel Heiberg Island, an online article states the following: The Axel Heiberg fossils are largely preserved as mummifications. Although usually compressed, the wood and other remains are relatively unaltered chemically and biologically (Obst et al, 1991). Preservation of the fossils is exquisite, including leaf litter, cones, twigs, branches, boles, roots, etc. Where these are not compressed, they are virtually indistinguishable from equivalent tissues found in the forest floor of modern conifer forests ... The reasons why preservation is exceptional and there is so little mineralization remain obscure. Analysis of the organic remains indicate that they were buried in a fresh-water environment (Goodarzi et al, 1991). Emphasis Added Although these trees are frozen for most of the year, each summer the snow melts and for about three months the temperature reaches into the 70 degree Fahrenheit range.72 Such warm temperatures should (normally) allow decomposition to take place. One explanation for the remarkable degree of preservation is the suggestion that these trees were mummified by being buried under significant amounts of strata, and then, over time, this overlying strata was eroded. This is perhaps possible, however, it is also possible that these trees are not millions of years old, but rather only a few thousand. Also, the fact that the roots of some of these upright trees are missing suggests that they were uprooted by a catastrophe, and transported by water to these islands (perhaps) in the not-too-distant past. Otherwise they would have decayed. Similar trees from Siberia are only 7,000 years old. For example, in Cataclysms of the Earth, by Hugh Auchincloss Brown, on page 31, Mr. Brown makes the following comments: In certain areas of northern Siberia innumerable tree trunks called by the natives Adams wood and said to be in all stages of decay are embedded in the solidly frozen tundra. Because they were once growing trees, of types which do not grow in that climate, they confirm that a change in climate has taken place, such as would be caused by a careen of the globe. They could have been broken by a hurricane or flood. If so, they will show a clean break on the side on which the breaking force was imposed and torn fibers on the lee side. A reexamination of the wood, to determine genera and species of the trees, will enable us to establish the latitude range or climate in which these trees grew. Emphasis Added A so called mammoth tree, with fruit and leaves still on it, was discovered and reported after a landslide of Siberian tundra. Such cold storage of fruit 7,000 years old can only be explained by a sudden transportation of the fruit from a warm climate in which it grew to the cold storage climate in which it has been refrigerated. This specimen of fruit, with leaves, and many other specimens of leaves reported found in Siberia also confirm the careen of the globe. Emphasis Added Velikovski, in his book Earth in Upheaval (1955, Edition), reported similarly preserved trees in the frozen tundra of Alaska. See also Discovery of 260 million year old fossil forest from Antarctica, where we find the following: The wood was most interesting to me. In some cases branches were preserved, suggesting that the wood had not been transported far by streams. We found an impression of a piece of bark with a knot preserved clearly – not bad for about 250 million years old! The stumps were not replaced by silica, and thus are not “petrified,” but they have been freeze dried in a way that has preserved the growth rings in some cases. On one tree, we counted 26 annual rings, and it was probably older because not all the growth rings were preserved. Emphasis Added For more on these trees and other (supposedly very old) material see: Carbon Dating of Fossil Wood and Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones. A Tropical Reptile in the Cretaceous Arctic, by Michael Oard Sustainability: A Glacial Perspective -- Lessons of a Forty Million Year Old Forest, By Dr. Richard Jagels The Oldest Wood in the World by Carla Helfferich Scientists Battle over turf in Arctic land that time forgot, by Ed Struzik 11. Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere: Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earths upper atmosphere. The earths atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14. It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus, it appears that the earths atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old. In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old. 73,74,75 Some of these estimates place the atmospheres age at 50,000 years, and others at 100,000 but they each pose serious problems for old-earth scenarios. See also Item 20 below, and associated Links. 12. The Dead Sea: The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old. 76,77 For more on this subject, Click Here and scroll down. 13. Niagara Falls: Up until the recent past, when the top of Niagara Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward Lake Erie at the rate of about four to five feet per year. Since the channel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet), this means that the age of Niagara Falls is between 7,000 and 8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant. The age of North America, is likely the same.78,79,80 For more on this see the following comments by Ian Juby. 14. Historical Records: Depending on which book one consults, historians claim that human history goes back 4,600- 5,400 (or more) years; however, according to Froelich Rainey, 1870 B.C. (plus or minus 6) is the earliest actual recorded date in human history. 81,82,83 Also on this point, Sylvia Baker quotes Professor Libby as follows: Professor Libby learned this when he tried to verify his Carbon-14 method. He said. The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisers informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years... You read statements in books that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly (that) these... ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established. 84 See also How Far Back to the Records Go? 15. The San Andreas Fault: The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America. It runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco. It is said to move from 1/2 to 2 inches per year. 85 How long has it been moving for? The answer varies greatly. Some say it has moved for tens of miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.86 There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved 12,000 feet;87 however this too is questionable since the origin of granite itself is uncertain. Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up from the ground. One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the Pt. Reyes area, one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Toms Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all. This evidence suggests that this fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old. See also Continental Drift. 16. Eves Mitochondrial DNA: Mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleus DNA in that it has only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cells nucleus... 90 It is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, 90,91,92,93 or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below. In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.90,91,92 This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.94 This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000. This greatly revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didnt make the headlines. See also: The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve and Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through our Genes. 17. Population Growth: Today the earths population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve todays population. 95,96,97 See Population Statistics for more on this. 18. Minerals in the Oceans: By measuring the amounts of various minerals that are present in the oceans and calculating the amounts of each that are added each year by river runoff, scientists can estimate how old the oceans are. When doing so the great majority of minerals yield young ages for the earths oceans -- many of which are less than 5,000 years. 98 See also The Seas Missing Salt, 99 by Dr. Steve Austin. 19. Rapid Mountain Uplift: In March of 2005, Dr. John Baumgardner released his assessment of the Recent Rapid Uplift of Todays Mountains in an Impact article. In it he discovered that: An ongoing enigma for the standard geological community is why all the high mountain ranges of the world -- including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies -- experienced most of the uplift to their present elevations in what amounts to a blink of an eye, relative to the standard geological time scale. In terms of this time scale, these mountain ranges have all undergone several kilometers of vertical uplift since the beginning of the Pliocene about five million years ago. This presents a profound difficulty for uniformitarian thinking because the driving forces responsible for mountain building are assumed to have been operating steadily at roughly the same slow rates as are observed in todays world for... the past several hundred million years. 100 20. Carbon 14 from (supposedly) Old Sources: Carbon 14 is found in organic materials of all types, including diamonds, coal seams, carbonized wood, unfossilized wood and dinosaur bones. In fact, that is the problem. In other words, Carbon 14 is found where it shouldnt be -- if the earth were billions of years old. Commenting on this in their extensive paper: Measurable 14C In Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming The Young Earth Creation-Flood Model, Drs Baumgardner, Humphreys, Snelling, and Austin stated in their Conclusion that: The careful investigations performed by scores of researchers in more than a dozen AMS facilities in several countries over the past twenty years to attempt to identify and eliminate sources of contamination in AMS 14C analyses have, as a by-product, served to establish beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of intrinsic 14C in remains of living organisms from all portions of the Phanerozoic record. Such samples, with ‘ages’ from 1-500 Ma as determined by other radioisotope methods applied to their geological context, consistently display 14C levels that are far above the AMS machine threshold, reliably reproducible, and typically in the range of 0.1-0.5 pmc. But such levels of intrinsic 14C represent a momentous difficulty for uniformitarianism. A mere 250,000 years corresponds to 43.6 half-lives for 14C. One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 1010 14C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives worth of decay reduces that number by a factor of 7 x 1014. Not a single atom of 14C should remain in a carbon sample of this size after 250,000 years (not to mention one million or 50 million or 250 million years). A glaring (thousand-fold) inconsistency that... exists between the AMS-determined 14C levels and the corresponding rock ages provided by 238U, 87Rb, and 40K techniques. We believe the chief source for this inconsistency to be the uniformitarian assumption of time-invariant decay rates. Other research reported by our RATE group also supports this conclusion [7, 23, 42]. Regardless of the source of the inconsistency, the fact that 14C, with a half-life of only 5730 years, is readily detected throughout the Phanerozoic part of the geological record argues the half billion years of time uniformitarians assign to this portion of earth history is likely incorrect. The relatively narrow range of 14C/C ratios further suggests the Phanerozoic organisms may all have been contemporaries and that they perished simultaneously in the not so distant past. Finally, we note there are hints that 14C currently exists in carbon from environments sealed from biospheric interchange since very early in the earth history. We therefore conclude the 14C evidence provides significant support for a model of earth’s past involving a recent global Flood cataclysm and possibly also for a young age for the earth itself. 101 Emphasis Added See also: Carbon-14 Dating Shows that the Earth is Young, 102 and What about Carbon 14. 103 Abbreviations: Ma = Million years ago. pmc = percent modern carbon 21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies: Although it isnt well known, the galaxies themselves also provide strong evidence that the Universe itself is less than ONE million years old. Thats because almost all spiral galaxies have Blue stars in them. And since Blue stars are so bright, it is estimated that they cant be older than one million years. Therefore, it seems likely that the galaxies themselves cannot be any older than that. See: Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation, by Jason Lisle, Ph. D., (Acts & Facts, Sept. 2012, p.16) for more details. Note: The structure of spiral galaxies themselves also tells us that they cannot be any older than (a maximum of) about 200 million years old: much less than the 13-14 billion years that old earth proponents claim. This is because, based in the laws of physics, they should lose their structure, or spiral arms, in only 4-5 turns, but for some reason they dont. Perhaps its because theyre Young? See also What Happened to all the Dark Matter?, 104 Exploding Stars point to a Young Universe 105 and Part Three of this series on the Age of the Earth. 22. Zircons: Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- IF the earth were billions of years old. Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that: We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentrys retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic billions of years down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible. 106 Emphasis Added See also: Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay.
Posted on: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:51:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015