Monday, October 12, 2009

The Age of the Earth - Biological Evidence

By Dr. Don Batten

Biological evidence for a young age of the earth

    Cells and connective tissue can be clearly seen

    The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.

  1. DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
  2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old.
  3. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
  4. The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
  5. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
  6. Many fossil bones “dated” at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?
  7. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.
  8. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils “dated” at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
  9. Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
  10. Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various “index” fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The “Lazarus effect”: rodent “resurrection”!
  11. The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.


< Part 1 | Part 3 >

1 comment:

  1. As i do not have off-the-top of my head knowledge of the first two points i will not comment on them but simply point out (once again) that pointing to a single example does not refute a reputable theory.

    sure a VERY basic definition of mullers ratchet. what it fails to mention is that selection opposes their accumulation, ie. as they are neither good nor bad they have the potential to simply be re-obsorbed back into the population genome. and more to the point it only really becomes an issue if:
    - recombination is absent
    - population size is finite
    - almost no back mutations occur
    - slightly deleterious mutation rates are high
    - purifying selection is too weak to remove all new deleterious mutations.

    i'd also question the mathematics used, but sadly could not find the method used to arrive at said calculations regarding it's support of a young Earth

    lol fails to mention that human chromosome number two is the result of the observable fusion of chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q, it is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for a common ancestor between humans and apes. also assumes it would change for at a steady rate for God knows what reason.

    6). in all the carbon has become in there's no carbon in it anymore and dating cannot be performed??? by the sound of things the author doesnt know what mineralization is or how it occurs.

    assumes that organisms continue to change regardless of whether they need to or not, once they find their environmental niche they undergo very little change.

    refer to question 9. the fact that fossils for a particular organism have not been found does not mean it did not happen...however if it didnt happen what evidence would that be?

    the oldest tree dated at 10000 years using tree ring dating.


Note: All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will not be approved. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will not be approved.