Evidences given for a young-earth

[Kilk1]

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!

 

[Subduction Zone]

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!

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

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!

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.

 

[gnostic]

#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?

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.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

#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?

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.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

#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?

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

"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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

But we know that the Floor was a myth. Once again, all of the scientific evidence tells us that it never happened.

 

[Audie]

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!

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

What is called soft tissue fossils are indeed fossilized tissue 65 million years of more older. Thees are indeed not paradoxes, Creationist hoaxes.

#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?

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

#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?

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.

#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?

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.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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!

They appear to be good arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They appear to be good arguments.

Only to the scientifically illiterate.

 

[Salvador]

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. ....

 

[ChristineM]

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

How the soft tissue was preserved is fully explained, try a google search

#4 Faint Sun Paradox

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.

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

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.

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

Another creationist misrepresentation based on very faulty maths that conveniently forgets to account for most of the factors.

 

[Skwim]

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?

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​

#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?

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​

#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?

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​

#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?

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.

.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

They appear to be good arguments.

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.'

 

[Shad]

I

#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?

AiG does not know what a star is and their own argument is refuted by their counter-point of "no evidence"

 

[gnostic]

@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.

 

[shunyadragon]

@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.

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.

 

[Audie]

They appear to be good arguments.

Pyrite appears to be gold.
We call it "fools gold".