Jump to content

Recommended Posts

anastasis008

I recently came across the young earth theory (the theory that earth is 10.000 years old and dinosaurs coexisted with humans and traveled with Noah and his ark)  and of course i thought it was unfeasible but one common argument they keep having is why are we finding soft tissues, proteins and other biochemicals in fossils like triceratops, t-rex and other dinosaur bones of course that doesn't mean DNA BUT they shouldn't have been preserved because such biochemicals don't get preserved after so much time. Another one is that some old fossils are still close to the surface when they should be buried really deep. So what are your thoughts on these arguments, in my opinion this theory is ridiculous but i'd love to learn the answers.

Thanks

(PS sorry for asking that many questions these days its just that im new to the forum and have lots of questions)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll provide a few examples for one of these questions (I can't hog them all :P ): the presence of fossils that may occur closer to the surface is perhaps the easiest one to explain. Geological and meteorological forces are constantly reshaping the planet. There are a number of ways organisms deposited millions upon millions of years ago can occur near or on the surface. Here's just a few:

 

1. Tectonic movement which may result in uplifting of strata (think of how mountains form as collisions between plates), folding, etc. Earthquakes, volcanism, subduction, and other similar processes contribute as well. 

2. Wind and water erosion. For example, the Grand Canyon has had a loooong time for water to cut deep to show a lot of old strata. Also think of more arid regions where topsoils that would otherwise accumulate are blown off. 

3. Glaciation and retreat. Where I live was the scene of massive glacial events (multiple ones) that, as the glacier retreated, scoured and pulverized the top layers according to the processes of erosion, etc. It is neat, but sad, to think where I am now was part of a landmass where dinosaurs once roamed, but those layers were stripped off all the way down to the Devonian bedrock and glacial till/sediment that washed over it. 

 

As I may have mentioned in another post, it would be extremely beneficial for you to get your hands on an introductory textbook on geology. Even a very quick trip through Google would provide you with a wealth of answers to many of these questions and more. 

  • I found this Informative 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

Here is a link to a free PDF -  Physical Geology:) 

 

Answers to Young Earther's arguments can be found elsewhere online, with a bit of searching. 

I've seen some Youtube videos discuss the arguments. Check there. 

 

The Forum is not the place to be engaging those subjects.  ;) 

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite

It's not a theory. At best it's a hypothesis.

 

A hypothesis is testable but has not been tested rigorously yet.

A theory is the graduation point where it has been tested and stood the test of time. Like the theory of gravity. Or the theory of Evolution for that matter.

 

 

 

There are numerous problems with the idea of the earth being young. And I don't think it's worth defending honestly. But I think it is worth to get into things we do know. So to focus on some of the questions you have...

 

There was some soft tissue found in the bone of a T.rex. If I remember correctly it was some collagen (the soft part of bone). But there wasn't any DNA present. The found the bone, it broke in two while digging it up. A sample was taken from the core before it could be contaminated by the outside. What they took out was pretty much rock in every sense.

In the lab they dissolved all the minerals and all that was left was some scraps of collagen. But it was bendy. A wonderful find to be sure. But not outside the realms of possibility. It was embedded deep inside the core of the bone and inside rock protected from the elements. When completely trapped it's not unreasonable to think some things will still be partially intact. Amber is another nice example where animals can be beautifully preserved because nothing can get out and the rotting process mostly stops. Fossilisation is a process. A bone doesn't just turn to stone on a single day. Here in Holland we have loads of Ice Age fossils coming from the North Sea. These fossils include woolly mammoths, woolly rhinos, deer, other animals and even saber cats. Since these bones are only like 4 to 10 or more thousand years old. You'll actually feel a difference in the age of the fossil. The older fossils will be heavier because they are further along the process of becoming a true fossil. While other bones are much lighter in weight because they haven't been completely turned to stone yet.

 

To date no nonavian dinosaur DNA has been found. So sadly we likely won't ever have a real Jurassic Park. :P

 

No humans have ever been found in the same layers as dinosaurs. Besides the obvious hoaxes that pop up every now and then there was an interesting footprint that was a real footprint impression from the time of the dinosaurs. Some people argued that it somewhat resembled the foot of a human. But upon further analysis it turned out to be a dinosaur footprint that had caved in, and thus obscuring much of the typical tridactyl foot silhouette.

 

Yes it can be a bit counter intuitive to think that we'd find very old bones at the surface when you'd think they'd be buried deep in the earth. Kane mentioned erosion. So yes, layers are built up over time. But in places there can be little or a lot of erosion that takes away from these layers again. In short, this results in some areas having more recent layers at the surface and some areas having much, much older layers exposed. It's also important to note that the order is always the same. Older layers at on the bottom, and younger layers are on top.

Many of the well known fossil locations are actually locations where there is either a lot of erosion like the Grand Canyon that Kane mentioned or places like rock quarries or mines where we humans have dug a big hole and so we get to older layers.

 

I hope this answers some of your questions.

  • I found this Informative 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Olof has given a lot of good answers to your questions, but I would just like to add that there are some areas, particularly in mountainous regions, but not only, where the older layers can be found above the younger ones, caused by tectonics having pushed a large packet of stone upwards and then flipping it over upside down. 

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite
1 hour ago, Ludwigia said:

Olof has given a lot of good answers to your questions, but I would just like to add that there are some areas, particularly in mountainous regions, but not only, where the older layers can be found above the younger ones, caused by tectonics having pushed a large packet of stone upwards and then flipping it over upside down. 

There is that yes. But I didn't want to overcomplicate an already long post :P
But yes, that does happen from time to time. But there is a clear explanation as to why that happens. Originally those layers were right side up with the younger layers on top. A lot can happen in all those millions of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The young earth theory only uses one book source as evidence (I’ll let you guess which one lol). It also cherry picks arguments that work in their favor and completely ignore evidence collected by real scientists. 

 

I actually got my hands on a creationism textbook back when I was doing my masters in teaching. I might be able to find it and put some pictures up....it’s laughable. 

 

The most laughable argument is the claim that a pollen species was found throughout the stratigraphy at the Grand Canyon.....this includes the schist at the base of the canyon. They claim to have found pollen...IN SCHIST!! This apparently claims the Grand Canyon was laid down during the “great flood”.

 

The base of the Grand Canyon is a metamorphic shale (schist) formed underneath an ancient mountain that eroded almost completely before a nearly 1 mile sequence of shales, sandstones, limestone were deposited on top. Each represents a change in the sea environment. 

 

But yea that all happened in 10,000 years? 

 

 

Ive learned to never continue a conversation with a creationist. It’s not productive. We had fools come to our campus preaching creationism and therapy for homosexuals....it was ultra cringe cause it was on a college campus. Talking to them was pointless. It’s their religion so it’s like telling someone who’s religious and goes to church that they have been wrong all along....doesn’t sit right with people. They have a “world view” and we all have our own “world view”...........

 

Some people believe things (crazy to you) to be as real as you and me. We won’t ever change them. So I don’t try lol

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Al Tahan said:

 

 

Some people believe things (crazy to you) to be as real as you and me. We won’t ever change them. So I don’t try lol

Indeed! Fortunately, as a forum solidly grounded in science we get to steer clear from topics of religion and politics, as those are generally the two zones of discourse that see the most potential for hostility and division. Sticking to facts, reason, evidence, and logic serves our community well. :) We are fortunate to have a kind of walled garden for science here as a respite from the polemics, rancour, and conspiracy theories that emerge far too often on popular social media. 

 

The struggle in persuasion is generally waged on the battleground of the uncertain or uncommitted, and so it is those who have no knowledge or opinion on a subject that are the most susceptible. That being said, all power to anyone who is willing to investigate all sides of an issue and use their critical reasoning and investigative skills to come to an informed position. Any position / theory / hypothesis that survives scrutiny and thorough testing is going to result in being stronger as a result. 

 

It should be noted that we do have members here who both fully support a scientific worldview, and also profess a faith. The latter is a private and personal affair, and they need not be called upon to justify how they reconcile the two. The science tent is a large and inclusive one (and in this instance, filled with very cool fossils!). 

  • I found this Informative 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

This...

32 minutes ago, Kane said:

Indeed! Fortunately, as a forum solidly grounded in science we get to steer clear from topics of religion and politics, as those are generally the two zones of discourse that see the most potential for hostility and division. Sticking to facts, reason, evidence, and logic serves our community well. :) We are fortunate to have a kind of walled garden for science here as a respite from the polemics, rancour, and conspiracy theories that emerge far too often on popular social media. 

 

The struggle in persuasion is generally waged on the battleground of the uncertain or uncommitted, and so it is those who have no knowledge or opinion on a subject that are the most susceptible. That being said, all power to anyone who is willing to investigate all sides of an issue and use their critical reasoning and investigative skills to come to an informed position. Any position / theory / hypothesis that survives scrutiny and thorough testing is going to result in being stronger as a result. 

 

It should be noted that we do have members here who both fully support a scientific worldview, and also profess a faith. The latter is a private and personal affair, and they need not be called upon to justify how they reconcile the two. The science tent is a large and inclusive one (and in this instance, filled with very cool fossils!). 

And this...

 

19 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Here is a link to a free PDF -  Physical Geology:) 

 

Answers to Young Earther's arguments can be found elsewhere online, with a bit of searching. 

I've seen some Youtube videos discuss the arguments. Check there. 

 

The Forum is not the place to be engaging those subjects.  ;) 

Enough said... ;)

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said @Kane :D

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some general remarks:

Earth dynamics:the speed at which the Mediterranean is disappearing

imagered_877800422ee4_7701.jpg

 

A :surface speed

B deep speed

from:

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 273 (2008) 163–174

New GPS constraints on the kinematics of the Apennines subduction
Roberto Devotia, Federica Riguzzi , Marco Cuffaro, Carlo Doglioni

 

 

as regards the preservation of histological(/histochemical entities: Pawlicki did some seminal work in the sixties and seventies on dinosaur tissue preservation.

 

as regards the non-tectonic exposure of layers(and their fossils):

Erosional unroofing generally averages around 0,5 to 2 mm per annum(edit:on a global scale) .

The influence of climate,geophysical factors,silicate weathering etc are issues of debate 

 

some of you may like:

 

Ancient DNA Prospects and limitations.pdf

Pamela S. Soltis & Douglas E. Soltis (1993) Ancient DNA:
Prospects and limitations, New Zealand Journal of Botany, 31:3, 203-209, DOI:
10.1080/0028825X.1993.10419497
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.1993.10419497

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Al Tahan said:

I might be able to find it and put some pictures up....it’s laughable. 

 

Al, I would hold off on that given that TFF is not the venue for those subjects.  Thanks.  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JohnJ said:

 

Al, I would hold off on that given that TFF is not the venue for those subjects.  Thanks.  ;)

I agree. Yea I decided I’d rather not. No point. Prolly should have kept my mouth shut to begin with...live an learn :DOH:

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...