Oh OK - it’s only science if it indicates more than 10,000 years huh?!
Let’s see some more of your evolutionary explanations for why these natural clocks are ignored in favor of carbon and radio-isotope dating please. Last time I think only one natural clock was predominantly discussed.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2264681/posts
Let me get this straight—you are putting forth 101 evidences for a young earth that originally appeared on the Creation Ministries site. Is that correct? If so, do you see a conflict? Are you concerned by the lack of scientific peer review?
What are they? They weren't listed in the thread.
“101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe” ~ BrandtMichaels
Kurt Wise: “Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. “
Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=344
April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson
Excerpts:
Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.
“One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day,” Mohler said.-
“This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day.”
Mohler also announced the appointment of two new faculty members to lead the centers. [snip] ...
...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern’s Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. Wise currently serves on the faculty of Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn., where he is also director of the Center for Origins Research.
Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.
Wise replaces William Dembski, who is leaving Southern Seminary to join the faculty at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary so he can be closer to his family.
“With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches,” Moore said. [snip] ..
*
A couple of interesting items on the web regarding Kurt Wise:
[1] 7/3/2003 http://www.christianforums.com/t43741&page=12 “Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:
“I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable.” ~ Kurt Wise
[2] December 19th 2004 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=44017 Theologyweb.com
Post # 7:
“...there is new breed of YEC out there, of which Kurt Wise is an example, who recognize that there are scientific problems with their Weltanschauung. I knew Kurt was exceptional, but there are more of his stripe. Affectionately, I’d like to refer to them as neo-YECs, as opposed to the Wieland-Ham-Morris-Safarti-Jorge YECs for which I would propose the oxymoronic moniker paleo-YECs.”
bttt HERE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=24#24
DO tell...how about those natural clocks. Make an argument for ‘em.
Ah yes...ignorance is showing again. The theory of evolution has no stance on the validity of reliable dating methods, unless it has to do with mating and beneficial traits getting an individual more dates, thereby increasing genetic fitness...think you’re looking for a different scientific discipline.
...and no, YEC is not science, has not been science and so long as it has Man living with T rex...will never BE science.
Btw, here's the direct link.
Only looked at the first couple so far. Not very promising. But I did find a typical creationistic abuse of evidence. More on that below.
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.
I could not get access to the full text of the cited research article, Recovery of 16S ribosomal RNA gene fragments from ancient halite, but I did read the abstract.
First, the claim by the compiling creationist, Don Batten, that this DNA was "extracted from bacteria" appears to be simply false. The researchers found DNA (ribosomal DNA) fragments in their samples, detecting them by DNA amplification. There is no indication that the presence of bacteria was confirmed, or even tested for, much less that the rDNA fragments were "extracted".
Although I'm not competent to analyze the particular case, I do know that, increasingly since this article was published in Nature in 2002, more and more living bacteria are being found in deep rocks. Just for instance, I stumbled on this article:
In recent years, a large body of evidence showing the occurrence of diverse and active microbial communities in the terrestrial subsurface has accumulated. Considering the time elapsed since Archaean sedimentation, the contribution of subsurface microbial communities postdating the rock formation to the fossil biomarker pool and other biogenic remains in Archaean rocks may be far from negligible. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In order to evaluate the degree of potential contamination of Archean rocks by modern microorganisms, we looked for the presence of living indigenous bacteria in fresh diamond drillcores through 2,724 Myr-old stromatolites (Tumbiana Formation, Fortescue Group, Western Australia) using molecular methods based on the amplification of small subunit ribosomal RNA genes (SSU rDNAs). We analyzed drillcore samples from 4.3 m and 66.2 m depth, showing signs of meteoritic alteration, and also from deeper "fresh" samples showing no apparent evidence for late stage alteration (68 m, 78.8 m, and 99.3 m). We also analyzed control samples from drilling and sawing fluids and a series of laboratory controls to establish a list of potential contaminants introduced during sample manipulation and PCR experiments. We identified in this way the presence of indigenous bacteria belonging to Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Alpha-, Beta-, and Gammaproteobacteria in aseptically-sawed inner parts of drillcores down to at least 78.8 m depth. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The presence of modern bacterial communities in subsurface fossil stromatolite layers opens the possibility that a continuous microbial colonization had existed in the past and contributed to the accumulation of biogenic traces over geological timescales. This finding casts shadow on bulk analyses of early life remains and makes claims for morphological, chemical, isotopic, and biomarker traces syngenetic with the rock unreliable in the absence of detailed contextual analyses at microscale.
Note that last sentence. The necessary "contextual analyses at microscale" was apparently (as it should have been at least mentioned even in the abstract) not performed in the investigation reported in Nature.
So, on to the next "evidence".
2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old.
Now this is far more interesting, because it claims not just to find some disembodied DNA fragments, but to actually revive an ancient bacteria, presumably from a spore. Stunning! Here's the cited article, actually only a letter, but in the prestigious journal Nature (Incidentally, the creationists at creation.com do NOT provide these links to the cited articles. I had to look them up.)
Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal
Reviving a 250 million year old anything, even a bacteria, would be utterly, awesomely cool. But, sadly, this turned out to be a modern bacteria. See:
The Permian Bacterium that Isn't
The authors of this 2001 letter in Molecular Biology and Evolution found that the 16S rRNA gene sequence (widely used in interspecies comparisons) of this supposedly revived bacteria differed from that of a modern salt-loving bacteria "by only one transition and one transversion out of the 1,555 aligned and unambiguously determined nucleotides."
Equally important, though, is the first sentence of the letter (emphasis added):
There is growing evidence for the presence of viable microorganisms in geological salt formations that are millions of years old. It is still not known, however, whether these bacteria are dormant organisms that are themselves millions of years old or whether the salt crystals merely provide a habitat in which contemporary microorganisms can grow
As noted wrt to the first "evidence," it was only about this time that scientists first began seriously looking at the idea that bacteria might live in rocks and other subsurface environments. The above "or whether" has been dramatically borne out over the last decade of research, with scientists finding that such communities of bacteria do indeed exist.
Now notice that YEC Don Batten's 101 evidences ... was published in June of 2009, long after this question, about whether bacteria, and bacterial DNA, in ancient rock could be from modern bacteria living in them, HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
This -- apparently purposeful and knowning, or otherwise ignorant and incompetent -- utilization of superceded scientific results is absolutely characteristic of "creation science." One finds it again and again in the literature of this psuedoscience.
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.
I looked at the, "This has been confirmed by realistic modeling," reference (pdf file).
Incredibly -- wait, not so incredibly; this is creation "science" after all -- there was absolutely nothing in the article supporting this contention. It describes a very interesting computer program:
Mendel’s Accountant (hereafter referred to as “Mendel”) is a user-friendly biologically realistic simulation program for investigating the processes of mutation and selection in sexually reproducing diploid populations. Mendel represents an advance over previous forward-time programs in that it incorporates several new features that enhance biological realism including: (a) variable mutation effect and (b) environmental variance that affects phenotype. In Mendel, as in nature, mutations have a continuous range of effect from lethal to beneficial, and may vary in expression from fully dominant to fully recessive. Mendel allows mutational effects to be combined in either a multiplicative or additive manner to determine overall genotypic fitness and provides the option of either truncation or probability selection. Environmental variance is specified via a heritability parameter and a non-scaling noise standard deviation.
Presumably you COULD dial in parameters sufficiently severe, and/or population sizes sufficiently small, to drive populations to simulated extinctions. But, except for extremely small population sizes, the article doesn't ever describe this. Using remotely realistic parameters, what it actually shows is that, again excepting very small population sizes, natural selection is quite effective in removing deleterious mutations. Even with very small populations, where selection gets overwhelmed by genetic drift, the program shows that fitness levels recover very quickly when population sizes are allowed to increase.
O.K. The rest of the "biological evidences" are similar crap. So let's jump ahead to the "geological evidences." Right away we get a howler:
13. Lack of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an “era” buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
Anybody not catch the hilarious juxtaposition of claims? Here it is:
the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways ... [this] evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day
That's right, folks. Bazillions of tons of sand are transported, probably hundreds of miles, in great churning masses by a "catastrophic" global flood, and yet all sorts of critters, from scorpions and tiny millipedes, to lizards and salamanders, to fairly sizable pelycosaurs, all manage to say alive long enough in the midst of this choking abrasive mess to make, often quite delicate, foot print trackways, on multiple layers, during flood deposition. (And keep in mind also that there are YEC identified "flood deposits" both stratigraphically above and below the Coconino in the Grand Canyon sequence!)