Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

DNA half-life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

If paleontology lives by radiometric dating, it also dies by radiometric dating. Either DNA trapped in 200 million-year-old Jurassic insect amber is young or it has some unexplained source. I argue it is young. Radiometric C-14 dates of fossils say the fossils are young. As I’ve said many times, the radiometric date of 65 million-year-old rocks is irrelevant to the radiometric date of the actual physical tissue of a fossil. I could bury a living dog in 65 million-year-old rocks, and the age of rocks will have nothing to say of the age of the dog. The best inferences for time of death of a fossil: half-life of C-14, half life of DNA, half-life of amino acids, etc., NOT the age of the rocks they are buried in…

From Nature News

After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation. Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should, in theory, degrade at a set rate.

Determining that rate has been difficult because it is rare to find large sets of DNA-containing fossils with which to make meaningful comparisons. To make matters worse, variable environmental conditions such as temperature, degree of microbial attack and oxygenation alter the speed of the decay process.

But palaeogeneticists led by Morten Allentoft at the University of Copenhagen and Michael Bunce at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia, examined 158 DNA-containing leg bones belonging to three species of extinct giant birds called moa. The bones, which were between 600 and 8,000 years old, had been recovered from three sites within 5 kilometres of each other, with nearly identical preservation conditions including a temperature of 13.1 ºC. The findings are published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B1.

Diminishing returns

By comparing the specimens’ ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on.

The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information.

“This confirms the widely held suspicion that claims of DNA from dinosaurs and ancient insects trapped in amber are incorrect,”

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

😯

Mark Armitage was fired because his data dared to question the mainstream. And now we find dino blood with dino DNA that can’t be more than a few million years old, maybe even on the order of thousands of years with a DNA half-life of 521 years! And what about DNA insect amber? Armitage was fired, but his claims continue to be vindicated by mainstream science. His career martyrdom was not in vain.

We can assume for the sake of argument the universe is old, the Earth is old, that even many fossils are old, but if some fossils are proven young (like the dinos and insects) paleontology will go into anarchy and evolutionism won’t even have a coherent chronology to go on. One does not have to be a YEC to realize the latest discoveries are good news for ID because it casts doubt on the claims of Darwinist interpretation of the fossil record.

NOTES
1. HT: Darwin then and now

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without a theory.

2. Hope Ken Ham bashes Bill Nye with this in debate. 🙂

Comments
JGuy (102), You might be interested that some YLC researchers at Southern Adventist University have obtained, IIRC, Eocene material from northern Canada that has been in Permafrost since the ice age (whenever that was) and are trying to get DNA sequences from them. You might want to contact them and try to find out what progress they have made. Try lee spencer % @southern. edu (Omit the spaces and the % which were added to confuse automatic e-mail collectors.)Paul Giem
January 22, 2014
January
01
Jan
22
22
2014
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Eric @127, I disagree with your reasoning on the chromosomes and I disagree with your reasoning on the interpretation of the ancient texts. That being said, I am also tired of this topic. I'm sure it will be revisited in the future on UD. Thanks for the comments.Mapou
January 19, 2014
January
01
Jan
19
19
2014
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Mapou:
I should add that the fact that we have a pair of chromosomes even though each sex only needs one, is powerful evidence that humans used to be both male and female.
No. From a genetic standpoint, the way the chromosomes are arranged (one sexual partner with XX and one sexual partner with XY) is precisely what allows the population to continue over many generations with very close to a 50-50 ratio of males and females being born. It might seem counterintuitive until we run a Punnet Square, but it is the case that arranging the XY chromosomes the way they are in males and females is an ingenious solution to the perpetuation of the race -- a race made up of individual males and females. It is most definitely not the case that only one chromosome is needed -- certainly not in terms of perpetuating the race. Furthermore, what kind of reproduction would we expect to see in an androgynous population? Presumably, there would still be a need for a gestation period, the uterus and myriad other requirements for the developing child, some way to breast feed the newborn. So -- in essence -- a female. Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c Especially the very last line! :) We could of course propose that the race was -- structurally -- female, but just happened to be able to self-fertilize. Fine. But there is just one problem with that. There is no evidence for it. Additionally, how then, did males come about? And if we started out as essentially female -- at least in structure, ability to birth, ability to gestate, ability to feed newborns, etc. -- then one has to square that with the scriptural account, which tells us precisely nothing in this regard, and (if anything), suggests that the man was created first. Yet again, if we are basing our understanding of early human biology on the use of a pronoun in a particular verse, might we not also be willing to consider that the verse specifically refers to God creating male and female, and says (plural) "them"? Finally, if by your own admission, as soon as we read a few more words and get to verse 3 we are already talking about a much later, different Adam than the Adam referred to in verse 2, then we have to acknowledge that the scriptural account gives us essentially zero information about the state of affairs before the "male" adam showed up in verse 3. So the whole thing is based on a highly questionable interpretation of a scripture translated from a foreign language after being handed down for thousands of years, an interpretation that flies in the face of current biological reality, and for which there is no other independent evidence. I'm afraid this is a prime example of "wresting scripture."Eric Anderson
January 19, 2014
January
01
Jan
19
19
2014
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Re: @125, I should add that the fact that we have a pair of chromosomes even though each sex only needs one, is powerful evidence that humans used to be both male and female.Mapou
January 18, 2014
January
01
Jan
18
18
2014
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
JGuy @121:
But nobody is saying God only planned to create male. The observed chromosome setup is consistent with the literal interpretation without extra modifications.
No it isn't. There is no reason for the sexes to have a pair of chromosomes. Men could just have Y chromosomes and women could have x chromosomes. That would work just fine.
A fully androgynous person invokes a whole new kind of chromosomal setup.
Not true. An androgynous human would simply have a Y chromosome and an X chromosome, just like a modern man. The only difference is that both chromosomes would be fully activated.
You claim it isn’t rocket science, but you didn’t posit what a fully androgynous persons chromosome set would consist of whereby this being would be apparently capable of asexual reproduction.
I did. You did not understand it even though it is very simple.Mapou
January 18, 2014
January
01
Jan
18
18
2014
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
tjguy@122:
But it doesn’t fit with the Bible and that is the issue for most YECs.
"But it doesn’t fit with our particular interpretation of the Bible and that is the issue for most YECs." There, fixed it. :) Seriously, there are multiple ways to interpret Genesis that allow for an old Earth -- and even moreso an old universe. But I do agree that Mapou has ironically taken at least an equally dogmatic interpretation, then accuses those who think otherwise of being insincere. The main lesson from this perhaps? Scripture is subject to interpretation and it is impossible to come to an agreement on these issues just by referencing the Bible. Anyway, I should probably keep my mouth shut since I don't have a dog in the old-Earth, young-Earth race. Just observing that different interpretations are possible, so we should (i) be cautiously willing to consider other people's interpretation and recognize the weaknesses in ours, and (ii) not hold too dogmatically to any particular interpretation. Sorry everyone for jumpin' in. /soapboxEric Anderson
January 18, 2014
January
01
Jan
18
18
2014
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
tjguy:
But it doesn’t fit with the Bible and that is the issue for most YECs.
It seems to me that most YECs interpret the Bible the way they want. IOW it ain't the Bible that is the issue. The point is YECs use genealogies to try to get the age of the earth. That only works if all the books are correct and present- meaning someone didn't remove some books and do a rewrite to make it seem like all is OK.Joe
January 18, 2014
January
01
Jan
18
18
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
@91 Joe
Doesn’t an “old universe with a young earth” solve the starlight issue?
But it doesn't fit with the Bible and that is the issue for most YECs. Who really cares if the earth is young or old? The only reason we YECers care is that we believe this is what God says. God's authority, His character, the truth of His Word, etc. is at stake. So the issue for most YECs is the authority of God's Word, not the age of the earth. If God's Word cannot be trusted, if it is not "truth" as Jesus claimed, then we have lost everything. We no longer have any idea what is/is not true. If science can trump God's Word, then how do we know if any of the miracles recorded in Scripture are true? If the things that we can verify prove to be false, then why in the world should we believe in things that are unverifiable(heaven, forgiveness, eternal life, etc.)? Just because "science" tells us that Genesis is wrong, does not make it wrong. The same evidence may have various interpretations. ie. Convergence and fossil stasis can also be seen as evidence against evolution.tjguy
January 18, 2014
January
01
Jan
18
18
2014
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Mapou
You know, you guys are so transparent. I can read you like a leaf. This is exactly the kind of reply I was expecting from you. It shows that you are not really after the truth but fighting to preserve your doctrine at all costs, truth be damned. You got a lame pony in this race.
Sorry, I don't have a pony in the race. Only scripture.
You give God all kinds of infinite powers to do anything he wants including creating an entire universe in 6 days and yet, you are unable to see any way for such a powerful God to design and create an androgynous human being? That’s truly pathetic, man.
On God's power.. I don't give God power. God is God. And of course God could have created a bi-gender being, that's not the issue. But a straight reading of scripture doesn't support this. Perhaps, you need to check yourself on what limits you pose on God's power. I'm sensing you may not be simply deluded but possibly deliberately misleading (I hope that is not the case). Especially after hearing your grand YEC conspiracy theory. I have nothing to gain from a YEC view. Most YEC have nothing to gain. We get flack from every angle. As I said before, I would accept an old earth model if scripture indicated that, in fact, I use to hold to an old earth model. But the scripture doesn't indicate that, so I had to change my position. And the evidence vindicates this decision. What's pathetic is your wild accusations. And careless judgement.
The way it works is that each sex really needs only one chromosome but chromosomes were designed to come in pairs from the beginning. Why? Because the original humans were androgynous, that’s why. In a male, the Y chromosome is programmed to automatically inhibit the X chromosome just by being there. How hard do you think it would be for God to figure out that all he has to do to create an androgynous human is to either suppress the inhibition mechanism in the Y chromosome or leave it out altogether? If God had planned to create only a male Adam, he would not have included the X chromosome in his genome at all. He would have given him just one or two Y chromosomes.
But nobody is saying God only planned to create male. The observed chromosome setup is consistent with the literal interpretation without extra modifications. A fully androgynous person invokes a whole new kind of chromosomal setup. You claim it isn't rocket science, but you didn't posit what a fully androgynous persons chromosome set would consist of whereby this being would be apparently capable of asexual reproduction. God would have had to do something different than what we see. Yet, what we see is 'coincidently'enough to account for in the literal interpretation. And so the reason I'm pointing out the currently observed chromosome setup account for individual male and for female. But not for hydribs that could apparently self-reproduce. So, all I'm saying is there is no other chromosomal set needed if you use the literal interpretation of a male and female beign created seperately from the start. Yes, the woman was made from Adam's (the individual man) rib, but that doesn't mean man was androgenous.
When God separated the sexes, he simply added a mechanism to inhibit the X chromosome in the males and then he replaced the Y-chromosome in the females with a duplicate X chromosome. It’s not rocket science, man.
An X chromosome doesn't account for a being capable of asexual reproduction. You have to add that to the story. This is why I'm saying it's not the simplest answer.
You YECs sound just like the Darwinists with their just-so stories that make no logical sense.
Again. There's no pony in the race. Only scripture.JGuy
January 18, 2014
January
01
Jan
18
18
2014
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
JGuy @119, You know, you guys are so transparent. I can read you like a leaf. This is exactly the kind of reply I was expecting from you. It shows that you are not really after the truth but fighting to preserve your doctrine at all costs, truth be damned. You got a lame pony in this race. You give God all kinds of infinite powers to do anything he wants including creating an entire universe in 6 days and yet, you are unable to see any way for such a powerful God to design and create an androgynous human being? That's truly pathetic, man. The way it works is that each sex really needs only one chromosome but chromosomes were designed to come in pairs from the beginning. Why? Because the original humans were androgynous, that's why. In a male, the Y chromosome is programmed to automatically inhibit the X chromosome just by being there. How hard do you think it would be for God to figure out that all he has to do to create an androgynous human is to either suppress the inhibition mechanism in the Y chromosome or leave it out altogether? If God had planned to create only a male Adam, he would not have included the X chromosome in his genome at all. He would have given him just one or two Y chromosomes. When God separated the sexes, he simply added a mechanism to inhibit the X chromosome in the males and then he replaced the Y-chromosome in the females with a duplicate X chromosome. It's not rocket science, man. You YECs sound just like the Darwinists with their just-so stories that make no logical sense.Mapou
January 18, 2014
January
01
Jan
18
18
2014
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
Mapou. My questions above may come off as sarcastic, but they are legitimate questions resulting from your hyper-metaphoric view of Genesis. Another evidence that original man was not androgynous: Observed sex chromosome patterns. Male : X Y Female: X X If Adam was a single male individual with X and Y chromosome pairs, he interestingly had the exact genetic material to make a female by present observations of what distinguishes male and female at the genetic level. The reverse (female to male) is not true. Convenient science if the original Adam was literally a male individual... is it not? What was a supposed androgynous Adam's chromosomal pattern? If Adam was a tribe of fully androgynous people - apparently capable of asexual reproduction - then was the chromosomal pattern say all four in one person, i.e. X X X Y. So, is it merely a coincidence then that by the literal interpretation that present day male chromosomal configuration is sufficient to make a female, but that the reverse is not true. Or is it this way because the literal reading is actually the true case. The simplest answer is clearly in favor for the literal case. In a sense, male's today are "androgynous" because they have the full genetic potential. God could do the same with a man today... just like the original individual man named Adam. This could be from where some of the confusion is injected into an otherwise straight forward account of two persons being made in the beginning.JGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
By the way, Anderson, I am not the first one to suggest that the original humans were androgynous. Do a web search for "androgynous adam". It's a very old idea. My main objection to most other views is that I believe that "the Adam" was the name given to the original androgynous human species, not just one person. It's like using "the French" or "the Spanish" to refer to a people. I believe that early humans were highly civilized and scientifically advanced until they ran afoul of the Gods (the Elohim). And then everything went to pot. This is probably what led to the legend of Atlantis where androgyny is said to have existed. Just saying.Mapou
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson @112:
Mapou: I apologize if my prior comments were a bit snide. I appreciate your views on ID and you have provided many valuable comments in this forum. I try not to make light of anyone’s religious beliefs, and apologize if any of my comments veered in that direction.
No problem.
Just one last question, for my own understanding rather than debate, and then I’ll drop the topic. This is the first time I have heard an interpretation of Genesis that suggests (i) Adam in the garden was not the Adam after the garden, and (ii) humans were androgenous originally. I’m just wondering if this is a viewpoint of a particular faith you belong to, or if it is your own personal viewpoint?
Well, I don't belong to any church and I don't ever go to church except as a tourist (I love the architectures of old cathedrals), if that is what you mean. I am a Christian but have a deep distrust of organized religion. But then again, I feel the same way toward the secular scientific community. I think they all tell lies and half truths. I do my own research as much as I can. As far as my interpretation of the creation story of Genesis is concerned, all I can say is that this is what I see when I read the text. I am careful to study the usage of every Hebrew word or phrase that appears to have an ambiguous or fuzzy meaning. I am not fluent in Hebrew but modern computers have made it relatively easy to research how the original Hebrew words are used in different contexts. The book of Genesis is a little hard to read and easy to misinterpret at times but, as I said earlier, it's not rocket science. There is no doubt in my mind that the 6000-year-old earth doctrine is complete hogwash and that this is not what the book of Genesis says. Far from it. I feel personally insulted when I see it being preached by others. It puts Christianity in a bad light and make Christians like myself look stupid. It's evil, in my opinion. Thanks for asking.Mapou
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
p.s. To clarify, I'm not saying God made a mistake. I'm reading you're new interpretation as suggesting that it would have been a mistake on God's part to make man bi-gender before realizing he needed company. Correct me if I am misunderstanding your storied interpretation.JGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Mapou
I have shown clearly in this thread that you are mistaken about Genesis.
No, you have clearly not done so. Explain: If Adam is a bunch of bi-gender humanoids - why is Adam listed distinctly in a set of genealogies of clearly individual men? Why mix apples and oranges? i.e. Why mix a mistake (b/c man will be lonely...ooops!) on God's part with individual people? Wait? Why would they be lonely..a bunch of bi-gender people would keep each other company just fine. Who are all these subsequent generations? Of course you will have to keep adding to your admittedly far left field story (akin to Darwinist just-so stories) to make it fit. Elijah returning?? How do you justify not calling him a metaphor with all the other metaphors? Is sin a metaphor? Did Jesus die for a metaphor? Why do you think Jesus wasn't a metaphor, or do you think He was a metaphor? 1 Corinthians 15:45 (NASB) So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Romans 5:14 (NASB) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Luke 3:38 (NASB) the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. How do those verses fit with your story of Adam not being an individual man? They don't. Just calling like I see it.JGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
correction: Then all I can say is that you are deluded to believe that, imo. Just calling it as I see it.JGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Mapou @ 109
I’ll take it even further than that. I accuse all YECs, especially their leaders in the Christian fundamentalist communities of lying in order to defend a doctrine that they know to be false.
Then all I can say is that you are deluded to believe that, imo. Just calling it as I see it.JGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Mapou: I apologize if my prior comments were a bit snide. I appreciate your views on ID and you have provided many valuable comments in this forum. I try not to make light of anyone's religious beliefs, and apologize if any of my comments veered in that direction. Just one last question, for my own understanding rather than debate, and then I'll drop the topic. This is the first time I have heard an interpretation of Genesis that suggests (i) Adam in the garden was not the Adam after the garden, and (ii) humans were androgenous originally. I'm just wondering if this is a viewpoint of a particular faith you belong to, or if it is your own personal viewpoint? Thanks,Eric Anderson
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
What do you think the half life of chlorophyll is?
That's a good question.TSErik
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
When on a visit to the Smithsonian I watched a paleobotanist splitting shale to reveal the leaves of a fern. What was interesting was that when opened the cast of the leaves was green. What do you think the half life of chlorophyll is?Latemarch
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
JGuy @100:
Essentially, in either case, you are accusing me of lying. I guess if that’s your ‘objective’ position, there’s not much I do for you here.
I'll take it even further than that. I accuse all YECs, especially their leaders in the Christian fundamentalist communities of lying in order to defend a doctrine that they know to be false. The book of Genesis does not support your 6000-year-old earth doctrine. It never did and never will. Genesis is where the YEC problem began and this is where it must be solved. I have shown clearly in this thread that you are mistaken about Genesis. You people have a worldview to defend at all costs, just like the Darwinists and the atheists. But Elijah will come and restore all things. And he will be nobody's female dog, that's for sure. This will happen in your lifetimes. Wait for it.Mapou
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
I just realized the other day when I was watching the Rose Bowl that there is only one person on the Stanford team. Incredible. All this time I thought there were a whole bunch of players, coaches, staff. But time and again, the announcers referred to the "Cardinal" -- note the singular, folks! -- not the "Cardinals." In very clear contrast, whenever I watch the Arizona professional football team, they are referred to as the "Cardinals" -- note the plural. Must be some deep meaning in this somewhere. :)Eric Anderson
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Mapou: I just read the original texts very carefully; that’s all. The Genesis account plainly says that Adam was the name given to a group of humans and they were both male and female.
Right. And the Hebrew "adam" is used over and over in the Old Testament in a generic sense of "man", i.e, a lowly human, an "earthling."CentralScrutinizer
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
@Lincoln, Refer to buffalo's link @85 for examples of creationists testing dino bone. Refer to sixthbook's link @97 for citation of offer to Jack Horner to test bone, which was refused. And, to butcher a Mark Twain quote, reports of [creationist wealth] have been greatly exaggerated. As opposed to evolutionists who, via our vast government support of public universities and organizations like NCSE, receive billions in support. Besides, given that creationists DO run these tests (see link, ref icr.org for additional examples), and are ignored or dismissed as "contaminated" or "improper recovery/testing methods", there isn't really any point in them doing additional testing which always comes up positive. The only way the evolutionary establishment will accept these positive tests is if they are done by evolutionists brave or secure enough (ref Mary Schweitzer) to run the tests themselves. And considering that she has spent literally decades having to defend and repeatedly reproduce her results, which still aren't accepted by people like you, why would an evolutionist bother and endure the pain? I find it highly significant that when it comes to performing an experiment like testing dinosaur bone that could be world-changing for science, every creationist I know is saying "Go! Go!" and every evolutionist (like, say, Lincoln?) is saying "No! No!" If you truly believe that evolution is true, shouldn't you think this is a great idea, to finally shut up those annoying creationists?drc466
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
p.p.s. I think the sequencing can be done relatively cheap. Maybe, a few thousand dollars. So, the control study seems most important.JGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
oops.. I assumed a human sized lengths DNA... perhaps, alligator DNA might act as a fair estimate.JGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
Does anyone know what such a experiment would cost to conduct? Let's assume dino soft tissue can be gathered for the experiment. The cost to do a control study of tissue in moist conditions. Perhaps, this was done already. But I'd like to know what exact half-life values are expected to be in moist conditions... even bloody for those that think blood will preserve the DNA. A 512 year DNA half-life in amber would be ~9 half-life's since the Genesis flood. 3 billion nucleotides... that comes down to DNA segments of about 5 million nucleotides long. That seems pretty robust. But in earthy moist conditions what should we find after 4500 years???JGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
LP @ 94 Mapou @ 98 LP:
If dino DNA is such a game changer then the well funded creationist groups should be able to buy dino bones on the open market, chop them open, sequence the DNA and then laugh all the way to the bank.
Mapou:
If the creationists are serious about their claims, they should find the dinosaur DNA. Some recoverable dinosaur DNA should exist if the earth is only 6000 years old. Where is it?
I'm a YEC, and I totally agree. Well, other than LP stating that creationist groups are well funded. That doesn't appear to be the case. But I'd be willing to donate to such a venture. I'm quickly ready to put my money where my mouth is... let's do it. Oh, and let's agree before-hand not to claim "contamination!" if DNA segments are found. It would be best to figure out decay rates outside of amber. The topic of this post is 512 years half life (in amber?). What is the half-life in moist conditions that are typical in the earth? Preferably, we should measure the moisture levels of some recently known flood basins. And take these to the lab. Do some real world lab work. Calculate half-lives, and make a prediction on dinosaurs remains being 4500 years old. If anyone knows of any project doing just this, then let me know. I will probably donate to it. And I bet most YEC here would be willing to donate to the same. OEC and even Darwinist should be willing to donate as well, simply because they believe it will put a YEC argument to rest. But..dare they? :DJGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT
... Mapou. Like Sal, I use to be an old earth creationist. But my reasons for my initial change to young earth was a bit different than Sal's. After I heard of the young earth view, I found it very easy to reason that it was just a possible. Why? Simply because I accepted my ignorance, and accepted that the testability of ages was so dubious. Meanwhile, the many evidences of a young earth, and of youth in the massive features of the earth (e.g. the ocean salinity levels and the decaying earth's magnetic field) were compelling enough to further solidify the reasonable doubt about any age of the earth and to counter all the Flintstone's propaganda incurred in my youth. My hope is that others will break free from the Flintstone's brainwashing cycle... and consider things fresh again... revisit your youth and reconsider what you think you know. Why do you think what you think? Why do you think you think what you think about why you think what you think? :DJGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
Mapou
I disagree with your interpretation of the geological data. I think you are either willingly mistaken or you are dishonest in your assessment.
Essentially, in either case, you are accusing me of lying. I guess if that's your 'objective' position, there's not much I do for you here.
The analysis of ocean floor sedimentation and layering over 10s of millions of years may not be super accurate but it’s good enough to conclude that the earth is billions of years old. That’s my opinion. I may change it but I doubt it.
At this point I am tempted to say to you: I disagree with your interpretation of the geological data. I think you are either willingly mistaken or you are dishonest in your assessment. ... But I won't.
I will tell you something, JGuy. I tell it like I see it and, as you know, I don’t mince my words. I have as much trust in YECs as I have in Darwinists. You people are on a mission to prove yourselves right in the eyes of men and that scares the hell out of me.
One can very easily consider your far-from-left-field view in this way. That you don't really see the problems with the old earth view could be considered troubling. Interesting. ...JGuy
January 17, 2014
January
01
Jan
17
17
2014
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply