4 Simple Reasons to doubt the Darwinist Religion. Please share your thoughts. God Bless.
From: https://reasonstobechristian.com/f/4-simple-reasons-to-doubt-the-darwinist-narrative
This list isn't intended to be exhaustive by any means, but just a brief reminder of some serious reasons to doubt the Darwinist Narrative. Recall Darwinism needs Millions of Years to sustain itself, whereas Christianity can adapt to different timelines if evidence supports it.
4 recent discoveries throw doubt on Darwinism: (1) DNA in ancient fossils deemed to be millions of years old, whereas it is known that DNA can hardly survive about 10,000 years, as its short half life (521 yrs) also indicates (2) the discovery of soft tissue in fossils. The most direct explanation of this data is that an alleged millions of years never passed, for soft tissue would have decomposed long before then. (3) C14 dating, with its short half life also indicating the oldest rocks are less than 100,000 years old (about 20 half lifes). (4) K-Ar dating, and similar methodologies, not being able to demonstrate an old earth without circular reasoning.
Here is Kolbe centre explain: " Since half of a given amount of C14 will convert to N14 in 5,730 years (+ or – 40 years), 5,730 years is said to be the half-life of C14. At this rate of decay, any organism that died more than 50,000 years ago should have lost all of its C14." [7]
The basic idea is about 10 half lives (2^10=1024=1000 app) will lead to almost none of the original substance being retained. This would be true for DNA in pt. 1 too.
In other words, Potassium Argon dating can only say, "If this rock is over 100,000 years old, then it may also be several millions of years old." It gives provably wrong results for rocks of young age. Therefore, on balance, given the DNA evidence discussed in point 1, and the C14 evidence discussed in point 3 especially, it is quite reasonable to conclude the Earth is no more than 100,000 years old. The fact DNA is still present in some of the most ancient fossils, that soft tissue is still found in dinosaurs, and that finally 20 or even 10 half lifes of C14 never passed, solidify and strengthen this conclusion. And that suffices to doubt the Darwinist version of history. The traditional version of creation is still strongly supported by the evidence and plausible.
References:
1. Allentoft, M. E., et al. (2012). "The half-life of DNA in bone: Measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils." Proceedings of the Royal Society B. [DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1745]
2. Schweitzer, M. H., et al. (2005). "Molecular preservation in dinosaur fossils." Science, 307(5717): 1952-1955. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1108397]
3. Schweitzer, M. H., et al. (2007). "Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein and cellular preservation." Science, 316(5822): 277-280. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1138709]
4. Buckley, M., et al. (2008). "Protein sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex revealed by mass spectrometry." Science, 319(5859): 33-36. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1153566]
5. Baumgardner, J. R., et al. (2003). "Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials." Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, 127-142.
6. Giem, P. (2001). "Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon." Origins, 51: 6-30.
7. https://kolbecenter.org/kolbe-report-2-6-21/
8. Woodmorappe, J. (1999). "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods." Institute for Creation Research.
From: https://reasonstobechristian.com/f/4-simple-reasons-to-doubt-the-darwinist-narrative
4 Simple Reasons to doubt the Darwinist Narrative.
6 January 2025|2.3 Evolution: An Absurdity
This list isn't intended to be exhaustive by any means, but just a brief reminder of some serious reasons to doubt the Darwinist Narrative. Recall Darwinism needs Millions of Years to sustain itself, whereas Christianity can adapt to different timelines if evidence supports it.
4 recent discoveries throw doubt on Darwinism: (1) DNA in ancient fossils deemed to be millions of years old, whereas it is known that DNA can hardly survive about 10,000 years, as its short half life (521 yrs) also indicates (2) the discovery of soft tissue in fossils. The most direct explanation of this data is that an alleged millions of years never passed, for soft tissue would have decomposed long before then. (3) C14 dating, with its short half life also indicating the oldest rocks are less than 100,000 years old (about 20 half lifes). (4) K-Ar dating, and similar methodologies, not being able to demonstrate an old earth without circular reasoning.
1.
- Evidence: DNA degrades over time, with a half-life of 521 years, making it improbable for DNA to last more than tens of thousands of years under normal conditions. Yet, studies have identified DNA fragments in fossils deemed millions of years old, such as those of Neanderthals and even dinosaurs.
- Implication: Finding DNA in allegedly ancient samples suggests they are much younger than currently thought.
2.
- Evidence: Numerous discoveries of soft tissue, such as blood vessels, proteins, and even cells, in fossils that are dated to tens of millions of years contradict the expected rapid decay of organic matter.
- Implication: Soft tissue should decay completely within thousands of years, suggesting these fossils are not as old as conventionally dated.
3.
- Evidence: Carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,730 years, meaning any C-14 in a sample older than ~100,000 years should be undetectable. Yet, traces of C-14 have been found in coal, diamonds, and fossils thought to be millions of years old.
- Implication: The presence of C-14 in such samples challenges the standard millions-of-years timeline.
Here is Kolbe centre explain: " Since half of a given amount of C14 will convert to N14 in 5,730 years (+ or – 40 years), 5,730 years is said to be the half-life of C14. At this rate of decay, any organism that died more than 50,000 years ago should have lost all of its C14." [7]
The basic idea is about 10 half lives (2^10=1024=1000 app) will lead to almost none of the original substance being retained. This would be true for DNA in pt. 1 too.
4. K-Ar dating, or elements with a large half life, involve circular reasoning:
Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating is not effective for materials less than 100,000 years old due to the following reasons:(i) Half-life of Potassium-40
- Potassium-40 (^40K) has a long half-life of about 1.25 billion years. This means it decays very slowly, and the amount of argon-40 (^40Ar) produced over short periods (e.g., thousands of years) is extremely small and difficult to measure accurately.
In other words, Potassium Argon dating can only say, "If this rock is over 100,000 years old, then it may also be several millions of years old." It gives provably wrong results for rocks of young age. Therefore, on balance, given the DNA evidence discussed in point 1, and the C14 evidence discussed in point 3 especially, it is quite reasonable to conclude the Earth is no more than 100,000 years old. The fact DNA is still present in some of the most ancient fossils, that soft tissue is still found in dinosaurs, and that finally 20 or even 10 half lifes of C14 never passed, solidify and strengthen this conclusion. And that suffices to doubt the Darwinist version of history. The traditional version of creation is still strongly supported by the evidence and plausible.
References:
1. Allentoft, M. E., et al. (2012). "The half-life of DNA in bone: Measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils." Proceedings of the Royal Society B. [DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1745]
2. Schweitzer, M. H., et al. (2005). "Molecular preservation in dinosaur fossils." Science, 307(5717): 1952-1955. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1108397]
3. Schweitzer, M. H., et al. (2007). "Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein and cellular preservation." Science, 316(5822): 277-280. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1138709]
4. Buckley, M., et al. (2008). "Protein sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex revealed by mass spectrometry." Science, 319(5859): 33-36. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1153566]
5. Baumgardner, J. R., et al. (2003). "Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials." Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, 127-142.
6. Giem, P. (2001). "Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon." Origins, 51: 6-30.
7. https://kolbecenter.org/kolbe-report-2-6-21/
8. Woodmorappe, J. (1999). "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods." Institute for Creation Research.
.