Did you read the half-life of DNA? 521 years. Compare that to the half life of C14 @ 5700 years +/- 40 years. There shouldn’t be any DNA left in a dino, fragmented or not.
Why don’t we find carcasses everywhere that animals die? The mammoths were frozen before they could be scavenged and before they could rot. Human remains have also been preserved in the same way. It takes special conditions to preserve any body, whether it is cold, rapid burial or dry heat.
I don’t think you’ve understood what the 521 year figure refers to. It doesn’t refer to the amount of time that it takes for DNA to disappear into oblivion altogether. It refers to the amount of time it takes for the average strand of DNA to split into two. The rate is also highly dependent on a whole lot of environmental factors – temperature, oxygen, pH, and so on. In fact, if you click through to the study that they cite, you will see that it says that in optimal conditions (temperatures of -5°C), it can take up to 6.8 million years for DNA to fully break down to the point at which there is nothing sequenceable left.
Also, as I said, they did not find actual DNA. What they found was DNA breakdown products.
This is another thing that I see cropping up time and time again in YEC arguments. You take one set of measurements, misunderstand them, and misapply them to something completely different.
That does not explain why mammoths and humans were preserved in this way, but T-Rexes were not.
Ahh, subduction. Not a bad theory, but not good either. What do you find 20-50km down? Basalt and granite under high pressure. Nothing pushes down through that. So what happens? Maybe this?
What’s wrong is that it makes our creator to be natural processes and chance. One more step, the big bang, and why do you need God at all? That is naturalism. It’s also wrong, because something can’t come from nothing, intelligence only comes from intelligence and information only comes from an intelligent mind. Life only comes from life. God.
Look at Genesis for a minute as I do. God prepares a perfect universe for man. The first thing he does is create the physical and then he sets time and energy loose. He forms earth into a garden, grows plants, creates life and everything in order up to man, who he formed and breathed life into. Adam would have looked like a grown man, Eve, a grown woman. The animals would have been mature, the plants and trees also. Earth, being the focus of creation is where God centered his work. Imagine him drawing out the heavens like a curtain, stretching it from earth outward nearly instantly. Is 40:22
Anyhow, if you gap 1:1-1:2, then the earth must be destroyed, and there is no fossil that could survive. Go with the day-age, and then you have a few problems. No sun or moon until day 4. How did the grasses and trees survive? He is omniscient. He knew naturalism would come, and he made sure that Genesis could not work their way.
Isaiah 42:8 I am Yahweh: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Back to your question, I can’t go from that direction, but can state why I believe the 24 hour days interpretation is unfitting.
The first two verses of Genesis contain the passage of time (Spirit of God hovering) as well as creative activity. So clearly the first “day” is not the first 24 hours. In addition the seventh day is ongoing according to Hebrews 4. So there is indeterminate time before and after the “six days” (like bookends).
Next we have to ask what God is up to with the “days” thing. That’s found in Exodus when he commands them to have six work days and a rest day: His people are to be like their God. This stands in sharp contrast to most ANE stories where people only exist to serve their god.
I would not defend evolution anyway because I think it’s clear evolution needed help. You and I probably agree that natural processes alone are inadequate to explain the beauty and complexity we see in life.
This does not directly, but it sure fits and increases the import of Psalm 8:4, when one comes to understand the reality of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also the vastness of its antiquity:
Young earth creationists generally recognize the vastness of the size of the universe (utilizing the well-known principles of physics), but deny the vastness of its antiquity (by denying the principles of physics, or at least their uniformity over time* and have to indulge in Last Thursdayism).
*That, in turn, denies scripture, as well, as already noted on several occasions:
The key thing to remember about the Primeval Prologue (Genesis 1-11) is that the primary emphasis of these chapters is theological, not historical. You could think of them as a series of parables since some of them definitely do not go together (e.g. many languages are mentioned before the Tower of Babel, which talks about there being only one language). Also, Noah is said to be 600 years old. That is the number for perfection in the primary numbering system of that time and Noah was “perfect in his generations.” There are many other reasons and clues in the scripture that point to a theological purpose, not a historical purpose.
A very simple answer to the events described in Genesis is that they are a local event and not at all the creation of the entire world or universe. The word “earth” is used over 50 times in Genesis ch 1-8, it is a Hebrew word that can have the meaning of a territory or region. Genesis 1 is the creation of Eden. Noah’s flood is a local event. Literally all the geographic locations mentioned in these chapters are all in the area of the middle East–where nearly all the rest of the Bible is set. Did God create everything? Yes, the Bible tells us this elsewhere–but it does not tell us how or when. It’s really not as complicated as tradition has made it to be.
I might agree if it took God 24 hours to create each day’s work, so any other action required longer times. I think he used days in order for each step of creation to begin integration into reality. But, being finite myself, I have no true idea why he made things in the particular order he did.
Let’s remove time for a moment, or at least the past. What is the speed of light between us and the edge of the universe? Is it 299792458 meters per second or about 186,000 mps?
What if I told you that we have no idea? The constant c only applies in a perfect vacuum. Space is far from a perfect vacuum. It contains gases and dust, even where there are no planets or stars or nebulae.
So what happens to light in space? Can light be slowed down? Yes.
Can light be speeded up? Also yes.
How many reptilians do you know that live in freezing conditions? I know some scientists think T-Rex may have been warm-blooded, but I think it still preferred warm climates judging by where their fossils were found.
And do you seriously believe that cosmologists don’t take this into account when determining light travel times to distant stars? Do you seriously believe that they aren’t aware that refractive index is a thing?
The difference between the speed of light in a vacuum, and the speed of light in interstellar space, is predictable, measurable, and easily determined. And it is MINUSCULE compared to what you would need in order to squeeze the light travel time from distant stars and galaxies down from billions of years down to just six thousand. As for the links you have given, these describe conditions that only occur in complex laboratory setups and not in interstellar space by any stretch of the imagination.
I’m sorry, but this is just another example of YECs taking tiny differences, tiny discrepancies, tiny unknowns, and even tiny knowns, ripping them out of context, blowing them up out of all proportion, completely ignoring the underlying maths, and basically citing them as justification for making things up.
Tollund Man was found in a peat bog in Denmark. No freezing conditions needed there.
In any case, even without finding whole carcasses, in a 6,000 year old Earth, we should still be able to find vast quantities of sequenceable dinosaur DNA in their bones. Certainly a few thousand base pairs long. Even Egyptian mummies — about 4,000 years old from conditions very unfavourable to DNA preservation — have at least some sequenceable DNA fragments, even if it is highly degraded.
Here’s a post giving some indications of what kinds of DNA you can expect under what conditions:
Hi, Joe - and welcome to the forum!
Indeed - it hasn’t escaped notice that ‘earth’ is not referred to as a planet or globe in the sense we think of it today but as “the land around us” - i.e. the locusts ‘covered the earth’ is not understood to mean the planet was inundated (even by YECs).
I guess the moral is … never underestimate our human capacity to complicate things!
Genesis 10 and 11 are not in order by date. That is fairly common where genealogies are concerned.
Remember that God is relaying all this to Moses many years after the events and Moses is writing it down for the children of Israel to learn. He is connecting the origins of the nations with the people they know well in their time.
He is 600 only when called to build the ark. He was over 700 by the time it rains, and he lived to be 950. Long lives were a tricky thing. Shem was born about 400 years before Abram and he outlived him. I think he was the King of Salem that Abram gave tithe to.
I tried. You didn’t bother to read either article, much less consider the implications. Bu-bye.
Well, Patrick, Happy New Year!! You have been busy on this site with various responses to various people. I was intrigued by the citations on the discovery of possible dinosaur DNA — having heard that somewhere.
It does not seem that that is necessarily a resolved issue as of yet, and National Geographic suggested that it may be “calcified cartilage…[an] ideal spot…less prone to…internal decay” – see nationalgeographic 2020/03
I am sure that an argument is being made somewhere by someone that this affirms a younger earth and universe, with dinosaurs really not so long ago as currently presumed… Otherwise how did dinosaur DNA survive? half life etc… But that may be jumping the gun. It could mean something not known about DNA heretofore, or a unique situation (such as the calcified cartilage) – or “the modern may be overlaid on the past, creating a false image” (see Scientific American), or a claim that will be overturned (as a 1993 claim was). As Augustine said, you have to consider all possibilities. (Yes he did say that!)
Time will tell!!
But you also responded to something I had said about Augustine of Hippo and the “days of creation,” at least as the account is presumed by those of a more YEC bent. You directed me to reasons.org and I did read it but came away a bit underwhelmed. Their three points were “okay,” but they treated Augustine’s writings as though he was speaking to readers of the 21st century. It is fair to presume that Augustine never gave us a thought. If you actually read some of Augustine’s writings, you have to wonder at times what he thought, why he thought what he did think, and who his audience really was. For example:
Now when God said, ’ let there be light,“…did He say this on a certain day or before the beginning of days. If He said it by the Word, who is coeternal with Himself, He certainly did not speak in time … Thus, we must suppose that before the beginning of days, He wrought the word referred to in the words, 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth … by the expression ‘heaven’ we must understand a spiritual created work already formed and perfected…”
The above is from the Literal Meaning of Genesis chapter 9.
“But evening, during all these three days before the creation of the heavenly bodies, can perhaps be reasonably understood as the end of each work accomplished, morning as an indication of a work to follow…” – chapter 17 same book. [Is this an actual day? or just a designation of accomplishment?]
Answers in Genesis, the henrycenter.tiu.edu, Biologos and Villanova.edu…are all sites discussing Augustine’s position on the Genesis account of creation–and even AIG does not seem to think he meant a literal week, and was using the term only as a literary device. I have a lecture series (on DVD) that covers Augustine’s Confessions; the professors cite comments Augustine made in his writings and say that he saw layers of meaning in the biblical accounts and saw the six days of creation “as an allegory of the church” and so on.
The Villanova site also asserts that Augustine “puzzled over the creation of light on the first day, if the sun, the moon, and the stars came into place only on the fourth day…”
The Reasons.com article seems to have mined Augustine for something that relates to points they want to assert, but hardly address what Augustine himself was saying.
At any rate…you should read something from The Literal Meaning of Genesis…if nowhere else, find a pdf of a portion of it online. And according to henrycenter.tiu. edu …Augustine echoed the sentiments of Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Origen, and Didymus the Blind. As I said, interpretation of the creation account has a somewhat diverse history.
I still recommend that you read some of the writers that I and others have mentioned.
OK…nuff said…Enjoy New Year’s.
In all of this discussion we must remember the intent of Gen. 1-11. It is not meant to be historical in the modern sense. These chapters are laying the theological foundation of Judaism and Christianity. The original writer(s) never intended them to be read as literal history. Temple language is used throughout. The ages given are clearly spiritual in nature (not literal), etc. I would recommend reading some of the works of John Walton. He clears up a lot of miss understandings about these chapters. Ken Ham’s approach is sadly almost totally inaccurate and actually does a lot to harm the cause of Christianity.
This deserves a world class meme or poster at the very least. So clear and compelling. Think of the mental dissonance and anguish required to dismiss what you say. Would not wish that on anyone.
There is another quote I like. “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as Sherlock Holmes
The problem there is, to eliminate all impossibilities, or to consider all possibilities, you must know everything. I’m not equipped for that. Augustine wrote over 5 million words according to that article. I’m sure the people at reason did an honest job of trying to paraphrase him. They seem more in line with Biologos than with my beliefs.
What is Einstein’s equation? E=mC^2
Mass, energy and time had to be created at once. But what about space? Before you have stuff, you need a place to put it. That is Genesis 1:1.
Funny you should mention Genesis. The original word is Bereshit or Berisheet, and it means in the beginning, or at the start. I posted this early in this thread. As I told Laura, watch it all if you can. If you can’t at one time, spend five minutes at these two spots(18:23-22:44, 46:38-51:44), but go back when you have time.
I was quoting Augustine there – where you cited Einstein
and I know what Bereshit is…
The chronology of the first creation story (Genesis 1.1-2.4a) cannot be literally reconciled with the second creation story (beginning in Genesis 2.4b).
It is therefore no surprise that neither creation story can be reconciled with the record God has given us in creation.
The Bible itself makes it clear, in the first two chapters, that the early chapters of Genesis can’t be read as literal history.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.