Mary's Bones

A reader writes to ask:

Hi Rick

What evidence were you referring to that indicates a young earth? Do you also know of other evidence? I have read some discussions about the age of the earth as known through geology and the arguments currently seem more convincing for an old earth. Yet I realise these arguments are not the total story and there must be some counters to such, in favour of a young earth.

thanks


You're welcome!

How come I get so many emails from folks who are reading the blog, but, for whatever reason, decide to write me personally rather than post on the blog?

Anyway.

The completely devastating evidence which, upon adequate confirmation, will settle this question once and for all, can be accessed here.

To situate the matter:

There are two basic assumptions under which one can attempt to account for the observed stratification, or layering, of the rocks comprising the mantle of the Earth.

1. This stratification is essentially to be understood as the result of a billions-of-years-long process of deposition ("uniformitarianism");

2. This stratification is essentially to be understood as the result of one or more catastrophic events ("catastrophism").

Obviously the two categories allow for a certain degree of overlap, but the two approaches above will yield radically different hypotheses concerning the age of the Earth.

Both have their problems.

In the end, both will depend upon their ability to correlate to observations.

I will leave the defense of the uniformitarian approach to the billions of webpages which present it; this is, essentially, the neo-Darwinian synthesis' adoption of the "uniformitarian" geologic column of Lyell we all learned in school.

The alternative approach is, notably, also taught in Scripture, as the Flood.

Approach #1 requires a billions-of-year old Earth. It is congenial to the neo-Darwinist hypothesis, since it provides the billions of years indispensably necessary for the macroevolutionary hypothesis to work.

Approach #2 strongly suggests (although it does not strictly require) a much younger Earth, which happens to accord with the traditional understanding of Scripture's account in Genesis, as attested to by a unanimous consensus of the Fathers, and as proclaimed for centuries by the Catholic Church in Her liturgy.

Now.

Read the personal testimony of the author of the Science magazine study linked at the top of this post, entitled "Blood From Stone", which appeared in Scientific American, November 2010.

Mary has some bones.

Dinosaur bones.

Cretaceous dinosaur bones which are purported to be 70-80,000,000 years of age, under the "uniformitarian" assumptions of modern evolutionary theory.

But the problem is that these bones contain soft tissue, collagen, and hemes.

This is scientifically impossible, under the 70-80,000,000 year age-assumption.

See Table 1 of the above linked study- collagen cannot be preserved, even at 0 degrees Celsius in perfectly protected conditions, for but a tiny, tiny fraction of the alleged 70-80,000,000 years which the neo-Darwinist needs in order to account for evolution from TRex to us.

This is the smoking gun.

While we can apply our uniformitarian or our catastrophist assumptions to the evidence, all of those assumptions must yield in the face of direct, physical, observational evidence.

Such as blood cells, collagen, and soft tissue in Mary's Bones.

Future posts will delve into further, shocking experiments conducted on other Cretaceous bones, which have yielded C14 datings utterly impossible to reconcile with the theory of evolution.

In the meantime, we must ask the question:

Why hasn't Mary Schweitzer allowed her dino bones to be C14 dated, in the face of the determination that they contain organic, and hence C14 dateable, material?

That is a very, very, very good question..............