Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UglyBastard" data-source="post: 26466" data-attributes="member: 27">mainstream science claims the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, but I will outline three key evidences that suggest the Earth is much younger—less than 10,000yo actually, as described in the biblical timeline.>Soft Tissue in Dinosaur FossilsFirst, let’s consider the surprising discovery of soft tissues in dinosaur fossils. In recent years, scientists have found preserved proteins, collagen, and even structures resembling blood cells in fossils supposedly millions of years old. This raises a critical question: How can soft tissues, which are expected to decay in just thousands of years, survive for tens or hundreds of millions of years? From a creationist perspective, this evidence fits perfectly within a timeline of just a few thousand years. While some researchers have proposed mechanisms to explain this preservation, such as iron acting as a preservative, these ideas remain highly speculative. The existence of these tissues challenges the idea of an ancient Earth and instead supports a young Earth model>Decay of Earth's Magnetic FieldSecond, we can look at the Earth’s magnetic field. Scientists have observed that the magnetic field is gradually weakening over time. If we trace this decay backward, it becomes clear that the magnetic field would have been far too strong for life to exist just tens of thousands of years ago—let alone billions. Creationists argue that this decay is consistent with a young Earth that is only about 6,000 years old. In contrast, the mainstream dynamo theory suggests that the magnetic field regenerates itself over time, but this explanation relies on assumptions that are difficult to test. If the magnetic field’s decay is as straightforward as it appears, it provides strong evidence for a young>Limited Erosion of Geological FeaturesFinally, let’s talk about erosion and sedimentation. Geological features on Earth, like mountains, river deltas, and sediment layers, show evidence of limited age. For example, if continents have been eroding at the observed rates for billions of years, they should have been worn down to near sea level by now. Likewise, features like the Mississippi River delta show sediment accumulation consistent with only a few thousand years, not millions. Mainstream scientists argue that processes like tectonic uplift or sediment recycling explain this discrepancy, but these arguments often rely on assumptions about the past that can’t be directly observed. From a young Earth perspective, these features make much more sense within a framework of thousands of years, not billions[MEDIA=youtube]QwbC4URnP-0[/MEDIA]</blockquote>

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread