Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

One of the proofs to say the World Cycle is of only 5,000 years old?

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

flood that distroyed the whole world, took place less than 5000 years ago. So if

we take our hints from Scripture, the fossils that were buried during this flood

have only been around for 5000 years. Only when we assume the long ages, that

hundreds of millions of years have passed since the fossils were buried, do we

find the presence of intact amino acids in fossils incredible. This question

was faced by evolutionists in the 1950s and 1960s, yet no one ever came up with

a viable answer. Amino acids should not be found in fossils. They should

survive only a few million years at best (Abelson 1956, 1957). So the question,

why are they

there? is an extremely important question, it is an enigma! Because all

detectable levels of many amino acids are expected to survive only a few

million years, some have suggested that these amino acids found in older

fossils are not actually from the fossil itself. The presence of amino acids

could very well be a recent contamination. This idea makes a lot of sense

since the fossils are too old, according to the standard paradigm, to have

intact amino acids in them. So various research groups set about trying to

investigate the possibility that the amino acid presence of older fossils is

really a contamination.

Silurian graptolites, which are estimated to be 400-430 million years old by

the usual evolutionary conventional age, has been found to contain detectable

levels of amino acids that are indeed residual in nature (Florkin 1969). They

come from the original proteins when the fossil was buried. Another group have

looked at shells as old as Jurassic, 135-180 million year by conventional age,

and found that they contain amino acids that are bound as protein and peptides

(Akiyama and Wyckoff 1970). So, since the amino acids are part of the protein

and peptide structure of the fossil itself, it is clear that the amino acids

are residual in

nature. The amino acids came from the fossil when it was buried, not by some

contamination process later on when the fossil was buried in the ground.

Because the evidence was so strong and striking, many started to suggest that

the amino acids may survive much longer because they are associated within

large macromolecules. The protein molecule would create a local environment

that would increase the stability of the amino acids. What they were suggesting

was that the fossil matrix somehow holds the amino acid molecules together so

they do not spontaneously decompose as would be expected on the basis of their

binding energies. As can be

seen in the graph to the left or above, the difference in survivability of amino

acids that are associated within large macromolecules such as wood, bone, coral

and dung, and amino acids that are free in nature; are very small. Most of the

points on the graph, whether referring to the free component or an associated

component, fit into the same pattern. I think this is amazing! Because the

long ages supported by the evolutionary process is not questioned, researchers

are forced to try to come up with unlikely possibilities. They are forced to

acknowledge that the amino acids must have survived for hundreds of millions of

years so now they have to come up with a reason why they are present! The graph

above illustrates the evidence concerning the racemization of various amino

acids suggesting that the variation of amino acid levels found in fossils is

due to factors such as heat and not their differences in ages. See my Amino

Acid Dating page to hear more. Another issue, very similar to the question why

amino acids are still found in fossils, Concerns DNA. Why is DNA still present

in fossils? There is even the presence of DNA and bacterial spores in fossils

which are still viable! Bacterial have been grown up from fossils that are

thought to be hundreds of millions of years old! DNA Raul J. Cano and Monica

K. Borucki have discovered and have actually revived (brought back to life!)

over 1,000 types of bacteria and other microorganisms. Some of the life-forms

date as far back as 135 million years which was the time of the dinosaurs. Can

DNA survive that long? Many point to the plain physics of degrading DNA over

time and state that organisms cannot

survive for millions of years without having the bases of the DNA, which

constitutes the genetic code, degrade to such an extent that the organisms

would no longer be viable. So, is the presence of amber preserved DNA that is

still capable of producing viable bacteria and other microorganisms, evidence

that the specimen is in fact very young? That is hard to say. There are many

who dismiss all claims of ancient bacteria as modern contamination. Others,

however seem to dismiss the problems that the effect of time has on DNA and

say, 'It must have survived, because here it is'. Neither group entertains the

thought that the time factor might be off several orders of magnitude. Of

course the story of Noah in the Bible suggests that these organisms were buried

during the global flood, less than 6000 years ago. The young age of the

specimens would allow the DNA to still have its original code largely

unaffected by time. For an interesting introduction to this topic read the news

article "Ancient Bacteria Brought Back to Life" by R. Monastersky in Science

News Volume 147, Number 20, May 20, 1995, p. 308. Another interesting article:

"Prehistoric bacteria revived from buried salt" by J. Travis in Science News

Volume 155, June 12, 1999, p. 373. In this article, J. Travis has interviewed

such men as William D. Rosenzweig and Russell H. Vreeland of Penn.

University who have now announced to have isolated and revived bacteria from

salt deposits that is 250 million years old. Also in the paper, a researcher is

mentioned, who is said to have been ahead of his time claimed, back in the

1960s, to have revived bacillus and other bacteria from salt deposits more than

500 million years old. So now we have bacterial spores lasting for 250 million

years and maybe as long as 500 million years. Is that possible? You can be sure

that this debate over viable fossil DNA will persist. I especially like what

Melanie R. Mormile from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland,

Wash. said: (I must tell you that Melanie has herself

reported salt-derived microbes of at least 97 million years old in age)

"Whenever anyone claims they have revived organisms that are millions of years

old, she says, you've got to sit back and go, 'Wow, that's incredible. How can

that be?' " I think this is amazing! Because the long ages supported by the

evolutionary process is not questioned, researchers are forced to try to come

up with unlikely possibilities. They are forced to acknowledge that the DNA

must have survived for hundreds of millions of years so now they have to come

up with a reason why they are present! To know about the complete world

Cycle please visit:

mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;

mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">http://www.bkwsu.org

Mail

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...