UNDERWATER FOREST DISCOVERED: Yet more hard evidence against an Old Earth

link to mainstream article:

Primeval Underwater Forest Discovered in Gulf of Mexico
July 8, 2013

[link to www.livescience.com]

Nonsense.

I see your article.

I do not see, nor can I imagine, how you would derive any evidence whatever that the earth is just a few thousand years old from this that would hold up to even the most trivial level of contemplation.

Thank you for the article, but try again on your evaluation. Jeez.

You had me going until the last couple lines.

It's more helpful to realize that things CAN NOT be very old like evolutionists claim.

The best examples are preserved proteins discovered on dinosaur fossils claimed to be over 65 million years old.

The old-earth claims are being replaced with evidence for young Earth. It's the hard science showing us what was once thought old, can not be.

It's possible you are too philosophically committed to an old Earth or Evolution to be able to evaluate the data objectively.

In other words you are too emotionally or religiously triggered to be able to evaluate the data. Because I endorse Biblical Genesis, whatever I say must be wrong in your eyes. I would reevaluate your thinking.

Earth is only 6,000 years old.

OP is a servant of Satan sent to deceive you and damn you to Hell.

Common sense. A forest so fresh that it still carries sent is not tens of thousands of years old.

Why do evolutionists hate facts so much?

On occasion, drilling rigs bring up artifacts from a mile deep in the earth.

The earth has shaken many civilizations from her back.

Those aren't my claims.

I do in fact believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old. That is when historical records suddenly appear. That is when languages and civilizations suddenly appear.

DNA traces all humans back to one woman around 5,000-6,000 years ago.

All claims of sedimentation or other geological processes requiring millions of years have been proven false. There is much more evidence that strata was laid down quickly by a flood. Massive and rapid burials of animal fossils (some sticking up through multiple "millions of years" of rock layers) confirm this over and over again.

Old-Earth is maintained for religious purposes only. It is required for Evolution to be true and is therefore a sacred idol that must never be questioned.

Actually Vedic scriptures are dated to about 12,000 years old.

I beg to differ here. Mummys have been found that are over 12000 years old. My blood type is of an unknown origin and cannot be traced to the same roots as the majority of civilization.

Salt is a preservative, that's why we use it on pickles and such.

:)

It's not just there to make your prepackaged junk foods taste better.

The tard is strong with this one.

And trilobite fossils have been found that are supposedly 500 million years old.

Claims are cheap, and especially with evolutionary dating methods, are often incorrect.

A counter argument is absent in this one.

Please Drive Thru

Radio carbon dating has recently accelerated in degeneration for reasons not understood completely.
It shows that we have no accurate way to date biological materials, and that the rates of decay are not constant.

If you examine the expanding earth theory you will eventually run into this, but more recently it was
mentioned in the ancient alien series.

Making assumptions by using a corrupted science sold
with mirror images of purported laws, as in religion,
is a mockery of logical deduction.

Sometime if you turn things on their head it makes more sense. The sun is ancient, not young as we are told, and it has changed and is undergoing changes as old stars do.

You might do some looking around at the life cycles of stars and notice ours is/has changed from yellow to white.
This isn't good.

As for the underwater forest, we would need some samples to see if these species even exist, or if they date from another epoch, like say from the time of the dinosaurs.

On this we can agree. You're throwing out 'evidence' that you've fabricated in your own mind and have a very limited understanding of "real empirical data" or how to interpret it. Simply making statements about zero evidence and claiming that this story somehow is proof of anything remotely along the lines of what you believe does not make it true.

So yes, claims are cheap. That is all you're doing here, not providing any sort of evidence or even theory. The fact that the trees discovered still smell fresh is only proof that they were well preserved, it doesn't suggest anything relating to how long they've been on this planet. You're really reaching here, and that's being kind.

Chapter and verse where the earth is 6000 yrs. old.

Did you ever think it's possible that you are too religiously committed to "see the forest for the trees," if you will

do you have any evidence, aside from "it looks white to me?"

Chapter and verse have nothing to do with it. It's about knowing... about FAITH. Something you atheists know nothing about.

Faith, aka, I have no evidence and will refute any evidence provided to me otherwise even if it seems illogical to refute said evidence?

I don't even know where to begin with this one. If radiocarbon dating is so far off, how come every dinosaur fossil from the Jurassic period dates to about the same age? If it was highly flawed, the results wouldn't be repeatable thousands of times over on fossils found all over the world. It's the same with trilobite fossils. How about amber? It's all been dated much further back as well. How about fluted points, made by Native Americans and most date to 8-10,000 years ago. I can't figure out who's dumber, the young earth tards or the flat earth tards.

They won't quote it because it isn't there. There's another term for quoting things that aren't written. False teachings.

It's clearly a training issue.

If a radiocarbon dating procedure comes back with dates in excess of 6,000 years - i.e. older than the earth itself, as has been told - then the results are clearly wrong and the procedure is not being performed correctly.

Perhaps if they calibrated their equipment we wouldn't be having such an inane discussion.

The earth is 6,000 years old.

well said my Canadian friend.

Your argument is that the wood had a smell when it was cut. And you put that up against the science of carbon dating?

Oh you. They say ignorance is bliss. Enjoy ignorance OP.

Radiometric dating is replete with error, and based on assumptions about the past.

And just because something is consistent in some cases, could just as easily mean it is consistently wrong.

We have hard, verifiable, empirical data, (dinosaur proteins) that completely contradict assumption based, error-prone, dating methods.

Do we go with the science, or with evolution philosophy?

Um yes, do you think a tree that is over 50,000 years old is going to maintain the scent of its sap?

Carbon dating could be contaminated, especially since it is underwater.

But since you believe so faithfully in carbon dating, do you then believe dinosaur fossils are all between 30,000-40,000 years old as they've been consistently C14 dated?

Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen
[link to www.sciencevsevolution.org]


No, in that case you will say carbon-dating is flawed. Whatever answer helps protect your evolutionary paradigm.