Is Genesis history?

[Job 33:6]

I cannot confirm or deny their findings. What I know is that I trust the accounts by other Christians who support the Bible in that they told I tell me that they messed up multiple times in dating young rocks. I tell you what. If we can get a bunch of rocks that we know are recently formed from a volcano, and we get some older rocks that look the same, and we mix them up and have these scientists date them, and they can show me their results are correct with their test (in that they dated the younger rocks accurately), then I will listen to what they have to say. But I don't think that's gonna happen because I don't believe they are being truthful with their assumptions that go into the numbers game they play with rocks.

This has more to do with a distrust in people than it has to do with the science itself. For me, I don't distrust these scientists because I am one of them myself. I don't have any reason to lie to anyone. But to be fair, I don't like being called a liar either. And unfortunately there is a lot of that that goes around.

I remember really early on, years ago, in my early days of studying geology, and I remember hearing something on the radio that talked about geologists essentially lying about things.

You'd be surprised how offensive it is when someone who doesn't know anything about science tells scientists that they're liars. but years later now I've come to find that it's quite normal to hear these things from ardent young earthers.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This has more to do with a distrust in people than it has to do with the science itself. For me, I don't distrust these scientists because I am one of them myself. I don't have any reason to lie to anyone. But to be fair, I don't like being called a liar either. And unfortunately there is a lot of that that goes around.

I remember really early on, years ago, in my early days of studying geology, and I remember hearing something on the radio that talked about geologists essentially lying about things.

You'd be surprised how offensive it is when someone who doesn't know anything about science tells scientists that they're liars. but years later now I've come to find that it's quite normal to hear these things from ardent young earthers.

You assume too much. I was not referring to you specifically. People in general can be deceived into buying into a lie or false belief that they don't think is a lie. The Young Earth creationist, and the Old Earth creationist both cannot be correct. We are presented with the same evidences, but we look at those evidences differently. It depends on what lens a person is using to properlly interpret the evidences given to us. Are we using the Bible as our lens or are we using imperfect man made dating methods that originates from an atheistic worldview? I believe Old Earth creationism is more in line with the views held by atheists who refuse to acknowledge the existence of God. For an atheist trying to explain away God needs to have lots of time (i.e. an Old Earth) in order to make Evolution work.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I would say that this is false equivalence. It's an effort to suggest that observations in geology can go either way. I disagree with this conclusion. As discussed in my prior and ongoing posts that include reasons why.

Doesn't sound like a reliable science to me then. If I did such a test (in throwing in some rocks that were recently formed by a recent volcano without them knowing about it), they should be able to pass with flying colors. But I know that they will fail such a test because they are making assumptions on the dating of those rocks. Sure, they come up with some pretty little numbers and those numbers may keep saying something on a machine, but a man has to interpret what those numbers mean as far as the age of the Earth. This is where assumptions come in. This is why they will fail such a test if I throw in some young recently formed rocks by hot liquid magma.

We have discovered hats in recent years that can even be fossilized into rock. That does not mean the hat is millions of years old.

 

[Job 33:6]

You assume too much. I was not referring to you specifically. People in general can be deceived into buying into a lie or false belief that they don't think is a lie. The Young Earth creationist, and the Old Earth creationist both cannot be correct. We are presented with the same evidences, but we look at those evidences differently. It depends on what lens a person is using to properlly interpret the evidences given to us. Are we using the Bible as our lens or are we using imperfect man made dating methods that originates from an atheistic worldview? I believe Old Earth creationism is more in line with the views held by atheists who refuse to acknowledge the existence of God. For an atheist trying to explain away God needs to have lots of time (i.e. an Old Earth) in order to make Evolution work.

The founding fathers of geology that made the principles in which geology exists today in large part were Christians. Old earth geology really isn't atheistic at all, but rather in my opinion I would say that atheists have attempted to claim that it's theirs.

At some point in time modern science or the principles that constructs modern science, shifted out of the hands of Christians and in the public sphere have moved into the hands of atheists. Now granted there are countless Christian scientists, but at least with respect to how the media displays information, we might think that it's an atheistic endeavor to be a scientist.

And personally I would rather this not be the case, but I think that the young Earth movement only really amplifies this issue because the young Earth movement then says yes, the science is atheistic. Thereby giving the atheist all the science.

There's actually a video on this too, let me see if I can find it.

And I know that the relationship between science and scripture is complicated, but I don't think we should be drawing lines in the sand and separating ourselves, but rather we should melt the two together, even if it brings us to a difficult space in understanding scripture. Jesus never gave a sermon about the fossil record. He came to save humanity, and called people to follow him and to follow his teachings and ideas and moral thought and practices.

I just don't think that we necessarily have to be biblical literalists to still be Bible believing and Jesus following, lovers of God. I just don't think that it benefits the faith.

Or at the very least, I think that Christian should certainly have comfort in options of understanding scripture. I don't think it shouldn't necessarily be 6-day creation global flood or atheism. I think there should be a middle ground somewhere where Christians can love God and still not be outright rejecting science while doing that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

40 minutes to 50 minutes.


The two speakers refer to "the ice age" as if there was only one, however independent layers of glacial till, glacial striations, drop stones, moraines and more suggest that there have been multiple ice ages, But even further there have been dozens of glacial advances (and interglacial periods) within each if there's ice ages as well.

View attachment 301298

View attachment 301299




so it isnt just one ice age. there is no "the" ice age (unless youre talking about the childrens movie).

The idea that glaciers formed in place by precipitation rather than migrating southward over time doesnt make any sense either, given that we have glacial moraines and striations of glacial advances.

View attachment 301300

"graveyard oveer graveyard over graveyard"

So what do they call this?
View attachment 301301
In some instances these fossils forests overlying paleosols have foot tracks along their base, suggesting these environments were not graveyards, but rather were ecosystems much like we see today.

54:00

the individual speaking in the museum seems surprised that marine fossils could be found on land, as if perhaps he's never heard of plate tectonics.

"the ecosystem that has the first animals in it"

Incorrect, the ediacaran biots predates the cambrian, as do things like claudina, sinotubulites, microshellies, among other animal fossils.

45:55 "that shows up basically out of nowhere"

wrong again, the cambrian exploaion spans some 40 million years of time (it wasn't instantaneous at all) and was predated by species known via microshellies. things like corals, brachiopods, sponges, annelids etc all predated the cambrian explosion and are observed in the fossil record in deeper layers.

46:50 - the speaker gives some strage idea about the fuanal succession being desposited as waters rise. This doesnt make any sense given that the rocks of periods throughout the column exist worldwide. its not like paleozoic rocks exist in one spot, then as you move further from the epicenter of the mid oceanic ridge, then mesozoic rocks form, then further away then cenozoic form. This idea the speaker has is all wrong.

They have this idea that giant waves are crashing across continents at perhaps dozens of kilometers per second, but then simultaneously they want it to be like a giant kiddy pool where water is gradually rising, thereby giving time for ecosystems to form. Nobody knows how fossil forests with rooted paleosols and trackways fit into their explanation.

What happens when you find mesozoic strata with an ecosystem overtop of paleozoic strata (as we do on every continent of the world). You would have to assume that this mesozoic strata came from some other place. but the issues that come with this position are endless. Everything from structural features, jointing, faulting, angular unconformities, fault goige etc. demonstrate that strata was lithified prior to deposition of the mesozoic, things like rooted forests in paleosols with trackways in fossiized forests mid paleozoic demonstrate the development of ecosystems mid-deposition, things like complex burrow networks, trackways and nests with eggs in these layers further suggest that life was living in them, not washed in like a mass graveyard.

48:00 differences between trackways and bones are understandable when trackeays, which arent going to be eaten by predators or decayed by aerobic decomposition, naturally fossilize more readily than bodies that are eaten by predators and undergo aerobic decay. 10 million years might only be the difference between one layer of rock and a single layer above it, so to suggest that it's an anomaly to have tracks in one layer without bone material is a poor argument.

I would describe this 10-minute segment of the video as really just quite simply misinformation.

There are a lot of details just missing out of this. Saying that life appeared abruptly during the Cambrian explosion just isn't true. Now maybe if we lived in 1960 or 1970 and we said this, people might consider it as a possibility. But we've discovered plenty of fossils that predate the Cambrian explosion and are continually being discovered in strata deeper and older than the Cambrian explosion. And this doesn't just include the ediacaran biota, it really has been found more and more to include a good number of Cambrian "precursors". Sponges, corals, brachiopods, annelids, the works.

Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia.

Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia

Cloudinidae - Wikipedia

Sinotubulites - Wikipedia

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

(See the timescale in the above biologos link).

Its as if these people in the video either intentionally left these details out, or they simply weren't aware of them. And not being aware of a topic is not justification for peddling falsehood.

I digress. Moving onto the next.

Again, this is not the best video in defense of Young Earth. An ice age after the global flood is a logically assumed theory that the Bible does not specifically talk about. The breaking up of the deep during the global flood could have potentially released lots of hot magma and warmed the waters and caused the Earth to go into an ice age period. Both the Young Earth creationist and the Old Earth creationist will make assumptions on the observable evidences shown to us. But what lens are they using to interpret their geological evidence? Are they using the Bible? Or are they using the views shaped by atheists or pagans who sought to live a life without acknowledging the existence of God?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The founding fathers of geology that made the principles in which geology exists today in large part were Christians. Old earth geology really isn't atheistic at all, but rather in my opinion I would say that atheists have attempted to claim that it's theirs.

At some point in time modern science or the principles that constructs modern science, shifted out of the hands of Christians and in the public sphere have moved into the hands of atheists. Now granted there are countless Christian scientists, but at least with respect to how the media displays information, we might think that it's an atheistic endeavor to be a scientist.

And personally I would rather this not be the case, but I think that the young Earth movement only really amplifies this issue because the young Earth movement then says yes, the science is atheistic. Thereby giving the atheist all the science.

There's actually a video on this too, let me see if I can find it.

And I know that the relationship between science and scripture is complicated, but I don't think we should be drawing lines in the sand and separating ourselves, but rather we should melt the two together, even if it brings us to a difficult space in understanding scripture. Jesus never gave a sermon about the fossil record. He came to save humanity, and called people to follow him and to follow his teachings and ideas and moral thought and practices.

I just don't think that we necessarily have to be biblical literalists to still be Bible believing and Jesus following, lovers of God. I just don't think that it benefits the faith.

Or at the very least, I think that Christian should certainly have comfort in options of understanding scripture. I don't think it shouldn't necessarily be 6-day creation global flood or atheism. I think there should be a middle ground somewhere where Christians can love God and still not be outright rejecting science while doing that.

The author of the video makes the wrong assumption that Evolutionary thought did not exist prior to Darwin. Here is an article showing that Evolutionary thought existed before him.

Evolutionary Thought Before Darwin (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As for a stray Christian implying that the Earth may be old by his words that can be interpreted that the flood was not global:

Well, this does not mean that the majority of the beginning scientific geological community were Old Earth Creationists. But even if this was the case, they would have been straying away from what the Bible says.

I mean, a person who is honest with themselves in studying the Bible cannot deny a global flood after reading the following passage.

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.” (Genesis 7:19-24).​

All the high hills that were under the WHOLE heaven were covered.

 

[Job 33:6]

I tell you what. If we can get a bunch of rocks that we know are recently formed from a volcano, and we get some older rocks that look the same, and we mix them up and have these scientists date them, and they can show me their results are correct with their test (in that they dated the younger rocks accurately), then I will listen to what they have to say.

Radiocarbon Dating Cremated Bone: A Case Study Comparing Laboratory Methods | Radiocarbon | Cambridge Core

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIDhAC&usg=AOvVaw07c5jtte8vFdVZKq1AotHj

Pillars of the Past Volume Three

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Documents/SOP%20Doc/WABSOP/Ch14-FB-Dup.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjqw7aegLPxAhXkkOAKHfvmDBkQFjAJegQICRAC&usg=AOvVaw0wWmpjO2di8rIpe7Lt8oEZ

We call them blind duplicates or blind samples. It's a common practice to test the results of laboratory machinery by mixing up samples and sending them in for analysis without the lab techs knowing what they're getting.

So for example, let's say you collect 5 samples from 5 different locations. And you name the samples A, B, C, D and E. Often times what is done as a means of quality control (see my prior posts), is that a duplicate will be thrown in but named something different. For example, you might throw in a sample F but it's been collected from the same location as sample D. But the lab doesn't know that, so you can test the accuracy of their machinery and measurement without them knowing.

This is just one of many quality control/quality assurance practices commonly used with laboratory testing. See the link above.

 

[Job 33:6]

Radiocarbon Dating Cremated Bone: A Case Study Comparing Laboratory Methods | Radiocarbon | Cambridge Core

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIDhAC&usg=AOvVaw07c5jtte8vFdVZKq1AotHj

Pillars of the Past Volume Three

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Documents/SOP%20Doc/WABSOP/Ch14-FB-Dup.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjqw7aegLPxAhXkkOAKHfvmDBkQFjAJegQICRAC&usg=AOvVaw0wWmpjO2di8rIpe7Lt8oEZ

We call them blind duplicates or blind samples. It's a common practice to test the results of laboratory machinery by mixing up samples and sending them in for analysis without the lab techs knowing what they're getting.

So for example, let's say you collect 5 samples from 5 different locations. And you name the samples A, B, C, D and E. Often times what is done as a means of quality control (see my prior posts), is that a duplicate will be thrown in but named something different. For example, you might throw in a sample F but it's been collected from the same location as sample D. But the lab doesn't know that, so you can test the accuracy of their machinery and measurement without them knowing.

This is just one of many quality control/quality assurance practices commonly used with laboratory testing. See the link above.

And remember, there's a difference between the teams that collect samples and the teams that analyze them. The people who actually analyze the samples, the don't collect the samples and they don't know where samples come from. It's not their job to know anything about the origins of the samples. And to be fair, they're typically too busy to care anyway. And they're usually chemists and not so much geologists though there is some crossover.

This is really important to understand.

Labs decontamination practices are also investigated for accuracy, sending samples from one location to different labs. They don't know what other laboratories are reporting because they're separate companies working in different spaces with different people using different equipment. So if they give the same results, you ought to consider that the results might be accurate.

And that's why the K-T boundary case is so compelling because we have laboratories around the world using different machines, different equipment by different people using different samples from different countries analyzing different isotopes, and they're reporting the same result.

There's no rational way to explain this but to conclude that their identical result is truthful.

Alternatively you end up in some weird space where the world's scientists are all liars that forge data.

The odds of all of these results (and far more beyond just this screenshot above) aligning by pure chance is infinitesimally small.

And you are saying that you aren't calling me a liar but perhaps it's just other geologists and chemists somewhere else that are liars. But this is equally as bad because it suggests that maybe you think my colleagues are liars. And I can tell you that they are just normal everyday people as well. No conspiracies here, just science.

We aren't making these data up, they just are what they are. And either you can accept that they indicate that the earth is old or you can't.

 

[Lost4words]

After looking at the video about the vast discrepancies regarding evolution that @Bible Highlighter linked to, i wonder if we can truly believe what the vast majority of science teaches about an old earth?

 

[Job 33:6]

After looking at the video about the vast discrepancies regarding evolution that @Bible Highlighter linked to, i wonder if we can truly believe what the vast majority of science teaches about an old earth?

Given the misinformation described in my ongoing posts on the video in the OP, I can assure you that it isn't us (the scientists) who are lying to you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Given the misinformation described in my ongoing posts on the video in the OP, I can assure you that it isn't us (the scientists) who are lying to you.

It's not a matter of lying, but it is matter of not interpreting the facts correctly through the proper lens. Young Earth is looking at the Earth through the lens of the Bible. Rarely do I see Old Earth creationists making their case using the Bible; And yet when they do on rare occasion, it is not really based upon a normal plain reading of the Bible (But it is based upon an odd interpretation that feels forced and or contrived to add such an idea into it).

 

[Job 33:6]

It's not a matter of lying, but it is matter of not interpreting the facts correctly through the proper lens. Young Earth is looking at the Earth through the lens of the Bible. Rarely do I see Old Earth creationists making their case using the Bible; And yet when they do on rare occasion, it is not really how based upon a normal plain reading of the Bible (But it is based upon an odd interpretation that feels forced and or contrived to add such an idea into it).

How would you interpret various laboratories around the world, analyzing hundreds of samples from different locations around the world, using different machinery with different teams of people and equipment, analyzing different isotopes all acquiring the same result?

Assuming the results aren't true, how do you think these teams came to conclude the same results? Do you think their liquid scintillator machines just artificially generated the number of particles observed during analysis?

Such a conclusion is...well...crazy.

Maybe they all just edited their reports and data and went through deleting wrong numbers and typing in correct numbers?

Again, I can tell you from personal experience, such a global conspiracy is not happening.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Radiocarbon Dating Cremated Bone: A Case Study Comparing Laboratory Methods | Radiocarbon | Cambridge Core

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIDhAC&usg=AOvVaw07c5jtte8vFdVZKq1AotHj

Pillars of the Past Volume Three

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Documents/SOP%20Doc/WABSOP/Ch14-FB-Dup.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjqw7aegLPxAhXkkOAKHfvmDBkQFjAJegQICRAC&usg=AOvVaw0wWmpjO2di8rIpe7Lt8oEZ

We call them blind duplicates or blind samples. It's a common practice to test the results of laboratory machinery by mixing up samples and sending them in for analysis without the lab techs knowing what they're getting.

So for example, let's say you collect 5 samples from 5 different locations. And you name the samples A, B, C, D and E. Often times what is done as a means of quality control (see my prior posts), is that a duplicate will be thrown in but named something different. For example, you might throw in a sample F but it's been collected from the same location as sample D. But the lab doesn't know that, so you can test the accuracy of their machinery and measurement without them knowing.

This is just one of many quality control/quality assurance practices commonly used with laboratory testing. See the link above.

But none of those samples are from recent volcanic activiity of rocks just formed mixed in with older rocks. That's the problem. They are not going to do that kind of test because they cannot assume millions or billions of years into their readings if they threw in the recently formed rocks from hot magma approach. Ask them if they do that. They will not do that because they have to assume long periods of time attached to the magic number they receive from a machine.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How would you interpret various laboratories around the world, analyzing hundreds of samples from different locations around the world, using different machinery with different teams of people and equipment, analyzing different isotopes all acquiring the same result?

View attachment 301305

View attachment 301306

Assuming the results aren't true, how do you think these teams came to conclude the same results? Do you think their machines just artificially generated the number of scintillator detected particles observed during analysis?

Your repeating yourself and ignoring the point that I made. The point is that if a machine comes up with a specified number, a person has to interpret what that number means. So if I put a few newly created rocks formed from a volcano that just recently erupted and made them to look like the other older rocks and mixed it in the samples secretly, I bet you they will say that the recent rocks are millions of years old. Why? Because that is their starting point and or assumption when looking at the machine with the specified number that pops up on it.

So to prove that your repeating of yourself with the magic numbers to prove an Old Earth is silly, just do the test that I gave you and see what happens. Do a YouTube video on it. My guess is that we will never see such a video because we both know that if you did such a test, it would fail.

But you can keep repeating yourself if you like.

 

[Job 33:6]

But none of those samples are from recent volcanic activiity of rocks just formed.

Evidence for magmatic carbon bias in 14 C dating of the Taupo and other major eruptions | Nature Communications

There's plenty of research to go around, including analysis of areas of recent eruptions.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Last Volcanic Eruptions of Ciomadul Volcano, Southeast Carpathians, Eastern-Central Europe | Radiocarbon | Cambridge Core

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1FSfKKM1d3z2Q0TwynrKAo&cshid=1624635305979



If you're worried about machines getting the right answer, it shouldn't matter where or when a sample comes from. Either the machine can measure it properly or it can't.

But we see truly countless quantities of research and analytical reports time after time after time, yielding ages far older than 6,000 years. Again, even in cases where the probability of being wrong are essentially non existent. Where hundreds of samples are collected worldwide, by different scientists, ran in different labs using different machinery, measuring different isotopes, samples coming from different countries of the same K-T iridium boundary.

All yielding the same result.

With that said, I'm going to move on from this topic. Either you can accept this or you can't. It is reality. I know it's hard for some to accept, but it is what it is.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Evidence for magmatic carbon bias in 14 C dating of the Taupo and other major eruptions | Nature Communications

There's plenty of research to go around, including analysis of areas of recent eruptions.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Last Volcanic Eruptions of Ciomadul Volcano, Southeast Carpathians, Eastern-Central Europe | Radiocarbon | Cambridge Core

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1FSfKKM1d3z2Q0TwynrKAo&cshid=1624635305979

No, that's cheating. They KNOW about the age of the rock already when they do the test so they can interpret their machine in the way that they want. I want you or somebody else you know to throw in some rocks that are recently formed from a volcano and then throw them in some samples from some older rocks. Make them look like the same rocks to throw away any suspicion. If you successfully were to do this kind of test with your science mates or with scientists who do these kinds of test, I betcha they will fail big time. Why? Because.... they have an assumption of the age of the rock when doing the test to begin with.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Okay. Maybe we can make this simpler. Find me a device that the average person can buy that can accurately tell me the age of rocks. That way I can do the test myself by going to a rocksite from a recently erupted volcano and then testing those rocks with other rocks that others claim to be older. If my device gives me accurate readings for the recent volcano rocks, then it should give me an accurate reading for the older rocks, too. But I know that if such a device were to exist for the average person to buy, it would simply show that the scientific community is not interpreting the geological evidence accurately or fairly.

Why would they do this?

Because they want a life that does not include God.
For atheists obviously believe in Evolution and an old Earth because they are trying to explain away God's existence. Evolution tied in with an Old Earth is the exuse that unbelievers use to not have God in their life.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, that's cheating. They KNOW about the age of the rock already when they do the test so they can interpret their machine in the way that they want.

This is just mass conspiracy. Labs don't collect samples.

What you're suggesting is that the geologists collect the samples from some area, then send it to the independent labs and then they tell the labs how old the sample should be, then the chemists run the samples and their machines produce data and then the chemists go in and adjust their data to fit the age they were told by the geologists.

Also, you can't interpret data in a machine to read a certain number. You would have to actively forge the data, going in and deleting data you don't like and typing in data you do like.

This is all crazy talk and just isn't how it works.

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay. Maybe we can make this simpler. Find me a device that the average person can buy that can accurately tell me the age of rocks. That way I can do the test myself by going to a rocksite from a recently erupted volcano and then testing those rocks with other rocks that others claim to be older. If my device gives me accurate readings for the recent volcano rocks, then it should give me an accurate reading for the older rocks, too.

You don't have to buy your own machine.

Just go and collect your own samples, and send them to a local lab. Just don't tell the lab where you've collected them. That's what the Young earth creationists in the video did. However it should be noted that if you do collect and submit samples, you will have to follow quality assurance procedures if you want anyone to take your data seriously. For example, you can submit blind duplicates and blank samples as described above.

Pick a country or a region and if you would like, I could help you find a lab.

 

[Job 33:6]

50 minutes to 60 minutes.

There is no consistent case of "big bones being shallower or deeper than little bones", as the speaker suggests. In some cases it is true that this is how fossils are found but it certainly isnt a rule or anything. Anyone who has experience with fossils knows that this isnt even remotely a consistent case.

for example:
Cross-Bedding - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

In the above link we have a cross section of fossiliferous bedding. The is cruziana above, cruziana below, siltstone above, silstone below etc. there no particular correlation between where fossils exist and their surrounding matrix in any way associated with density of sediment or grain size. the statement in the video is fabricated and is based on some form of misinformation or omission of details.

56:00- An individual suggests that because some remnants of degraded proteins have been recovered from acid treated fossils that this suggests that dinosaurs lived recently.

A. there is no research suggesting that degraded organic material cannot survive millions of years under ideal forms of preservation. Meaning that the argument is somewhat of a straw-man argument. Though certainly an interesting find, it's not objectively contradictory to an old earth.

B. Studies have suggested that DNA can last up to 8 million years when preserved under ideal conditions, and yet no one has ever discovered or sequenced dinosaur dna even though according to YECs dinosaurs were alive maybe even just a thousand years ago or less.

DNA has a 521-year half-life

"The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information."

Another oversight and omission of detail by the video. If DNA can last millions of years, why dont young earthers have their own jurassic park? We've sequenced DNA of mammoths and neanderthals, sabertooths and other prehistoric megafauna (which lived roughly 10,000 years ago so its no surprise we have their dna to geologists), but why dont YECs have dinosaur DNA?

Thats right, because they've been dead for over 8 million years. Over 65 to be more accurate.

58 minutes in, the YEC uses an acidic solution to dissolve crystalline structures that have protected and preserved the degraded organics. its not like they pulled it out of the ground with blood coming out. But rather the bone has been preserved via permineralization which requires acid treatment to expose.

Ultimately it's an interesting find, but again, it is more of a new or recent discovery than it is a true argument against an old earth.

That's about it for this 10 minutes.