AP News recently ran an article with the headline “New Study Says Universe Expanding Faster and Is Younger.” Numerous other media outlets echoed the story, adding that the universe may be a billion years younger—as young as 12.5 billion years old. Is this just science changing its mind again? How could researchers be so wrong? A little historical insight coupled with some scientific background help show why scientists are excited about this seemingly large discrepancy.

Expansion History Gives Universe’s Age

The most sensitive way to measure the age of the universe relies on knowing the expansion history. This technique works similarly to calculating how long it will take you to drive to your vacation destination. If you know the distance and how fast your car will move, determining the driving time is simple. Typically, you will assume a constant speed, but the calculation works even with changing speeds as long as you know how the speed changes over time. Since Edwin Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe in 1929, astronomers have measured the heavens to determine its rate of expansion (and the corresponding age). Interestingly, when Hubble first measured what we now call the Hubble constant, H_o, his value gave an age of the universe around 1.8 billion years old. However, scientists thought the earth was at least 2 billion years old.

Is the Hubble Constant 50 or 100?

In the 1970s and 1980s, astronomers divided into two different camps regarding the Hubble constant. Given the straightforward process of finding the redshift for a galaxy, virtually all astronomers agreed on how fast various galaxies moved away from us. The main difference in the two camps related to distance measurements of those galaxies. One group, behind the work of Allan Sandage and Gustav Tammann, argued for a Hubble constant around 50 kilometers/second/megaparsec (km/s/Mpc).² The other group, based on the work of Gérard de Vaucouleurs, claimed the Hubble constant was closer to 100 km/s/Mpc.³ Each group published error bars between 5–10 km/s/Mpc so there was no way to reconcile the results. The smaller values of H_o gave an age of the universe around 20 billion years; the larger values were closer to 10 billion years. Given this background, the current discrepancy of one billion years represents a marked improvement! Even without knowing the final answer, most scientists favored the smaller values of H_o because the ages of globular clusters were calculated around 15 billion years old.

Resolving the Current Discrepancy

NASA launched the Hubble Space Telescope in large part to resolve the discrepancies in the measurements of the universe’s expansion rate. After numerous years of work (and many other developments in cosmology), scientists published a value of H₀ = 72 ± 8 km/s/Mpc—more or less splitting the difference.⁴ Measurement improvements over the last two decades reduced the error bars from 8 to about 1.5. The current discrepancy in H₀ arises from a different way of making the measurement. Scientists can also use the ripples in the cosmic microwave background radiation to determine H₀, and this technique gives a value around 67 ± 0.7 km/s/Mpc. Again, the size of the error bars makes these two results irreconcilable. However, one should note that using the larger value to calculate an age for the universe gives something around 12.5 billion years (using “standard” cosmological parameters) but the oldest objects in the universe are more than 13 billion years old! This means that rather than making the universe younger, the discrepancy points to new physics that changes the standard cosmological parameters.

Why It Matters

It may seem that a one-billion-year discrepancy undermines the integrity and trustworthiness of the scientific enterprise. Perhaps it justifies skepticism over the validity of big bang cosmology. However, neither of these conclusions is correct. First, the discrepancy shows that our ability to measure the age of the universe and our confidence in the age has increased by a factor of 10 over the past 50 years. Second, in that time, we have also learned about dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and many other things that vastly improve our understanding of the origin and history of the universe. And that understanding continues to provide strong support for big bang cosmology. Third, because of how carefully scientists have tested each of the two discrepant results, scientists think the results give insight into new physics about how the universe ages. And scientists find that prospect exciting.

At this time of year, people everywhere celebrate the wonder of God sending his son to Earth to live, die, and be raised in order to redeem humans. Perhaps few think of the wonderful planet God created as a stage for his heavenly purposes. Two seemingly obscure events, the Hiawatha impactor and the Younger Dryas cooling event about 12,000 years ago, have made it possible for humans to live in an abnormally stable climate that launched the development of high-tech civilization.

In my blog of three weeks ago,¹ I explained how a recent reconstruction of temperature records from around the world revealed that the past 9,500 years of unprecedented climate stability at the optimal temperature for global high-technology civilization was actually twice as stable as what scientists had previously concluded. Two weeks ago,² I described how a breach in a gigantic lake of glacial meltwater sent a rush of cold, fresh water into the North Atlantic and brought about a 1,200-year-long global cooling event known as the Younger Dryas. In last week’s blog,³ I described the very recent discovery of a 31-kilometer-diameter impact crater 3,000 feet below the Hiawatha Greenland Ice Field that very likely explains both the breach in the gigantic lake and the Younger Dryas. In this blog, I will describe the most important past, present, and future blessings that the Hiawatha impactor and the Younger Dryas cooling event have brought to the human race.

An Exceptional Ice Age
Ice age cycles previous to the current one show a near continuous, rapid rise in global mean (average) temperature from the glacial to the interglacial period (see figure 1). Our cycle is the exception. The Younger Dryas (named after Dryas octopetala, a flower that grows in cold conditions) strongly interrupted the rapid warming of Earth (see figures 1 and 2). Evidently, it prevented the global mean temperature from rising to its normal maximum value.

Figure 1: Antarctic Temperature Record for the Past Four Ice Age Cycles
Temperatures are in °C relative to the average for AD 1900–1950. Image credit: Robert A. Rohde, Global Warming Art Project, CC-by-SA

Figure 2: Younger Dryas Cooling Event
The temperature figures represent the surface air temperature in the central region of Greenland’s ice sheet. The blue curve shows the newly determined temperature record of the past 9,500 years. The purple curve shows the temperature record from 16,500–9,500 years ago derived from oxygen-18 isotope measures in ice cores drilled in the central region of Greenland’s ice sheet. The two dotted lines delineate the start and end times of the Younger Dryas event. Data credit for blue curve: Shaun A. Marcott et al. and Andy May; data credit for purple curve: United States Geological Survey; diagram credit: Hugh Ross

During ice age cycles previous to the current one, the global mean temperature rose so high that all of the Arctic sea ice melted away, causing Arctic Ocean water to absorb much more heat from the Sun.¹ This extra heat absorption resulted in more Arctic Ocean water evaporating and falling as snow upon Canada, Greenland, and Siberia. (Yes, Canada, Greenland, and Siberia were much warmer than they are now, but not warm enough for the frozen precipitation to become liquid.) The resultant increased snow cover on these large landmasses reflected away so much sunlight that the global mean temperature quickly plummeted, sending Earth into a deep ice age.

The Younger Dryas dropped the global mean temperature so severely (by 15°C) and for so long (1,200 years) that the temperature rise from the last glacial stopped 3°C short of what had occurred in previous ice age cycles. This halting of the warming rise preserved the Arctic ice cap, much of the ice over Antarctica and Greenland, and the ice fields and glaciers over the high mountain ranges and the Tibetan Plateau.

Civilization Leaps
The halting of the temperature rise briefly stabilized the global mean climate. This brief climate stabilization for the first time in human history made possible the launch and rapid advance of civilization, technology, transportation, and trade. Specifically, the advent of extreme climate stability meant that humans could specialize and scale up their agricultural endeavors. For the first time, farmers could plant thousands of acres of wheat, for example, and count on such a bountiful harvest that they could trade their excess wheat for other food products and manufactured goods. Likewise, herders could domesticate thousands of goats and count on such a bountiful production of milk, cheese, meat, and leather that they could trade these goods for other food products and manufactured goods.

Also for the first time, a small fraction of the human population could produce all the food needed for the entire population. That allowed a large fraction of the human population to focus on science, engineering, manufacturing, literature, art, music, and philosophy (among other fields). A door opened for the possible development of global, high-technology civilization and the growth of the human population into the billions.

Decline in Earth’s Axis Tilt
The tilt of Earth’s rotation axis varies cyclically from 22.1° to 24.5° with a period of 41,000 years. The greater the tilt of Earth’s rotation axis the greater its effect on increasing the global mean temperature. Earth’s rotation axis tilt attained its maximum value 8,750 years ago.⁴ This maximal value is reflected in the new improved record of the past ten thousand years of Earth’s global mean temperature (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Reconstruction of the global mean temperature over the past 11,300 years. Temperature measurements are in °C. Data credit: Marcott et al. and Andy May; Diagram credit: Hugh Ross

If left to natural processes alone, the declining tilt of Earth’s rotation axis would have rapidly dropped the global mean temperature by 10–12°C. Instead, figure 3 shows that from 8,750 years ago until 70 years ago the global mean temperature slowly and steadily declined by only 1.1°C.

The reason for such gradual, tiny decline in global mean temperature and for the maintenance of extreme climate stability over an 8,700-year period of human history is that the cooling resulting from the declining tilt in Earth’s rotation axis was almost perfectly balanced by the warming caused by the gradual advance of human agricultural industry and civilization. The biggest factors were the domestication, breeding, and population growths of farm animals, the domestication of rice, and the conversion of forests into grass- and croplands.

Benefits of the Younger Dryas
The breeding and population growths in farm animals and the domestication of rice yielded a gradual increase in the quantities of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. The input of these powerful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere warmed our planet almost as much as the natural processes were cooling it. The result: a 9,500-year period of extreme climate stability at the optimal global mean temperature for human civilization and technology during a 2.588-million-year epoch characterized by the most extreme long-lasting climate instability Earth has ever experienced! Without this recent, long-lasting extreme climate stability held at the optimal temperature, our present civilization, technology, and population would be impossible.

The Younger Dryas cooling event, the decline in Earth’s rotation axis tilt, and the gradual advance of human agricultural industry produced another huge benefit. Instead of the ice fields and glaciers that reside in the mountain ranges and high plateaus of Earth either quickly melting and disappearing or rapidly expanding, they have been slowly melting. This slow melt has provided a steady flow of fresh liquid water to Earth’s great agricultural plains. Thanks to this melt we can efficiently produce enough food to feed 7.5 billion humans with a sufficiently small percentage of our population so that most of us can devote our labor to science, engineering, technology, literature, art, music, philosophy, philanthropy, and religion.

A minor benefit that was important to the Inuit peoples was the availability of high-quality stainless steel from the Cape York meteorite fragments. Long before they made contact with Europeans, the Inuit would travel to the Cape York meteorites, chip off pieces, and use cold forging techniques to fashion advanced tools.

More than the physical benefits we have accrued, however, the three features have endowed spiritual benefits. We now have the wealth, technology, transportation, and communication means to take the good news of salvation from our sin—through what the Creator of the universe has provided in his death and bodily resurrection—to billions of human beings in decades rather than millennia. As I mentioned in Improbable Planet, all we lack is the motivation.³

Thanks in large part to the Hiawatha impactor and the Younger Dryas our redemption draws nigh. As we celebrate the first coming of our Messiah and Redeemer this Christmas season, we have many more reasons to share the good news with relatives, friends, and associates of all the blessings our Messiah and Redeemer has offered us here in this life and in the life to come.

Featured image: South Manhattan: An Example of High-Technology Civilization
Image credit: Hugh Ross

Like many Americans, I receive a yearly physical. Even though I find these exams to be a bit of a nuisance, I recognize their importance. These annual checkups allow my doctor to get a read on my overall health.

An important part of any physical exam is blood work. Screening a patient’s blood for specific biomarkers gives physicians data that allows them to assess a patient’s risk for various diseases. For example, the blood levels of total cholesterol and the ratio of HDLs to LDLs serve as useful biomarkers for cardiovascular disease.

Figure 1: Cholesterol. Image credit: BorisTM. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cholesterol.svg.

As it turns out, physicians aren’t the only ones who use cholesterol as a diagnostic biomarker. So, too, do paleontologists. In fact, recently a team of paleontologists used cholesterol biomarkers to determine the identity of an enigmatic fossil recovered in Precambrian rock formations that dated to 588 million years in age.¹ This diagnosis was possible because they were able to extract low levels of cholesterol derivatives from the fossil. Based on the chemical profile of the extracts, researchers concluded that Dickinsonia specimens are the fossil remains of some of the oldest animals on Earth.

Without question, this finding has important implications for how we understand the origin and history of animal life on Earth. But young-earth creationists (YECs) think that this finding has important implications for another reason. They believe that the recovery of cholesterol derivatives from Dickinsonia provides compelling evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old and the fossil record results from a worldwide flood event. They argue that there is no way organic materials such as cholesterol could survive for hundreds of millions of years in the geological column. Consequently, they argue that the methods used to date fossils such as Dickinsonia must not be reliable, calling into question the age of the earth determined by radiometric techniques.

Is this claim valid? Is the recovery of cholesterol derivatives from fossils that date to hundreds of millions of years evidence for a young earth? Or can the recovery of cholesterol derivatives from 588 million-year-old fossils be explained in an old-earth paradigm?

How Can Cholesterol Derivatives Survive for Millions of Years?

Despite the protests of YECs, for several converging reasons the isolation of cholesterol derivatives from the Dickinsonia specimen is easily explained—even if the specimen dates to 588 million years in age.

• The research team did not recover high levels of cholesterol from the Dickinsonia specimen (which would be expected if the fossils were only 3,000 years old), but trace levels of cholestane (which would be expected if the fossils were hundreds of millions of years old). Cholestane is a chemical derivative of cholesterol that is produced when cholesterol undergoes diagenetic changes.

Figure 2: Cholestane. Image credit: Calvero. (Self-made with ChemDraw.) Public domain via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cholestane.svg.

• Cholestane is a chemically inert hydrocarbon that is expected to be stable for vast periods of time. In fact, geochemists have recovered steranes (other biomarkers) from rock formations that date to 2.8 billion years in age.
• The Dickinsonia specimens that yielded cholestanes were exceptionally well-preserved. Specifically, they were unearthed from the White Sea Cliffs in northwest Russia. This rock formation has escaped deep burial and geological heating, making it all the more reasonable that compounds such as cholestanes could survive for nearly 600 million years.

In short, the recovery of cholesterol derivatives from Dickinsonia does not reflect poorly on the health of the old-earth paradigm. When the chemical properties of cholesterol and cholestane are considered, and given the preservation conditions of the Dickinsonia specimens, the interpretation that these materials were recovered from 588-million-year-old fossil specimens passes the physical exam.

Resources

• Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth by Fazale Rana (book)
• “What Dinosaur Soft Tissue Says about the Earth’s Age” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Does Dinosaur Tissue Challenge Evolutionary Timescales? A Response to Kevin Anderson, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Does Dinosaur Tissue Challenge Evolutionary Timescales? A Response to Kevin Anderson, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Does the Recovery of Oils from a Fossilized Bird Evince a Young Earth?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Can Keratin in Feathers Survive for Millions of Years?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Science News Flash: An Old-Earth Perspective on Dinosaur Feathers Preserved in Amber” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Does Radiocarbon Dating Prove a Young Earth: A Response to Vernon R. Cupps” by Fazale Rana (article)

Featured image: Dickinsonia Costata. Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DickinsoniaCostata.jpg.

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

–Acts 17:11

Is there scientific evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

In spite of the valiant efforts of young-earth creationists (YECs), I have yet to come across any compelling scientific arguments that the earth is only a few thousand years old. At least not until I learned about the numerous discoveries of soft-tissue remnants associated with fossils that date to several hundred million years in age, in some instances. (For a detailed survey of the soft tissues recovered from the fossil record, check out my book, Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth.) These discoveries give me some pause for thought about the age-of-the-earth measurements.

These types of discoveries generate a lot of excitement among paleontologists. Having access to soft-tissue materials provides the scientific community with inspiring new insights into the biology of these ancient creatures.

They also create a lot of excitement for YECs, because the findings suggest to them that the geologists’ dating methods are unreliable. Before these discoveries, very few scientists would have ever thought that soft-tissue materials could survive in the geological layers for thousands—let alone hundreds of millions—of years because of unrelenting decomposition processes. And yet, the number of soft-tissue fossil discoveries continues to mount. For example, investigators from the UK, the US, and Germany recently reported on the recovery of endogenous oils from the fossilized uropygial gland of a bird specimen that dates to 48 million years in age.¹ I will take a closer look at what they found after a bit of explanation to show why it is critical to understand such a discovery.

For YECs, the isolation of soft-tissue materials from fossils indicates that the fossils cannot be millions of years old but, at best, only a few thousand years old—and most likely deposited by a catastrophic worldwide flood. They reason that if the fossils are only a few thousand years old, then the methods used to age-date the fossils must be faulty. That being the case, then the same methods used to date the earth, too, must be flawed.

As an old-earth creationist, I must admit the discovery of soft-tissue materials associated with fossils represents one of the most interesting arguments for a young earth I’ve encountered. On the surface, the argument seems reasonable. Perhaps it isn’t surprising that many YEC organizations (such as Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and the Institute for Creation Research) have elevated the existence of soft tissue materials in the fossil record to one of their central arguments for a young earth. I observe many well-meaning Christians following suit, using this same argument in their efforts to convince seekers and skeptics about the scientific reliability of the Genesis 1 creation account. Unfortunately, most people who are scientifically minded fail to find this argument persuasive because of the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating. And as a result, skeptics are often driven further away from the Christian faith.

When using scientific discoveries to demonstrate God’s existence and to defend the reliability of the biblical creation accounts, it is critical to adopt a posture like that of the Bereans. It is incumbent on all of us to investigate or “examine” on our own to ensure the arguments we use are sound.

That’s why I wrote Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth. In this book, I make every effort to take the soft-tissue argument seriously. But, following the Bereans’ example, I thoroughly examine each premise of their argument to see if it holds up to scrutiny, including their central claim: soft-tissue materials cannot persist in fossils that are millions of years old.

Though admittedly counterintuitive, after thorough investigation into this claim, I have come to believe that soft-tissue remnants can survive in the fossil record. To illustrate how this survival is possible, let’s use the recently discovered 48-million-year preening oil isolated, fossilized uropygial gland as a case study.

Discovery of Preening Oil in a 48-Million-Year-Old Fossilized Gland

The 48-million-year-old fossil bird specimen that possessed uropygial gland oils was recovered from the Messel Pit. Located in Darmstadt, Germany, this UNESCO World Heritage site has yielded a number of important vertebrate fossils throughout its history and still serves as a source of exciting new fossil discoveries today.

While carefully examining this bird specimen (which still remains unclassified), the paleontologists noted the outline of the uropygial gland at the base of the tail region. To confirm this interpretation, the researchers attempted to extract remnants of preening oil from this putative gland. Motivated by previous soft-tissue finds and the discovery of lipids (a class of biomolecules that include oils) in other ancient geological deposits, the research team removed milligram amounts of the fossilized uropygial gland from the specimen and extracted material from the sample. Afterward, they subjected the extracts to chemical analysis, relying on a technique known as pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Analysis with this technique begins with a heating step that decomposes the analytes into small molecular fragments that, in turn, are separated by gas chromatography and then analyzed by mass spectrometry. This technique produces profiles of molecular fragments that serve as a fingerprint, helping scientists determine the identity of compounds in the sample.

The research team detected C-8 to C-30 n-alkanes, n-alkenes, and alkylbenzenes in the uropygial gland extracted—as expected if the fossil contained remnants for preening oil. The profiles of the fossilized uropygial gland extracts differed from the profiles of extracts taken from shales that make up the geological layer that originally housed the fossil specimen. This result indicates that the uropygial gland extracts are not due to contamination from the surrounding geological layers. When the researchers compared the extracts of the fossilized glands to extracts of uropygial glands of extant birds (such as the common blackbird, the ringed teal, and the middle spotted woodpecker), they noted a difference in the profiles. This difference most likely reflects chemical alteration of the original preening oil during the fossilization process.

How the Preening Oil Was Preserved

So how can soft tissue material, such as preening oil, persist in fossils for millions and millions of years?

In Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth, I point out that paleontologists believe that soft-tissue preservation reflects a race between two competing processes: decomposition and mineral entombment. If mineral entombment wins, then whatever soft tissue that has avoided decomposition remains behind—for millions and millions of years. Once encased in mineral deposits, soft-tissue materials become isolated and protected from the environment, arresting the decomposition processes that would otherwise destroy them.

Anything that slows down the rate of decomposition will help soft-tissue materials to hang around long enough for mineral entombment to take place. One factor contributing to soft-tissue survival is the structural durability of the molecules that make up the soft tissues. In most instances, the soft tissues that survive are made up of highly durable materials. Toward this end, some of the components of preening oil (such as long chain alkanes) are chemically inert, making them resistant to chemical decomposition.

Though usually destructive, in some instances chemical reactivity can contribute to soft-tissue survival. This reactivity likely contributed to the survival of the preening oil. The team of paleontologists believes that the alkene components of the preening oils reacted to form high-molecular-weight polymers that, in turn, became resistant to chemical decomposition.

While not subject to chemical decomposition, long chain hydrocarbons would serve as an ideal food source for microbes in the environment. This process would work against preservation. But, microbial decomposition of preening oil is unlikely, because some of the components of the uropygial gland secretions possess antimicrobial activities.

Also, the shale that harbored the fossil bird is oxygen-depleted. The absence of oxygen in this geological setting most likely contributed to soft-tissue survival, preventing oxidative decomposition of the preening oil.

In other words, there are several collective mechanisms in play that would stave off the decomposition of the original preening oil, though it does look as if the original material did become chemically altered. The bottom line: There is no reason to think that soft-tissue materials derived from the original preening oil in the uropygial glands could not persist for 48 million years or longer in the fossil record.

At first glance, the soft-tissue argument for a young earth seems so compelling. Yet, when carefully evaluated (“examined”), it simply doesn’t hold up.

Becoming Bereans

As Christians, we should expect that there will be scientific discoveries that affirm our faith by revealing God’s fingerprints in nature and by supporting the creation accounts found in Scripture. Key biblical passages (such as Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20) teach this much. Yet, we must also recognize that as human beings interpreting nature (through science) and interpreting Scripture can be complex undertakings. As such, we can make mistakes. We are fallen creatures, we have limited knowledge, insight, and understanding, and we have preconceived notions . . . all of which influence our interpretations. And, it is for these reasons that we must all operate like the Bereans. We should respond to scientific arguments for the Christian faith with eagerness, but before we use them, we must rigorously evaluate them to ensure their validity and, if valid, to understand the arguments’ limitations. Sincere, well-meaning Christians can be wrong and can unintentionally mislead other Christians. But, when that happens it is our fault, not theirs, if we are mislead because we have failed to take the “noble,” Berean-like approach and do our homework.

Resources to Dig Deeper

• Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth by Fazale Rana (book)
• “Does Dinosaur Tissue Challenge Evolutionary Timescales? A Response to Kevin Anderson, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Does Dinosaur Tissue Challenge Evolutionary Timescales? A Response to Kevin Anderson, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)

In my experience, one of the most persuasive scientific claims for a young Earth is the detection of carbon-14 in geological samples such as coal and fossilized dinosaur remains.¹ According to young-earth creationists (YECs), if the coal samples and fossils are truly millions of years old (as the scientific community claims), then there shouldn’t be any trace of carbon-14 in these samples. Why? It’s because the half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, meaning that all the detectable carbon-14 should have disappeared from the samples long before they reach even 100,000 years of age.

In Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth, I respond to this young-earth argument, suggesting three mechanisms that can account for carbon-14 in fossil remains (and by extension, in geological materials) from an old-earth perspective.

When YECs detect carbon-14, they find it at low levels, corresponding to age dates older than 30,000 years (not 3,000 to 6,000 years old, as their model predicts, by the way). These low levels make it reasonable to think that some of the carbon-14 signal comes from contamination of the sample by, say, microorganisms picked up from the environment.

These low levels also make it conceivable that some of the detected carbon-14 is due to a ubiquitous carbon-14 background. Cosmic rays are continuously producing radiocarbon from nitrogen-14. Because of this nonstop production, carbon-14 is everywhere and will show up at extremely low levels in any measurement that is made, even if it isn’t present in the actual sample.

It is also possible that some of the carbon-14 in the fossil and coal samples arises from the in situ conversion of nitrogen-14 to carbon-14 driven by the decay of radioactive elements in the environment. Because fossils and coal derive from once-living organisms, there will be plenty of nitrogen-14 contained in these specimens. For example, environmental uranium and thorium would readily infuse into the interiors of fossils, and as these elements decay, the high energy they release will convert nitrogen-14 to carbon-14.

Employing a “back-of-the-envelope” flux analysis, Vernon Cupps—a YEC affiliated with the Institute of Creation Research—has challenged my assessment, concluding that neither (1) the production of carbon-14 from cosmic radiation nor (2) the decay of radioactive isotopes in the environment is sufficient to account for the carbon-14 detected in fossil and geological samples.²

Though I think his analysis may be unrealistically simplistic, let’s assume Cupps’s calculations are correct. He still misses my point. In Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth, I argue that all three possible sources simultaneously contribute to the detectable carbon-14. In other words, while no single source may fully account for the detectable carbon-14, when combined, all three can. Cupps’s analysis neglects the contribution of the ubiquitous background carbon-14 and possible sources of contamination from the environment.

Ironically, the low levels of carbon-14 detected in fossils and geological specimens by YECs actually argue against a young Earth, not an old Earth.

How can that be?

If fossil and geological specimens are between 3,000 and 6,000 years old, then somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of the original carbon-14 should remain in the sample. This amount of material should generate a strong carbon-14 signal. The fact that these specimens all age-date to 30,000 to 45,000 years old means that less than 2 percent of the original carbon-14 remains in these samples—if the results of this measurement are taken at face value. It becomes difficult to explain this result if these samples are less than 6,000 years old. On the other hand, the weak carbon-14 signal measured by YECs does make sense if carbon-14 does not reflect the material originally in the sample, but instead stems from a combination of (1) contamination from the environment, (2) ubiquitous background radiocarbon, and/or (3) irradiation of the samples by isotopes such as uranium or thorium in the environment.

To put it plainly, it is difficult to reconcile the carbon-14 measurements made by YECs with fossil and geological samples that are 3,000 to 6,000 years old, Cupps’s analysis notwithstanding.

On the other hand, an old-earth perspective has the explanatory power to account for the low levels of carbon-14 associated with fossils and other geological samples.

Resources

• Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth by Fazale Rana (book)
• “Does Dinosaur Tissue Challenge Evolutionary Timescales? A Response to Kevin Anderson, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Does Dinosaur Tissue Challenge Evolutionary Timescales? A Response to Kevin Anderson, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)

This TNRTB was originally published in August 2011, but we are reposting it because of its relevancy today.

One of the most provocative pieces of evidence young-earth creationists cite for a 6,000- to 10,000-year-old Earth is the discovery of soft-tissue remains in a dinosaur specimen that dates around 68 million years old.

In recent years, researchers have found (1) epithelial cell and osteoclast remnants, (2) the remains of blood vessels, and (3) heme and hemoglobin components in the partially fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur. More recently, scientists recovered fragments of the protein collagen from this specimen as well.

John Morris, a young-earth proponent from the Institute of Creation Research, writes: