Did you know that secular scientists have found bacteria in 250 million year old salt.?

No big deal right. Except that bacteria can't live that long .

Thus disproving that the Earth is millions of years old.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I do not understand why that disproves that the Earth is millions of years old. Surely the bacteria could have gotten into the salt at some other time. Also, you yourself have stated that the salt was 250 milliion years old. Are you of the view that the salt is older than the earth or that age of the salt was incorrect? Perhaps your thinking is deeply flawed?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    'Secular scientists'??? As opposed to what?

    So your proof that the Earth cannot possibly be millions of years old is that the salt these bacteria were found in is 250 million years old???

    Do you not see a fault in your logic there?

    I can see a few potential explanations:

    1 - The bacteria found in the salt are not as old as the salt itself. The building I'm currently sitting in was built in the 1930s. That doesn't mean I'm 70 years old.

    2 - Bacteria live longer than you think. Without proof that bacteria cannot live that long, you cannot make a statement like 'bacteria can't live that long'.

    3 - The dating of the salt is inaccurate. Perhaps the salt is not 250 million years old. That doesn't mean that the Earth is not billions of years old. It just means that one date of a salt sample was inaccurate. If I mistakenly date the construction of my building to the 1930s, when it was actually built in the 1960s, it doesn't mean that Canada wasn't founded in 1867. Those are totally separate events.

    4 - The whole thing is fabricated. There were no 'secular scientists', there were no bacteria found in salt, and there was no date of 250 million years given for the salt. This one seems most likely to me.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, I did know that scientist found bacteria in a 250 million year old salt crystal.

    Actually the bacteria is trapped in a fluid inclusion, the method of recovery is contamination proof. Nevertheless, the nature of the fluid inclusion is of probable secondary origin, not primary as it would be ideal. Even though the chemistry of the fluid inclusion does not suggest contamination (of a younger event), the big size and isolated nature of the fluid inclusion, and the fact that they have not been able to reproduce their results are not good signs for the claim of that article.

    You are right in that this finding has make biologist to be skeptic about how long it can a bacteria survive. This fact has motivated some of the scientist involved in that project to start to study this issue, independently.

    So far they have been successful in reviving bacteria trapped in primary fluid inclusions of up to 100,000 years and in a reproducible way. This is an ongoing effort and they are trying to revive bacteria of 1 million year old and even older. So I am confident that this issue is going to be resolved scientifically in about 5 years or so.

    But, we still don't know how long a bacteria can survive, but as I said we are studying it right now.

    Nevertheless, you are absolutely wrong thinking that because this study is wrong (which we don't know that yet, we only know it has not been prove either way) the age of the earth can not be that old. We know the age of the earth based on completely independent evidence.

    We have been able to revive bacteria of 100,000 years but we are not saying that the bible is wrong, we care about science and finding the truth. I leave the bible and faith to the people that has been "blessed" with faith, as the bible says: Give the Caesar what belongs to the Caesar and God what belongs to God. In other words, leave science to scientists and faith to the priests and the people with faith.

    Some last words,

    Did you know that in meteorites (of 4.4 billion years) has been found salt crystals that contain fluid inclusions?

    That is exciting, it may have or more likely may have not bacteria trapped in that fluid inclusion, but this is just a fascinating topic.

    Thanks, for bringing this up.

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Your belief that they couldn't live that long must be flawed or the bacteria are alive or simply preserved. I am a geologist and I could give you a thousand reason why the Earth is Billions, not millions of years old. If you believe something, it should be able to explain everything. I don't know the source of story. Do you understand how the salt formed, where it came from. Was a it a salt dome, and intruding upward. Do you realize the time that it would take to form such structures. I guarantee you it is not thousands of years.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    By the way, that does not disprove that the earth is millions of years old. The scientific consensus is that it is BILLIONS of years old and the evidence is widespread throughout countless disciplines of science, WITH NO SERIOUS DOUBTS EVER CONVINCINGLY DEMONSTRATED. They actually recently discovered a life form in deep sea vents that is 3.5 billion years old. I agree 100% with scientist..., his answer nailed it. Actual life, not just rocks, that are 3.5 billion years old on earth is a significant discovery. If you want to see how science works firsthand, go to http://www.pysorg.com/news85672645.html. Though the title says it turns a scientific theory on its head, it does not refute evolution or the established age of the earth. It merely establishes mammals in New Zealand much earlier that thought, one way science refines itself to represent reality. It was published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science" a peer-reviewed journal.

    "A master can tell you what he expects of you. A teacher, though, awakens your own expectations." The more you learn, the more beauty and majesty you see, without resorting to blind dogma. By the way, not all scientists are secular, they are out there to find the truth and bring understanding and comprehension to the world. Some like nothing more than to try and disprove anothers' research. A consensus is built that withstands further scrutiny and a theory becomes established fact. Evolution is only still called a theory because it can't be proved in the same way as a mathematical theorum. That is a limitation of semantics, not science.

  • 1 decade ago

    Couldn't the bacteria "move into" the salt more recently??

  • 1 decade ago

    unless it is post-contamination

  • Mystro
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    - Oh.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.