Is it Illegal to Push Critical Deep Time Theory?

Given our current environment of extreme net censorship and severe lockdown restrictions putting liberty itself on the edge, will the next victim be Young Earth Theory Intelligence (YETI)?  If you search "scientific and historical evidence for a young earth thousands of years" on Yandex you may get a Quora item as the fifth result as I did:

My answer is the 2nd in the Quora list:

So, as of now, it is possible to find the true truth on the web, but what about standard academic journals?  Taylor & Francis publishes more than 2,700 journals and 5K plus new books each year.  They publish a journal about proteins:

Last year they published a paper on "Proteomes of the past: the pursuit of proteins in paleontology" which had this to say:

 

Despite an extensive published literature [85 examples are documented],  skepticism over the claim of original biochemicals including proteins preserved in the fossil record persists and the issue remains controversial.  Workers using many different techniques including mass spectrometry, X-ray, electron microscopy and optical spectroscopic techniques, have attempted to verify proteinaceous or other biochemicals that appear endogenous to fossils found throughout the geologic column.

 

Let me provide some focus - proteins break down relatively fast, so we should not find them in fossils that are allegedly M's of years old.  Proteins have been found in a 150M year old Seismosaurus from the Morrison formation (New Mexico).[1]  Writing in Nature online, Ed Yong states that, “Theoretical predictions and lab experiments suggest that proteins cannot survive for more than a few million years.”[2]

 

We have written two books defending a youthful world via science and history:

  Is a Young EarthPossible?

  YES - Young EarthScience.

 

My website:  https://totalyouth.us/

Let us know what you think:  YoungEarthScience@yahoo.com

 

 

Notes:

1) YES - Young Earth Science by Jay Hall (IDEAS, Big Spring, TX, 2014), p. 18.

2) quoted in Ibid., p. 19.

500 year old Grandpas, Bats from Rats & Net Censorship (1984 stylee mon)

In our latest book Is a Young Earth Possible?, which defends a youthful world from history and science, we looked at the Sumerian King List.  This details the reigns of several kings, which if we convert them from sexagesimal to decimal we obtain a sum of around 7,000 years.  This makes the reigns of some kings around 800 years - is that reasonable?  In a June article from the Wall Street Journal, Adam Kirsch makes this fantastic revelation:           

 

It sounds bitterly ironic now, in the midst of a global pandemic, but not long ago some of the most forward-looking people in the world believed that humanity was close to abolishing death. “If you ask me today, is it possible to live to be 500? The answer is yes,” said Bill Maris, the founder of Google Ventures, in 2015. Three years later, biomedical researcher Aubrey de Grey estimated that “people in middle age now have a fair chance” of never dying.

 

How does this relate to a young earth?  If man's early history only goes back a few thousand years, maybe humanity is young and the earth is as well.

 

"Why Bats Are One of Evolution’s Greatest Puzzles" appeared in the Smithsonian mag earlier this year.  Bats are the only flying mammals (sorry Rocky) and allegedly filled the skies for tens of millions of years.  In 2008, the bat Onychonycteris finneryi was found and dated at 52M.  We read this from the article: 

 

The 50-million-year-old bat specimens are already recognizable as bats, so where did they come from? When, where, why and how the first bats become airborne is another mystery buried by Deep Time.

 

Now there is much evidence challenging Deep Time and Molecules-to-Madonna transformation.  How should the academic elites respond?  With open dialog, discussion and debate?  No ... let's go with censorship (1984 anyone?).  A piece in March from BioEssays written by Dave Speijer, advocates just that: 

 

My favorite Thomas Paine quote: “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself,” eloquently explains why I am not a great fan of taking down websites.  Only the most egregious ones .. should be treated thus.  ...search engines could have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content ...

 

Speijer quotes Thomas Paine, the American Patriot who wrote Common Sense,  and then flatly contradicts him.  The First Amendment enforces real Free Speech and Ben Franklin was no book burner.  Speijer should read Unfreedom of the Press which gives the nitty-gritty on self-censorship, America's journalistic heritage, group-think, bias by omission, propaganda and pseudo-events.  Free Speech anyone?

Obama, Free Speech and banning a Young Earth

President Barack Obama had this to say about free speech:  "I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming; I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect ..."  Kudos to Obama for supporting the First Amendment!  However, if Young Earth Science (YES) is true, then Darwinism in all its many splendored forms must be tossed out.  In addition,  there are sufficient scientific reasons for rejecting the "climate disruption" movement.  Writing in 2016, Anthony Fisher provided this keen summary of Obama's thoughts on free speech:

For the better part of the past year, President Obama has repeatedly beaten this drum. He decried "militant political correctness" on college campuses as a "a recipe for dogmatism" in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous.  He told a high school student in Iowa that he didn't believe young people needed to be "coddled and protected from different points of view."  In an interview with NPR, Obama said, "unwillingness to hear other points of view can be as unhealthy on the left as on the right."

A startling law proposed in California (AB 2943) could lead to the banning of Bibles according to a CBN News report.  You can read the law yourself - note Section 1 point "r" in the light of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Is there a chance that the young earth view will eventually be banned in the USA?  Recall that during the Obama administration organizations seeking tax-exempt status associated with the Tea Party, “Patriots,” criticizing the government or Constitutionalists were subject to extreme scrutiny by the IRS. 

What about so-called “net neutrality?”  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) attempted to control the Net in 2010 making an analogy with the AT&T phone monopoly we suffered under during most of the last century.  In 2014, courts struck down this push.

Now let's consider some of the evidence for a youthful world.  Chemist Melvin Cook (d. 2000) was an explosives expert in the mining field.  He was a Nitro-Nobel recipient and won the Chemical Pioneer Award from the American Institute of Chemists.  Cook was a Professor of Metallurgy at the University of Utah and published around 200 scientific papers.  His groundbreaking Prehistory and Earth Models was published in 1966 (I own a signed copy).

According to Cook, high oil pressure is consistent with YES:  "... there are really no completely impervious traps [e.g. anticline trap]; abnormal and abnormally high pressures can thus only mean sudden deep burial not long ago." [1]

Let's continue with the oil theme.  Crude contains porphyrins which as William Low Russell explains, writing in Principles of Petroleum Geology (McGraw-Hill),  "... are complex organic substances related to chlorophyll and hemoglobin, which are destroyed by oxygen and heat."  Rapid catastrophic burial would protect them from oxygen and if most rocks were formed quickly, this poses a challenge for the standard geologic timescale.  This mainstream source admits that the source beds for oil deposits were formed quickly (see p. 11).  Could it be that these porphyrins in oil were protected from heat for millions of years?  We think not.  Let us know your opinion ==> YoungEarthScience@yahoo.com    

Note:

1) Scientific Prehistory by Melvin Cook (Family History Pub., Bountiful, UT, 1993), p. 168.