Unfossilized Dinosaur Tissue: When Science Contradicts Evolution Dogma

By Bob Ellis on May 11th, 2009

Sue, the Tyrannosaurus rex in Faith, South Dakota

Sue, the Tyrannosaurus rex in Faith, South Dakota

What are the odds blood cells, blood vessels and collagen could survive for 65 million years?

Under most conditions, scientists would answer with an unequivocal, “No way!”  But when the question involves a dinosaur fossil some claim is 65 million years old…and which contains these blood materials including hemoglobin and collagen, suddenly the answer gets much more murky.

Since when did “science” become so shifting and unsettled?

A recent article from Carl Wieland at Creation Ministries International examines the case of a tyrannosaurus rex fossil found in 1990 which was taken to the Montana State University lab for examination.

Remarkably, evolutionist Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her team found parts inside a long leg bone that were not completely fossilized.

Creation Ministries International quotes Dr. Schweitzer on her find:

“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!’”

Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, “So far, we haven’t been able to.”

The skeptical evolutionists compiled considerable evidence that they had indeed found hemoglobin in the dinosaur bone:

  • The tissue was coloured reddish brown, the colour of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
  • Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.
  • Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modem heme compounds.
  • To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.

The problem here is that (under most circumstances) most scientists would agree that complex protein molecules–even if hermetically sealed–should break down long before 65 million years had passed.

So, in the “objective” manner common with evolutionary scientists who are so “open minded” that they cannot possibly consider the slightest chance that they could be wrong, many skeptics set out to construct a framework of reality in which this find could be explained away, retaining the theoretical construct of millions of years of evolution.

Even though it was reported in 2007 that Schweitzer’s team had managed to  sequence the collagen, evolutionists were not ready to revise their worldview.

In 2008 evolutionists came up with an idea to explain this discrepancy involving bacterial formation of biofilms which mimic actual blood vessels and framboids which mimic blood cells (have you ever noticed how the most obvious answer is never acceptable if it contradicts the evolution worldview?  that new and increasingly unsubstantiated theories are required to hide the nakedness of the theory of evolution?).

But now Dr. Schweitzer and her colleagues have published additional evidence in the journal Science which reinforces her previous findings.

This time a hadrosaur estimated by evolutionists at 80 million years old contained the same soft unfossilized tissues.  They used a new mass spectrometer and sent samples to two other labs. This time tests revealed not only collagen but two other proteins: elastin and laminin. They again found structures “coincidentally” resembling blood cells and hemoglobin.

Hmmmm.  Now let’s take a closer look at the worldviews and “objectivity” involved here.  Typically, when someone finds evidence which apparently contradicts their assumptions, they modify their assumptions accordingly.  Not so with “objective” evolutionists who rely only on firmly established and thoroughly tested “science.”

Creation Ministries International outlines the circular reasoning of these evolutionists:

  1. We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.
  2. Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.
  3. Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:
  4. There must be a mistaken assumption in the calculations mentioned in Point 2)—though we don’t know for sure how, collagen must be able to survive for 80 million years. How do we know that? Because
  5. We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.

Notice the joining of the circle between #1 and #5?

Think about it: if we can test with observational science that collagen could not survive for 80 million years, and we find surviving collagen in a situation we thought indicated it was 80 million years old (based on assumptions, not observational science), does it not stand to reason that the observational scientific evidence would trump the assumptions?  And in this case, indicate that there is something seriously wrong with our assumption that these dinosaurs are 65-80 million years old?

Don’t get me wrong.  I once believed pretty confidently in evolution theory…because I was largely ignorant about its insurmountable flaws, and ignorant to the fact that there were other scientifically viable theories which actually better fit the evidence.

Accordingly, when I found out about these things, I adjusted my beliefs about the origins of life and the universe.  As Lord John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?”

Some folks, however, are either so invested in being viewed as always right, or so ideologically invested in what they hope is right about origins, that they hold fast to a sinking theory even in the face of contradictory evidence.

People across the world have understandably placed a lot of faith in academia and the scientific world to provide accurate, reliable information upon which to formulate their own opinions. Unfortunately, the theological and ideological bias of many in academia and science have led them to deceive the public.

Not only is evolution painted as beyond question and totally settled in the media and pop culture, it is also presented this way in the public schools which teach our children.  And worse, many of the textbooks used not only paint a glossy picture in favor of evolution theory, they contain outright errors, many of which have been exposed as errors for decades if not more than 100 years (see video below).

Is this an accident that, after all these decades, these textbooks continue to be printed with scientific errors?   Could such an “oversight” continue so widely for so long?  Or is it a “helpful” oversight which aids in maintaining the illusion of reliability for a shaky theory which grows more obsolete with each passing year?

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , , ,

  • steven riley
    I thought that the comment by DCM was informative when he said he wouldn't 'want to' believe in something so badly that he would try to 'convince himself' of it. I dont find that to be a motive at all. I assure you I would rather believe in eternal bliss rather than existence ending with death. There is no a priori desire or ' want to' for me to want to believe such a terrifying thing. I cant speak for those I dont know and either can you, but my nonbeliever friends all echo the same sentiment
  • The thing is, "eternal bliss" doesn't await someone who has refused to conform to God's standard, but eternal suffering. That's the part many atheists and evolutionists find more pleasant to ignore with unfounded hopes of a reality where God didn't create the universe. Being eaten by worms after you're unconsciously dead looks pretty attractive when compared to the alternative...
  • Bob Strauss
  • Yes, Bob, and you've taken the same myopic, truth-avoiding avenue as most evolutionists.

    You said, "Our knowledge about the long-term survival of protein is based on...well, it's only in the last few years that scientists have even begun to grapple with this issue, so of course working theories are bound to change." Really? Then why is evolution presented as established fact, when what we believe about it could change, too? Are you saying that we could be wrong about what we know of collagen...but we couldn't possibly be wrong about the likelihood of the theory of evolution? Such supposition is either very foolish or very arrogant...or both. According to the evolutionist mindset, we also couldn't possibly be wrong about the existence of God, either. See how assumptions and reality is a one-way street in the typical evolutionist mind?

    The most compelling argument against these findings that you made in your response was the geological column, sediments etc....and what evolutionists claim to know about these are, um, again based on assumptions.

    For some reason (perhaps an ideological or theological one) most evolutionists find it almost impossible to separate assumptions from observational science.

    Sorry, Bob, but it's back to the drawing board if you really want to try and refute these compelling findings.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Macrophages are a type of cell in the body that take in foreign material and destroy it before harm is done. They have a certain life cycle, then degrade. Recent markers have been put on them for a reason other than to study their life cycle. They discovered that a protein that once had been thought to degrade very early in the macrophages life actually remained after the macrophage life cycle ended. They are now trying to figure out how this protein survives after the macrophage normal life cycle. They are NOT trying to reconstruct the life cycle of the macrophage. Because you personally believe that dinosaurs arent 65 million years old, doesnt mean science should. I would suugest that those who believe as you get busy and do some more research. Are there some presenting research now that supports your beliefs? Yes. They need more.Mounds more . You keep hoping that every anomaly in science means all previous theories are wrong and it does happen that way. But usually its the anomaly that is explained. I bet dr. theo knows this when he gets a lab test back and it doesnt make sense. You dont throw the lab machine away first, you repeat the test or try and figure out why that one test was abnormal
  • Yes, there always seems to be a convenient "Yeah, but maybe this could have happened to explain..." for every problem evolution theory encounters...only the "maybe" part is usually left out, with the new theory presented as fact. Gets a little old after a while.

    Can those proteins survive for 65 million years after the macrophage dies? One million? One hundred? If not, we're still talking SWAG here, at best. And I think we both know SWAGs are anything but scientific, with the WAG part being 90% of the subject in question.

    To bounce something back to you, just because you believe dinosaurs are 65-80 million years old doesn't believe science should assume they are as well.

    That "assumptions vs. observed science" is a tough nut to get a handle on, isn't it?
  • Steven Riley
    No the assumptions vs observed science isnt hard to get a handle on at all. Science just calls these assumptions of yours hypotheses and then sets about trying to see if they are valid. The most important thing science demands is that anything in science CAN be disproven, which is why your desire to incorporate the supernatural with science will not fly. My view states I can be proved wrong and your view says the opposite.
  • I believe the principle that your are trying to describe, Mr. Riley, is 'falsifiability.' That is, a valid hypothesis must be falsifiable, or be stated in a way that if such and such are not true then the theory is not valid. If I theorize that water will always run down hill, then only one instance of water running up hill falsifies the theory. The theory is falsifiable. If I theorize that water will always run down hill except under some unspecified conditions, that theory is not falsifiable and thus not valid.

    That is exactly the situation with the theory of evolution. Evolutionists cannot tell us what it would take to cause them to abandon the theory. Eoliths (evidence of man existing alongside the dinosaurs)? Nope. How about human foot prints along side of dinosaurs? No way. How about hemoglobin and collagen molecules intact in T. rex fossils? Uh-uh, not gonna happen. You get my point. No evidence is going to shake the Darwinists and that makes the theory non-falsifiable and thus not valid.

    You might argue that Christians hold tenaciously to their beliefs even when evidence seemingly to the contrary emerges and that is true. But we are not hanging everything we believe on science. Ours is a deep faith, which cannot be undermined. Yes, that makes it unfalsifiable. But I'm not claiming that my beliefs are "scientific."
  • If something can be disproven, then it must be true? So since the earth's orbit around the sun is a scientific principle, it must be possible to disprove that the earth orbits the sun in order for that principle to meet the definition of "science"?

    Now I grasp why the seeming illogic of so many evolutionists never made sense to me: I was under the mistaken belief that something proved was usually accepted to be true, and something disproved was generally accepted to be false. What was I thinkin'?

    Seriously, though. Either you stated the point you were trying to make badly, or I'm really missing something (I think I know what you're getting at, but I'd like for you to say it and confirm it for me). I just couldn't resist having a little fun; I hope you'll forgive me and not hold it too strongly against me. :-)
  • Steven Riley
    Humor always accepted and appreciated and needed, but your not going to believe this one. Your example of the earth in your first paragraph is exactly right as far as the definition of science is concerned. YOU GOT IT.

    If it's not possible to disprove that the earth revolves around the sun, then the scientific principle that says the earth does revolve around the sun......isnt science !!!! It may be true, but it ain't science !! Gosh, it's a wonderful world.
  • Like I said, no wonder modern "science" makes no sense. :-)

    Earth's orbit around the sun (something we can observe) isn't "science" but the assertion that these dinosaurs are 65-80 million years old (when we didn't observe them live or die, nor did we observe the deposition of soil on top of them, and have no verifiable record documenting these events) IS supposed to be science?

    Evolutionists tie themselves into logical knots in an effort to manufacture even the facade of a foundation for their theological beliefs.
  • Steven Riley
    It is correct to say that earths orbit around the sun is not science. But the physics, astronomy and mathematical principles that prove it are ! By the way, we cant observe the orbit either, but through science can draw a pretty good conclusion that it is true.

    Quite a few things in science cant be directly ' observed '-gravuty, the sodium-potassium cell pump etc. but science makes sense of how they function.

    direct observation is preferable, but usually indirect means means are required. Fossila do give us direct observation that a dinosaur once lived and indirect evidence accepted by most people reveals they lived millions of years ago. Thats more than we can say about our great, great , great, great , great grandparents. Most of us cant find any direct or indirect observational evidence that they existed.

    The ' obsevation' argument is bogus. Also the scientists that study dinosaurs are called Paleontologists, Archaeologists etc. and not evolutionists.They dont get their degree and then get up every morning thinking " what can I do today that will fool the layperson into believeing evolution is true"
  • Do you realize how disingenuous that is to tout the ostensibly incontrovertible nature of science on one hand, while diminishing the observational element of good science on the other? And how even more disingenuous it is to say "observation doesn't matter" when it comes to "science," but to utterly reject any serious discussion about God or an intelligent designer because "Oh, we can't see him, so he can't be real"?

    That's part of the hypocritical double-standard I've been talking about for a long time...and as usual, you've proven that most evolutionists are totally oblivious to it.

    Also characteristic of evolutionists willful blindness are the same kind of word games you play with "paleontologists" and "evolutionists." Are you denying that many paleontologists (and archaeologists) believe in evolution theory? Certainly you won't resort to such an absurd claim.

    Back to something with just a bit more substance relative to the main subject, however, you got close to stumbling over a relevant truth when you said, "Fossila do give us direct observation that a dinosaur once lived and indirect evidence accepted by most people reveals they lived millions of years ago."

    From where does that "indirect evidence" regarding age come? From almost 100% assumptions. That's a very solid base of evidence, isn't it? Assumptions are made about the geological column, what it tells us, what it means and how reliable it is. Radiometric dating is also built on top of a multitude of assumptions--and if any one of those assumptions doesn't hold up, radiometric dating is essentially worthless. And almost every one of that multitude of assumptions are ludicrous; they couldn't be reliably assumed for 100 years, much less 1,000 or a million or 65 million).

    Which is the central truth that I have been trying very hard (hopefully not in vain) to help you to finally see here: that evolution theory is built on a mountain of assumptions, very few of which can be verified, and most of which are contradictory to the asserted framework of the theory itself.

    And that means evolution theory isn't science; it's a lot of guesswork and conjecture (a great deal of which is theologically motivated) which absurdly tries to pass itself off as established "science."
  • Steven Riley
    Bob I think most paleontologists etc do of course believe in evolution, but thats not why they get up and work. Again your taking entire fields of science and the people-tens of thusands of them- who do believe in evolutio-to be some sort of evolutionist group setting out to destroy your beliefs.Is every geologist who believes in evolution your nemesis ?
  • I think that once again, you're missing the point.

    Every geologist, paleontologist, archaologist or other -ologist who assumes evolution theory is established fact and treats it as such is perpetrating a reprehensible deception on those who look up to them for reliable information. If you're wondering if I believe it is some sinister conspiricacy, no. But a host of unconcerted people pushing the same unsubstantiated theory as if it were fact has the same net effect that it would if they were concerted.

    What would be most refreshing and welcome would be if evolutionists (whether they are paleontologists, biologists, geologists, or car salesmen) could stop deceiving people (and quite possibly themselves) and simply own up to the fact that the vast majority of the theory they believe in is composed of assumptions, not solid facts.

    But apparently there isn't much chance of that, is there?
  • Steven Riley
    If all these different scientists in different fields are using assumptions when it comes to evolution, what about all the science these same people do that doesnt relate to evolution ? Is all that science just assumptions as well or is it just the one subject of evolution that they are ALL so misguided? Max Planck was the founder of quantum theory and also was a firm believer in evolution. Are you saying his mind didnt rely on mere assumptions when it came to quantum theory, but it did when it came to evolution ?

    He is just one of thousands of scientists whose work ,unrelated to evolution, is accepted , but then all these scientists abandon scientific principle when evolution is the subject ?
  • I can't speak to what other assumptions they may be making in other areas of science; only the ones I know about.

    One important thing about evolution "science" is that--no matter what you do to get around it--evolution is a direct challenge to the creation account; one or the other can be true, but not both. And if the Bible and the creation account is true (and I am convinced they are), then you have a spiritual element involved with this subject that often leads people to believe things that an otherwise intelligent person would never believe, all because they are spiritually invested in NOT believing they are accountable to God. That sort of hope can really cloud one's judgment.
  • Steven Riley
    I thoguht you might avoid the question as you demonstrated in your leading paragraph.

    You are to smart and insightful to realize that you dont have to 'know about ' all other areas' of science in order to accept them. Your daify is surrounded by them.

    So you really believe that the cell biologist who discovers a new enzyme and who happens to believe in evolution, all of a sudden abandons the principles used to discover the enzyme and relies on assumptions when it comes to anything that pertains to evolution.

    Again, that is assuming you accept a lot of nonevolutionary science that you dont 'know about'.

    just asking for honesty.
  • Discovery of the enzyme requires no theological belief of any kind. But what does the cell biologist who believes in evolution assume about how the enzyme came to exist in its present state? THAT is the real question...and where scientists who believe in evolution get off the path of science and onto the path of theology and philosophy...and start assuming they have answers that don't in the slightest conform to "science."

    Frankly I didn't answer your question because I have no idea what it has to do with the price of eggs in Warsaw. In other words, I think you're trying to head off on more comfortable rabbit trails that have no bearing to the issue at hand, perhaps because you realize the theory of evolution is indeed a house of cards, and rabbit trails are much more comfortable than trying to come up with a sensible answer to how a dinosaur bone which is allegedly 65 million years old can contain collagen that observational science tells us can't possibly be that old.

    In short, you're acting like the typical evolutionist and running like a scalded dog from evidence which indicates your theological beliefs are all wet.
  • Steven Riley
    Couldnt be too wet becasue evolution is firmly entrenched in science and in the schools. I do find it humorous that you refer to evolution as theology which you say is based on assumptions. at least your admitting that theology, which includes yours, is based on mere assumptions. You are slowly getting there !!
  • Being firmly entrenched in the scientific community and the schools means little. The scientific community and the education establishment is made up of the same human beings found in any group--the same human beings who would rather be morally autonomous and avoid accountability to a supreme being.

    And I've never denied that my theology or any other involves assumptions. If only you and other evolutionists would admit that your beliefs are more theology than established science, and that most of what you believe is based on not only unsubstantiated assumptions but assumptions that are contradictory and impossible within your own worldview, that would truly be progress.
  • Steven Riley
    Bob I could only guess that you might of used the same arguments made above when the heliocentric theory was proposed. Your assumptions argument would have been just as valid to you then as you claim them to be now. All Christians knew the Earth had to be the center of the universe and any science that said otherwise had to be based on assumptions. Do you see the parallel ?
  • Yes, I see the risks inherent in making assumptions. The real question is: do you?
  • DCM
    Then I would have to wonder what *does* motivate you. But that's not for me to judge. I just know that my motive is to know what the truth is, regardless of what may be popular or convenient to believe. And even without even delving deep into the scientific arguments, it's not too hard to see which side of the evolutionism/creationism debate is telling the truth.

    On the evolutionist side, I find: rudeness, mockery & emotional arguments; inability to answer the key questions, along with a tendency to deflect attention from them; easily identifiable logical fallacies (ad hominem, appeals to authority, etc.); great effort put into censoring & misrepresenting the opposing position (along with occasional outright ignorance of it); sheer guesswork presented as facts; unwillingness to admit their own bias; willingness to use known false arguments as long as they're effective; distortions of known history; speaking out of both sides of the mouth; and so on.

    On the creationist side, I find: calm, polite discussion of straightforward facts; honesty as far as what is known vs. what is assumed; willingness to debate the other side on a level playing field; willingness to admit exactly where their bias lies; honest discussion of known history; etc.

    People arguing on the side of evolutionism are good at having an answer to everything; I can even see that tendency in your own words. But people who can "answer" everything can defend a false position as easily as a true one. I don't want to hear from the person who has an answer to everything; I want to hear from the person who can show me that they're speaking the truth. Evolutionists have had decades to make their case with me, but their case doesn't bear the marks of truth on it.
  • Brian Rutledge
    DCM- you stated that evolutionists are rude and that creationists are polite, but that all you want is a debate on a level playing field. Lets take the issue of the geologic columns and place it on a level playing field debate. Some geologists say the columns support a young earth , while the preponderance say the geologic columns support an old earth. Now we have to go to the classroom and teach our kids. What would you propose we teach them ? Would you feel the field would be level if they were told that there were two theories and each one presented or that there are two theories but at the current time, one predominates amoung geologists. Which would seem level to you ? Might even ask you to honestly answer what would you suggest be taught if most geologists believed in the young earth scenario. What decides level ?
  • steven riley
    DCM just made the classic mistake when he stated that evolution is nothing but a game to explain everything if we assume there is no God. The truthful timeline of history shows us that man believed in and assumed there was God before evolution was even a concept. Darwin himself believed in God and didnt start on his journey 'assumming' there was no God. You conveniently switched the historical fact that these men of science were indeed religious, then the concept of evolution made some? many/ question that belief. I, like many others I have talked to were brought up to believe ( or assume if you will) that God exists. Even the most ardent atheists will tell you that their first assumption was that God exists. So no, humans rarely start with the assumption that there is not a God. Your idea that the assumption of ' no God' comes first doesnt not fit with what happens the first day we come out of the womb when most of us are taught to believe in God.
  • DCM
    SR -- I was just summing up how evolutionism works; if you want to play a bunch of logic games with it, that's up to you, but it doesn't change anything. Present-day mainstream science is strongly influenced by the philosophy of "no one made us." That's just the reality, and whether or not you recognize it is irrelevant; but if you don't, you're the one making a classic mistake.

    To expand on something Mr. Ellis wrote some time ago: If Bible history (including the creation account) is false, then I would want to know that as soon as possible so I could stop being deceived by it. If I had serious reason to believe it wasn't true, why would I want to keep believing it? Life would be so much easier if it wasn't true. St. Paul even wrote in 1st Corinthians to the effect that if all this stuff wasn't true, those who follow it would be miserable fools.

    You can try to turn this around and say, if evolutionism wasn't true, why would you want to keep believing it? But Mr. Ellis has already touched on that. I would also welcome a reality where everything created itself and there was no Creator to be accountable to; but I've found that's not the reality I live in, and I don't want so badly to believe it is that I'll try to convince myself of it.
  • DCM was not mistaken in his statement.

    It is irrelevant whether an individual or a society as a whole was theistic before adopting the assumption that the universe and the biological processes in it came about without supernatural design or assistance.

    People leave God's truth in favor of a lie all the time--in fact, it started in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve's original sin. God's truth requires more discipline and sacrifice than the belief in materialistic and naturalistic processes. The latter means no eternal moral accountability, and even a great degree of moral autonomy in the here-and-now. It means not having to deny yourself the desires of your eyes and heart. It means the faux-freedom of not being moored to a solid truth, but "freedom" to seek out whatever truth seems to make the most sense (or is most advantageous) at the time.

    In other words, materialism/naturalism/evolution theory is very attractive and seductive, both for individuals and cultures.

    And it is irrelevant which belief came first; truth is not affected in the slightest by timetables or recognition.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob,

    You state that people leave God's truth all the time in favor of a lie. Does that mean that you know fully all his truths or just what He has revealed to you ? Couldnt He have truths much grander than you or anyone can comprehend and the possibilities are vast . You give the impression that the God truths you have received and believe in are the only truths of God out there. Anyone believing in an omniscient God must at least recognize that the truths they hold may only be a sliver of the whole truth. if you say that you indeed dont know all of God's truths because we are incapable of that, then you must admit you also dont know all the ways that will lead you to him. Take the man who doubts God and biblical doctrine. If you admit you dont know all of Gods truths, how can you fully believe, as you do ,that he will not join God someday. I am talking about what Bob Ellis can truthfully believe, understanding that Bob knows he doesnt know all truth. How can you believe others are excluded from the kingdom of God if you admit you dont all the truths of God and that kingdom
  • I do not know all of God's truths...but I have a pretty good grasp on the major ones, and am able to glean suppositions that are in contradiction to them.

    And since I'm not a genius, they're understandable by pretty much anyone who is interesting in knowing them.

    One of those truths concerns all the ways that lead to him: all one of them. He was pretty clear on that, too:

    Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. - Matthew 7:13-14

    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - John 14:6

    Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” - Acts 4:12

    Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” - John 3:36

    For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus - 1 Timothy 2:5

    And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. - 1 John 5:11-12

    See, no genius, special talents or secret knowledge involved. God spells out the important stuff to us so we won't miss it. Truth won't drop into out laps unbidden most of the time, but it doesn't have to be a frustrating, lifetime quest either--not if we're willing to humble ourselves and admit the truth can be known and that we need the truth.

    It would be nice to know everything...and I expect that in the next life, I'll know a lot more than I know now. But God has supplied us with more than enough information to figure out the major components of truth (if we're interested in figuring them out) and by holding other unknowns up to those components, to recognize the major errors we encounter.

    I hope this helps.
  • Simon Fraser
    So what you're disputing here isn't Evolution it's Radio Carbon Dating.
    The strength of Science over folklore is it's ability to reassess itself and rebuilt it's theories even stronger than before. Nothing in Horner and Schweitzers' work throws any doubt on the fundamental precepts of Science. New discoveries like this only prove that Gods Universe is infinitely complex and beautiful and we don't need Babylonian Folklore to explain it.
  • DCM
    "Nothing in their work throws any doubt on the fundamental precepts of SCIENCE"?? Of course it doesn't, and no one claims that it does. But it does throw doubt on evolutionism, and that's the point here.

    You're making the mistake of treating evolutionism and "science" as being one and the same. Because evolution is "natural" and divine creation is "supernatural," you make the fallacy of thinking the former must be "scientific" and the latter isn't. What's missing from that thinking is this: if it ain't TRUE, it ain't SCIENCE!

    I challenge anyone who accepts evolutionism (including Christians who accept it due to their ignorance of science -- yes, you heard me right) to honestly look at how little of it is based on actual KNOWLEDGE, and how much of it is based on SPECULATION. I have been taking that honest look for years, and I've found that evolutionism is nothing but a game of "how do we explain everything if we assume there is no God -- and let absolutely nothing affect that assumption?"
  • "...if it ain't TRUE, it ain't SCIENCE!" Well said, DCM. Science is the search for truth, pure and simple, and should follow where ever the facts lead. Darwinism is exactly the opposite. It claims to know the truth and then searches for scientific facts to support its beliefs. Scientific facts that dispute Darwinism are explained away with speculation or just-so stories, or ignored completely.
  • Actually, carbon dating isn't really a factor here, but the theory of evolution itself is.

    It would indeed be nice if science won out over folklore here (as in many other places), but the folklore created by Charles Darwin and others like him continue to hold sway in pop culture and with many in the so-called scientific community.

    The science hear says more strongly than anything that these fossils are far younger than the 65-80 million years scientific theory says they are, because observational and testable science says these proteins cannot last that long.

    Therefore, science says these fossils are NOT 65-80 million years old. But rather than except the clear scientific data, many evolutionists continue to chase rabbits and come up with still more unsubstantiated theories to protect their theological beliefs.
  • steven riley
    Okay, lets set the events as they occured. Scientists did indeed feel that collagen, elastin and red cell fragments could not survive 65 million years because thats what their current knowledge and research lead them to believe.
    Then they find tissue that may reveal that their old theory was wrong. That is the history of all science since the beginning of time, It disproves itself and moves on.

    Your position would be saying that if established beliefs are held and then new evidence comes along that the new evidence must be wrong or that it is being posited just to foment evolution.

    fellows, hate to tell you but new findings in physics, chemistry and biology occur all the time that surplant the old theories and findings.. It is called new knowledge and change and is not a cabal to push through some agenda. Remember the germ theory guys?It just proved that established scientific beliefs were wrong. It wasnt trying to push some agenda was it ?Maybe this will pan out and maybe it wont. . Do you think the germ theory was just a better explanation of things or was it posited just to push an agenda. Just curious
  • You are exactly correct, Mr. Riley. Science has always been a cumulative endeavor with new information supplanting or augmenting what came before. That's the point of this post. When it comes to the theory of evolution anything that does not conform to the accepted orthodoxy is rejected a priori. Evolution scientists are too heavily invested in Darwinism, which leads to a deep bigotry that hinders their ability to assimilate new data such as the finding of relatively fresh tissues in a fossil supposedly millions of years old.
  • New knowledge is wonderful; I'm looking for it all the time.

    What's interesting, though, is that in the eyes of the evolution-theory herd culture, new knowledge that indicates evolution theory has serious problems must be rejected at all costs.

    Any other theory--any other--is acceptable, so long as that theory does not suppose an intelligent designer (and certainly not God), and does not in any way lend one iota of credibility to the Genesis account of creation.

    That's the hypocrisy rampant in the "scientific" community I find hilarious.
  • The findings of un-degraded recognizable proteins in fossils supposedly millions of years old are completely inexplicable by orthodox evolutionary theories and evolutionists are scrambling to come up with an explanation, plausible or not. I predict that they will ultimately do what they have always done when faced with geologic "anomalies"--ignore them. They will propose some outrageous, untestable explanation then any further mention of the issue will be dismissed as unscientific creationist blather.

    In "Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson it is alleged that there are more geologic "anomalies" than accepted geologic "facts" in support of evolution. They describe, citing a great deal of supporting literature, hundreds of anomalies that are simply ignored by evolutionists including polystrate fossilized trees (whole trees spanning several strata and millions of years), the finding of human bones among fossils supposedly millions of years old, artifacts like a gold chain, a metal cup and a iron hammer found in coal and Cambrian deposits. Some of the most important findings are less spectacular to the lay person but extremely important to the evolution-creation debate: eoliths are flakes of chert or flint that are found in many ancient strata spanning the recent past all the way back into the Permian epoch (250 million years ago!). These eoliths can be shown by microscopic and experimental techniques to have likely come from the working of stone tools, an activity most scientists would consider uniquely human. The skeptics claim that these came about by natural processes when stones struck against each other during some geologic catastrophe like earthquakes and floods. This explanation might be plausible if eoliths were a unique or very rare finding, but is much less satisfying when you consider that they have been found in thousands of locations on every continent and in numerous geologic strata.

    In comments on another recent post I argued with a reader that I was not in favor of teaching creation in public schools. There are many interpretations of Genesis, not to mention creation stories of other religious traditions. Frankly, I don't trust public school teachers to present Genesis accurately. I argued, however, that I would be very happy if teachers only taught the truth. Leave out the speculation, the "just so" stories, the misleading interpretations and the outright frauds and tell students the facts. If evolution is indeed a "fact" then there is nothing for evolutionists to fear; students will come to the obvious conclusions and the arguments of us Bible-thumpers will be seen for the silly superstition that some claim it to be. On the other hand...
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »