July 29, 2014

New Discoveries in Fossils that Refute Darwinism Ignored by Evolutionists

pin it button New Discoveries in Fossils that Refute Darwinism Ignored by Evolutionists

scientists broom discoveries wide New Discoveries in Fossils that Refute Darwinism Ignored by Evolutionists

Scientists Broom Challenging Discoveries Beneath ‘Contamination’ Rug

by Brian Thomas, M.S.
Institute for Creation Research

Recent years have witnessed many revolutionary discoveries of original tissues in fossils. Each new find challenges the widely held notion that fossils formed millions of years ago. After all, lab tests repeatedly show proteins and other biological materials lasting no longer than hundreds of thousands of years—millions are out of the question. As a result, these fossils clearly look like recent deposits. What tactics do evolutionists use to accommodate these original organic remains into their entrenched belief in deep time?

One tactic is to simply turn a blind eye to the whole fossil tissue issue. A possible example of this occurred when an ICR employee attended a 2010 debate featuring the late atheist and evolutionist Christopher Hitchens. After the event, the employee asked Hitchens what he thought of blood vessels recently found in Tyrannosaurus rex bone?1 Hitchens replied that he knew nothing about it.

His ignorance conveniently insulated him from having to reconcile data that refuted his secular view of history. How could such a prominent author on origins topics have for so long “missed” all hints of paleontology’s most game-changing discoveries? Shouldn’t an expert be well read in the very subjects he debates?

Some deny the science showing that the tissues are real proteins, and others deny the science of tissue decay rates. Biblical creationists deny the millions of years—rather than the science—and this actually solves the key dilemma.

But secularists who do at least look at the soft tissue fossil reports deploy another tactic. In response to the recent discovery of original protein inside tiny dinosaur bones from China, Smithsonian Institution paleontologist Hans-Deiter Sues cited contamination.2 Supposedly, the proteins in question recently “snuck into the fossils” from some source other than the fossilized animal.

He told Science NOW, “You can never really totally rule out contamination.”3

Technically, his statement is scientifically accurate. But it can lead to absurd conclusions. If one can never totally rule out contamination, then one can always excuse the data by claiming it—playing the convenient “contamination card”—even when it defies common sense.

For example, one can never totally rule out the possibility that my plate of dinner is contaminated. Instead of it coming from my kitchen, another person might have cooked the identical meal elsewhere, then secretly set the full plate of food on my table. Though possible, this contamination speculation is so unlikely that it can be ruled out on the basis of its extreme implausibility.

What quality of soft tissue fossil data would similarly refute claims of contamination beyond reasonable doubt?

This chart contrasts the maximum time required to convert bone collagen into dust with ages that the secularists themselves assigned to collagen-containing fossils. The tiny red column represents the maximum age of bone collagen determined by repeated decay measurements. It assumes that unrealistically cold temperatures preserved collagen for as long as one million years.

The blue columns represent seven fossils with collagen or similar protein. These examples build seven arguments favoring the view that fossils formed only thousands of years ago. Secular scientists reported each of these finds in evolutionary journals.4

Scientists broom discoveries pic1 New Discoveries in Fossils that Refute Darwinism Ignored by Evolutionists

What are the odds that contamination infected so many varied fossil proteins from so many different places?

Instead of following the evidence where it clearly leads, some use broom tactics to sweep away scientific challenges to secular beliefs. Sometimes human will—not reason—drives conclusions and behavior. Some ignore the fossils, ignore protein decay, or claim contamination. But all three tactics create far more problems than they solve. The most straightforward solution follows this fossil evidence straight to biblical origins in Noah’s recent Flood.

References

  1. Schweitzer, M.H., et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307 (5717): 1952.
  2. Reisz, R.R., et al. 2013. Embryology of Early Jurassic dinosaur from China with evidence of preserved organic remains. Nature. 496 (7444): 210-214.
  3. Wade, L. Giant Dinosaur Got a Head Start on Growth. Science NOW. Posted on news.sceincemag.org April 10, 2013, accessed April 20, 2013.
  4. ICR news articles binned on this web page cite most of the relevant secular reports: Fresh Tissues Show That Fossils Are Recent. Institute for Creation Research. Posted on icr.org, accessed April 20, 2013.

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.icr.org/article/7520/

umcbookcover New Discoveries in Fossils that Refute Darwinism Ignored by Evolutionists

Free Shipping Available!

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Medicine: Idolatry in the Twenty First Century

Medicine: Idolatry in the Twenty First Century

A honest look at our present day medical system and its relationship to idolatrous religious practices throughout history involving such activities as child sacrifices. Is modern-day medicine the new religion?

Study: Fats More Complex Than Previously Thought – Essential to Good Health

Study: Fats More Complex Than Previously Thought – Essential to Good Health

Throughout most of the history of human nutrition, fats and oils (lipids) have been considered healthy and desirable. In the Bible, the most ancient writings known to man and the world’s best-selling book, oil is always mentioned in a positive light, whether it be aromatic anointing oils or dietary oils:

“He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil…” (Deuteronomy 7:13)

“When the Almighty was yet with me, and my children were around me; When my steps were bathed in butter, and the rock poured out for me streams of oil!” (Job 29:5-6)
“There is precious treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise…” (Proverbs 21:20)

Modern dietary history has been an anomaly in condemning certain dietary fats, especially since the 1970s when official USDA dietary guidelines condemned saturated fats, in spite of their long history of use in human nutrition. Much of modern science is based on Darwinian evolution, however, and faulty premises that often don’t hold up in real science. Much of the “science” regarding dietary fats and oils has today been proven false, and the field of lipids (fatty acids) is bringing to light what the ancients inherently already knew: that fats and oils were key nutritional components essential to good health.

Evolution and News brings a good commentary on the journal Nature’s June cover issue regarding lipids, showing how they are the building blocks of membranes, and pointing to a master designer rather than a result of pure chance via evolution.

The True Source of Energy Healing

The True Source of Energy Healing

If you want to experience healing through “energy medicine,” which would you prefer? A practioner manipulating the created energy patterns, or the one who created it to begin with?

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

We have a popular article titled, Arguments we think creationists should not use. Indeed, even many misotheistic evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, have commended the existence of such a page. Well, as the saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’

Here are 21 bad arguments that evolutionists should not use to help further their stance on evolution. Clearly, evolution is about keeping out God, not an open approach to the actual evidence.

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

There is no pursuit of knowledge that does not seek to affect the world. Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it’s funded by governments and companies with agendas. Scientific development is subject to funding rules, to expectations about outcomes, and to social forces and institutions that shape our research.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!