Dinosaur Soft Tissues, the Age of the Earth, and Microscopy

People familiar with The Question Evolution Project on Facebook should remember podcasts we posted of Dr. Ben Scripture of Scripture on Creation. (In fact, they interviewed me, and one of our topicss was Question Evolution Day.) Dr. Scripture contacted me with exciting news from his interview with Mark Armitage.

File photo of Dr. Scripture (left), YouTube screenshot of Mark Armitage (right)

We have two items of interest about how microscopy is not conducive to universal common descent evolution, the second of which will appear below. The one I like best is first.

Mark Armitage is a bad man according to believers in molecules-to-microscopist evolution as well as proponents of an old earth. His crime? Having an article published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Acta Histochemica with Dr. Kevin Anderson about soft tissues in a Triceratops horn in 2012.

Mr. Armitage had a successful job at the biological imaging facility at California State University, Northridge. The program was popular there. Although the paper was about microscopy, he was fired from the college because having a Christian on staff apparently puts burrs under the saddles of those in power. He sued the university. Misotheists were laughing about it, evosplaining that he deserved it for being a biblical creationist. However, he won his suit and they settled out of court (see this article from 2016); it was costing the university lots of grotzits and they were clearly engaging in discrimination. Best to cut their losses.

This comment from one who believes in pursuing knowledge and not at
all bigoted is posted under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.
It was originally made in response to another post about Mark Armitage.

He has ridden a long trail over the years and quite a bit has happened. I'll let Dr. Scripture and Mr. Armitage fill you in, but I want to say that he started the Dinosaur Soft Tissue Research Institute, which is run by volunteers. They have ongoing discoveries, including one about chromosomes with follow-up peer-reviewed papers. (I am stressing the peer-reviewed part because misotheists claim that creationists are never in secular journals.) So, Mark has been busy and so has the DSTRI.

Now I'll turn you over to Dr. Scripture's interview. I liked it so much, I listened twice. It is free to listen online or download the MP3, so you can find out here. Listen for a reference to a prediction by Mr. Armitage that there would be an increase in the discoveries of soft tissues. (Related: see "Five Important Soft Tissue Problems for Evolutionists".) Remember that I said there was another item? Right, let's do that next.

Longtime followers of ICR should be familiar with our research into original organics in fossils. Over 100 peer-reviewed secular publications have shown that one might discover original tissue remnants in fossils from any region.

. . . 

One technique that targets the protein collagen in bone is called cross polarized light microscopy (XPOL). Research begins with preparing very thin sections of bone. A microscope fitted with crossed polarizers (“cross polars”) can detect regions in the sample where something twists the light. In bone, that something is collagen.

. . . 

XPOL light microscopy is just one more tool—alongside a few dozen others—that scientists use to help describe collagen in fossil bone. As with the other 100-plus soft tissue discoveries, these bones look thousands, not millions, of years old.

To read the entire article, visit "Microscopy May Detect Fossil Bone Collagen".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Evolutionist References Sherlock Holmes to Explain Dinosaur

Have you ever heard of the genus Lambeosaurus? Dinosaur enthusiasts probably know of this hadrosaur (duck-billed) hatchet-headed genus that had hollow crests, probably used for storing drinks and snacks. Found in Asia, North America and Europe — but how did one get to Africa?

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Dmitry Bogdanov (CC BY 3.0)

According to deep time evolutionary beliefs, Africa was surrounded by water before they supposedly evolved. This discovery was described as being out of place, and one evolutionist used a famous quote by Sherlock Holmes (A. Conan Doyle). Their scenarios fail, but creation science Genesis Flood models make sense of the discovery. Unfortunately, the lecturer did not apply that quote to the Flood explanation. That seems rather inconsistent.

A new species of duck-billed dinosaur, Ajnabia odysseus, was recently unearthed in North Africa. This is the first hadrosaur-type dinosaur ever discovered on the continent of Africa, and it creates a conundrum for evolutionary scientists because its location doesn’t fit their narrative.

The new dinosaur, a member of the Lambeosaurinae subfamily, was discovered in a mine in Morocco in the uppermost Cretaceous System strata. It measured about 10 feet long, which is rather small compared to other hadrosaurs that could reach up to 49 feet.

To read the full article, sojourn to "Even Sherlock Holmes Can’t Explain African Dinosaurs". Lambeosaurus lives matter.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Depictions of Dinosaurs with Humans

Although the dirt-to-dinosaur evolution narrative precludes humans coexisting with them, there are historical evidences. We have examined some of these before, such as "St. David's Dragon", the dinosaur on Bishop Bell's tomb, and others. There are others to consider.

Spinophorosaurus image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Nobu Tamura (CC BY 3.0)

Because of naturalistic evolutionary and deep-time presuppositions, Darwin's disciples evosplain away written historical accounts and biblical depictions of dinosaurs. If you strip away the storyline and assumptions to look at the evidence, it is not so easy to dismiss the fact that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

In addition to arguing from presuppositions, materialists argue from silence and ignore other possibilities. Is that a carving of a stegosaurus? No, because of this and that. Other possibilities neglected would be that it's a different dinosaur altogether, the carver was unskilled or made some adjustments, male and female dinosaurs are different (note that paleontologists pared back the numbers of dinosaurs listed because they were doing extra counting for adults, juveniles, male, female — all the same species) and so on.

The article linked below discusses different kinds of evidences: most reliable, need more verification, should be avoided, and to definitely be avoided. There are disagreements among creationists about some of these questionable entries (such as the Ica stones or a certain pterosaur pictograph), and I agree that we should present the strongest evidence in discussions and so forth. However, if we do present some of the more questionable areas, we should use caution.

One area on the list to avoid was the Paluxy river tracks. This area is famous for dinosaur footprints, but there is contention that there were also human footprints there. For various reasons, creationists decided that the evidence was not conclusive and shelved the idea. This is an area of dispute that some folks couldn't put out to pasture.

Bob Helfinstine and Jerry Roth of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association did research and wrote a book in 1994, Texas Tracks and Artifacts, which was revised in 2007 with additional information. Ian Juby also believes that the evidence should be reexamined and reconsidered (including the Delk track). You can see his interview with Dr. Carl Baugh who also conducted research on the Paluxy tracks here.

What all this means is that there are serious creationists who debate some of the issues while keeping the authority of the Bible in focus. It also means that we do have strong evidence for the concurrent existence of humans and dinosaurs. We we can lead with the best points in such discussions, and use qualifiers when mentioning areas that need research. Definite bad stuff should be left alone.

Biblical creationists have often pointed to some ancient accounts or legends of battles with dragons and dragon legends as based on real events. But dragon legends are not the only evidence of mankind living with dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and marine reptiles. There are often pictorial representations of these creatures on cave or canyon walls, carved into brass or clay, and drawn onto pottery.

Scripture itself testifies that all land animals were created on the same day as mankind, with sea and winged creatures created just one day prior (Genesis 1:20-28). Therefore mankind did live with dinosaurs, marine reptiles, and pterosaurs before the flood. Scripture also states that Noah was commanded to bring two or seven (or seven pairs) of all terrestrial air-breathing animal kinds and the seven (or seven pairs) of all winged creature kinds aboard the Ark (Genesis 6:19–20, 7:2–3). Therefore we definitely know that mankind lived with dinosaurs and pterosaurs after the flood, and with the biblical mention of Leviathan in Scripture, at least some types of marine reptiles also survived the flood. Outside of these sure testimonies of Scripture, some of the best and most-reliable evidences for man living with these creatures will be discussed and pictured in this article. . . 

To read the rest, click on "Humans with Dinosaurs Evidence (Depictions and documentation of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and large marine reptiles living with man).

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Fun with Dragon Teeth by Michael Crichton

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Quite a spell back, I picked up a book called Dragon Teeth because I had a hankering for a Western story. As I commenced to reading it, I realized that this story touches on some areas of my interest and study: dinosaur fossils.

Original image from Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures

Dr. Crichton (he obtained his MD but turned to writing instead) had several manuscripts stored and in process when he died in 2008. Some of them were completed by others, sometimes drawing from his notes. Dragon Teeth written in 1974, but was discovered much later, retouched, and subsequently published in 2017.

Dragon Teeth is about the early years of American paleontology. No dinosaurs running rampant biting heads off. Only fossils. It is a historical novel based on actual events in what is known as the Bone Wars. (It is interesting that Crichton used the word dragon several times in the text. Biblical creationists believe there is a great deal of historical evidence that dinosaurs existed with humans. No, I am not suggesting that Michael was a creationist!) The protagonist, William Johnson, met the two bone war rivals Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope. They were real, but Johnson was not.

There are many novels based on historical events, and some authors attempt to be reasonably accurate with the actual people and settings. Dragon Teeth has references if y'all get the notion to read actual history (some source material is in the public domain, you can start searching at the Internet Archive if you takes such a notion). Similarly, the movie Alleged was about the Scopes trial but had fictional people. It was far more historically accurate than the detestable Inherit the Wind — which some people consider a documentary! Many books and movies have fictional elements but are otherwise accurate.

I said earlier that I obtained this book because I wanted a Western story. As it progressed, the Indian Wars, Wyatt and Morgan Earp, the town of Deadwood, and more were in the story. It definitely had some excitement in addition to the history. If you want a diversion and a bit of learning, Dragon Teeth may very well be for you. The profanity is limited, and sexual situations are implied — they are worse on network television. Also, if you want to see a presentation on the Marsh and Cope rivalry as well as their actual discoveries, see "The Dinosaur Bone Wars".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Lacking Belief in Feathered Pterosaurs

Sometimes people are a mite casual in their use of the word dinosaur, using it to mean wooly mammoths, sauropods, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, and so on. It is easy group them all together, though, because they lived at the same time.

Credit: Flickr / theilr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Many believers in dust-to-dinosaur evolution insist that certain dinosaurs evolved into birds. They tend to "see" signs of feathers in fossils, ignoring other (and more reasonable) explanations. Some extravagant claims have been made regarding filaments on pterosaurs, and then unwarranted guesswork was passed off as science. What's a Darwin devotee to do when the same things are not unique to pterosaurs, but are found in dinosaur fossils as well as carcasses of marine reptiles, sharks, and the like? It would be helpful to admit that the Creator made these things, and to stop pretending that they are looking at skin collagen, not protofeathers.

In December 2018, researchers claimed to have found featherlike structures in two specimens of pterosaurs.1 These appendages, called pycnofibres when found in pterosaurs, were said to resemble non-vaned group filaments and bilaterally branched filaments—structures previously thought to be unique to maniraptoran dinosaurs and which have been previously used as evidence that some dinosaurs had feathers. The researchers claim that these pycnofibres are diagnostic of feathers. However, of the four types of pycnofibres they identified in one pterosaur, three were said to be similar to ‘protofeathers’ previously thought to be unique to unrelated groups of dinosaurs. But why would all these diverse dinosaur ‘protofeather’ types be present in one single pterosaur specimen? This paper compares decayed collagen fibres in marine fossils to these pterosaur ‘pycnofibres’ and suggests that these integumentary structures are identical. But if these pterosaur ‘pycnofibres’ are nothing more than decayed collagen fibres, so too are the three types of dinosaur ‘protofeathers’ associated with it. This presents a challenge for those who choose to interpret ‘dino fuzz’ as evidence of feathered dinosaurs.

To read the rest of this very interesting, annoying (to evolutionists), and informative article, see "Feathered pterosaurs: ruffling the feathers of dinosaur evolution". You may also be interested in Dr. Jerry Bergman's article, "Pterosaur Feathers: Another Myth Exploded".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Lassoing the Biblical Leviathan

A spell back, we discussed the biblical creature known as behemoth and how liberal Bible scholars try to find excuses to support long ages — and sometimes evolution. Another hotly debated critter mentioned in the Old Testament is leviathan.

Modified segment of "Carta marina" by Olaus Magnus, 1539

So, what is it? Biblical creationists believe it was probably a now-extinct dinosaur or something similar. Darwin's acolytes wave off any possible historical references to dinosaurs (called dragons before the word dinosaur was coined) because evolution. Dinosaurs died out millions of Darwin years before humans evolved. That's the narrative, despite many accounts of dragons (dinosaurs and the like) in history.

Liberal scholars say it's a mythological creature. I'll allow that there are some uses of the name in the Psalms and the book of Isaiah, but those are poetic devices. When I call dishonest evolutionists "sidewinders" or "weasels", that does not mean those creatures are nonexistent. Also, the mythology claim doesn't fit with the text in the book of Job. God goes into detail about this fearsome creature. Can you lasso it and put it into the corral, Job, old son? That'll be the day! Not you nor your ranch hands dare face this critter. God says that he made it, so he is its master.

Something else to consider is that there is nothing like it living today. Is that a reason to say that the leviathan never existed? Highly illogical, Captain. Scientists can only learn so much from the external appearances of fossils. (Would you like to wager that if all we had were fossils of the frilled lizard, nobody would figure out its comedic escape routine?) Fossils of leviathan may not have been found. Or perhaps they do exist but its described characteristics are not apparent. Savvy?

But again, what is it? There have been several possibilities put forward (some of these are linked earlier in this post), including some kind of crocodile relative. Sure, there are some things that may give that impression that it has some things in common with crocodiles, such as body armor. However, the greater part of the leviathan's description does not support this idea. It's time to give some serious examination of the biblical text.

God challenges Job by questioning his ability to capture Leviathan and make it his servant (Job 41:1–4). Leviathan is not a creature that little children can play with (Job 41:5) and is too large for traders to sell (Job 41:6).

God reminds Job that if he is even thinking of capturing Leviathan with harpoons or fishing spears, then he needs to consider the battle that will take place (Job 41:7–8). If Job does engage in battle with Leviathan, it will be the first and only time he does battle with this mighty creature. Leviathan cannot be subdued by any man: this is a false hope, as he “is laid low even at the sight of him” (Job 41:9). In other words, Leviathan is a creature who brings fear into the heart of man; whereas, he is afraid of no one (Job 41:33).

This brings God to state the most important issue:

To read all of this extremely interesting article, click on "Drawing Out the Biblical Leviathan". In addition, something else needs to be considered. Generally speaking, biblical creationists agree to uphold the Bible as the inerrant, written Word of God, and agree that models come and go. Another article presents a case for Deinosuchus. For this rather short article, click on "Leviathan: Legend, Croc, or Something Else?"




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Paleontologists Dodging Important Ichthyosaur Questions

The hands at the Darwin Ranch get all a-twitter over discoveries in paleontology, but have a nasty habit of leaving important details laying in the rain by the bunkhouse door. A recent example involves an ichthyosaur that was fossilized during chow time.

Of course, they presuppose millions of Darwin years and use the old "fossilization takes a mighty long time" idea to try and hornswoggle people again. Perhaps the secularists didn't want to consider the implications of the neglected facts. Creationists know that the evidence doesn't support their deep-time notions, and have the unmitigated gall to think and ask questions. 

For example, if fossilization takes so long, why was the predator ichthyosaur unable to digest its prey even a little? Add this to other examples of extremely rapid fossilization and the increasingly-present soft tissues, and the evidence points to recent creation and the Genesis Flood.

Here is another example of an ichthyosaur that was buried rapidly. This one didn’t have time to digest its lunch.

Ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs are classes of extinct marine reptiles known only by fossils around the world. Some famous fossils on display show them in the process of eating or giving birth (see photo at Creation.com), indicating that they were buried almost instantaneously, surprising them in the acts of everyday life. Now another has been found with the undigested contents of another large animal in its stomach.

Read the rest by heading on over to "Fossil Marine Reptile Buried with Last Meal Intact".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Further Feathered Dinosaur Foolishness

We have seen time and again that apparatchiks for the Darwin Party promote evolution despite evidence, not because of it. It would take a wagon train full of changes to change dinosaurs into birds, and that is not found. Sometimes they refute themselves, as in this study regarding feathers.

Credit: Pexels / Jan Kopřiva

There are major anatomical differences between birds and dinosaurs, including skeletal structures, breathing — and feathers. Indeed, feathers are actually quite complex and indicate the craftsmanship of the Master Engineer. He even planned for birds that fly to molt in a specific manner, but non-flying birds don't pay that no nevermind. A fossil called Microraptor was examined and put a burr under the saddles of researchers.

It has characteristics of a unique bird, but since the narrative has logic and science flying out the window, it is considered a feathered dinosaur. With none of the characteristics. Bad news for those who believe in dinosaur-to-bird evolution, what was found gives further indication that it was a bird. Evolving into something else? Nope. The Creator didn't put that in the plan.

Is a dinosaur still a dinosaur if it has flight feathers? A new study points to some fascinating evidence that contradicts the idea of feathered dinosaurs and confirms created kinds.

It’s no secret that birds fly in order to, among other reasons, get food and avoid becoming food. For that, they must have their feathers arranged in good order. But feathers wear out. If birds replaced their feathers haphazardly, for example, too many feathers shed from one wing and not the other, then they would lose control in flight—with lethal consequences. Therefore, many flying birds molt—replace their feathers—in a specific sequence. New research has identified evidence of this sequential molting in a so-called “feathered” dinosaur.

To read what all the squawking is about, head on over to "New Evidence Hurts Feathered Dinosaur Theory". You may also like to see, "Grave News for Dino-Bird Fossil Report".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Liberal Scholars and Behemoth

It must be stated that evolutionists and biblical creationists present material based on their worldviews. Unfortunately, professing Christians who ride for the Darwin brand elevate evolution over scriptural authority to the point of twisting the Bible to fit their presuppositions. Case in point, the creature known as Behemoth.

Image source before modification: US National Archives
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Biblical creationists tend to believe that Behemoth described in the book of Job was probably a sauropod dinosaur that hadn't quite gotten the notion to go extinct yet, but evolutionists reject that out of hand. We also hold to the view that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts, but liberals reject that. I reckon it makes it easier to perform eisegesis and tamper with meanings.

We know that word meanings change over time and usage. Argument is commonly used to describe an emotional exchange instead of a reasoned discussion and presentation of ideas. Leviathan is described in Job as well as Behem0th, but the name also repurposed in Isaiah 27:1 and Ezekiel 29:3. Context is vital. Atheists applaud when professing Christians cast doubt on the Bible that they claim to believe.

Also, these liberal tinhorns that reject the authority and inerrancy of Scripture try to pit the Bible against itself by changing meanings and taking passages out of context, often using invalid comparisons. They also appeal to other liberals and extra-biblical sources in their efforts to undermine the Word of God. Watch for weasel words of uncertainty while still attempting to cast doubt on the Bible. Also, keep an eye out when these owlhoots try to retroactively apply changed word meanings from centuries after the biblical text was written. Plus, heaping helpings of their own speculations. It's like reading evolutionists who put in "maybe", "perhaps", "we think", "could be", and other terms to prop up their views without actual evidence.

Unfortunately, if you consult the internet about pretty much anything in the Bible, and especially if you frequent skeptics’ forums, you’re likely to get bombarded with liberal critical views. While the article linked above does a great job making a case for a sauropod identification, it does not address a newer idea coming from liberal scholarship: that Behemoth was a mythical super-bull! I have been directed multiple times by various skeptics online to a particular YouTube video by Ben Stanhope, who has a bachelor’s degree from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an M.A. in Manuscript Cultures from Hamburg University.1 In this video, Stanhope cites several scholarly sources in his attempt to make the case that the Behemoth refers to the mythical masculine “super-bull” that hearkens to Babylonian mythology and ancient Jewish apocryphal writings. This same conclusion is also reached by old earther and online Christian apologist Robert Rowe.

To read the entire informative (and rather startling) article, follow the link to "Responding to liberal scholarship on Behemoth".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Darwin Defenders Deny Science in Biosignatures

While I want to cut some slack to evolutionists who are locked into their paradigms and do not think creatively, the secular science industry is infested with science deniers. The atheistic naturalism narrative is more important than facts and real science.

Assembled with components from Clker clipart

More and more fossils are referred to in terms of exceptional preservation, revealing evolution-defying details (like the fully-formed complex trilobite eyes). Although there were indications that some fossils were not fully permineralized (such as the use of octopus ink), young earth evidence stormed the gates of evolutionism. All sorts of rescuing devices were utilized beyond reason; some things don't deteriorate (apparently if it is Darwin's will). Although there are soft tissues and such cropping up frequently (such in this recent duckbilled dinosaur dig), they are preserved through the "exceptional conditions" that must have been common. 

Now, thought the complex scientific process of Making Things Up™, the deterioration rates of DNA, soft tissues, and other biosignatures are actually used to give Papa Darwin his millions of years. Then his acolytes can light prayer candles and chant, "Blessed be!" Here is the first of two articles.

Yale paleontologists admit soft tissue is everywhere but try to use it as data for millions of years of evolution.

One of the biggest hoodwinks in paleontology is going on before our eyes. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones is prima facie evidence that dinosaurs did not live over 65 million years ago. All their biological material should have turned to stone long before then, and yet there it was, right under Mary Schweitzer’s microscope. . . Evolutionists tried every trick in the book to make those delicate proteins and apparent blood vessels and blood cells last for millions of years. First, they claimed it was contamination from modern organisms. Then, they hypothesized that cross-links with iron and other substances might stabilize the biological tissues for millions of years. It was only theoretical, of course, since one cannot watch what happens for millions of years.

To read the full article and be amazed at how scientists can deny real science, click on "Biosignatures Reveal Intact Soft Tissue Is Ubiquitous in Fossils". Then I hope you'll come back for the next interesting item.

As we saw in the article linked above, soft tissues are becoming increasingly common, and are preserved through odd miracles of evolution. This was belied when mammoth bones were found after having been frozen in a lake, but researchers put the spurs to excavation efforts so they didn't deteriorate! It is interesting that the last mammoths were supposedly inbreeding on Wrangel Island, but this discovery was a long haul away from there.

Still, the question remains: ice or not, how could mammoth remains remain intact over such a long time as secularists presuppose? These owlhoots keep on denying what should be obvious: the earth is nowhere near as old as they want it to be, it was created recently. Tampering with science and explaining away inconvenient evidence only makes them look silly.

Frozen mammoths have been found in abundance before; this one, with intact ligaments, was found in a lake.

Can ligaments withstand 10,000 years of exposure to the elements? Prior specimens of mammoths and other mammals were entombed in ice or permafrost. This one, being excavated as quickly as possible, is in water. The Associated Press story making the rounds says this:

Read the rest of this intriguing article by clicking on "Mammoth Ligaments Found in Siberian Lake".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Soft Dinosaur Eggs Problematic for Bird Evolution

Many but not all Darwinists believe that birds evolved into dinosaurs. That concept is an assertion based on evolutionary presuppositions, not empirical science, old son. But the hands at the Darwin Ranch are all a-twitter over the discovery of soft dinosaur eggs.

Fossilized dinosaur eggs at Indroda Fossil Park
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / S. Ballal (CC by-SA 3.0)

Since there is no evidence for dinosaur evolution (faith-based assertions are not evidence), their alleged history can be easily rewritten. Apparently different dinosaurs laid different kinds of eggs. A new discovery shows that some eggs were not like those of birds, and another egg discovered in Antarctica causes further difficulties. Also, the discoveries support claims of biblical creation science. Despite forcing the hands at the Darwin Ranch to put in overtime at the excuse mill, all they can come up with is the louche explanation akin to "it evolved" several times. Not hardly!

A pair of new studies found that some dinosaurs, and possibly some marine reptiles, laid squishy eggs. One study discovered that many dinosaurs, like turtles and snakes, laid soft leather-like eggs—not hard-shelled eggs like most birds. A second study found a massive leathery egg about the size of a football in Cretaceous sediments in Antarctica. However, they think it was from a marine reptile and not a dinosaur.

Until these discoveries, it was believed that most dinosaurs laid hard-shelled eggs, similar to birds. In fact, most theropod dinosaurs (meat-eaters) and duck-billed dinosaurs (hadrosaurs) did lay hard-shelled eggs, and possibly some long-necked dinosaurs (sauropods) too.

To break into the rest of the article, click on "Soft Dinosaur Eggs Deflate Bird-Dinosaur Evolution". You may also be interested in "Dinosaur Eggs and Challenges to the Genesis Flood".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Nodosaur Fossil Further Testifies of Genesis Flood

Back in 2017, we examined news of a nodosaur (related to the ankylosaur) in "Nodosaur News is Good News". Biblical creationists were pleased with the findings, and further information provides additional support for the Genesis Flood. Darwin's fan club made some ridiculous statements.

Suncor nodosaur fossil photo credit: Wikimedia Commons / Machairo / CC BY-SA 4.0

Secularists used their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings™ to decide on the mendacity that something dies, sinks to the bottom of the water, gets gradually buried, then turns into a fossil — unbelievable. Anyone with a knowledge of animal death knows that there are scavengers, bacterial activity, and so on that will not leave something alone so it could fossilize.

In this case, the nodosaur had all the signs of being buried rapidly. In fact, scientists were able to determine what it had eaten. Also, what was a land critter doing way out yonder in the sea and getting its ownself buried with things normally found in water? That's the Flood, old son. Slow and gradual processes over long periods of time do not answer the obvious questions.

In 2017, a large dinosaur was discovered washed out to sea, similar to the dinosaur bone found 70 miles off Norway’s coast. Only this one was partially intact, nearly perfectly preserved, and still contained its last meal fossilized inside its gut. Recently, a group led by paleontologists from the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology examined the stomach contents of the dinosaur and reported their findings in Royal Society Open Science.

Gizmodo reported on the dinosaur when it was first discovered.

You can read the rest by clicking on "Dinosaur Washed Out to Sea with Its Last Meal".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

T. Rex Research and Pack Hunting

Those Jurassic Park/World movies took many liberties which included the speed of Tyrannosaurus rex and the increased size of the velociraptors. In their defense, the movies are money-making ventures to provide entertainment, not education. Also, new research on the critters came later. I have another rescuing device to offer.

When we go to movies, watch television, or even when reading novels, we have to suspend our disbelief and accept that reality. The dinosaurs in the Jurassic flicks were modified dinosaurs, so T. rex was fast and velociraptors not only taught their young, but were much larger than the turkey-sized versions that were fossilized. But that's just for fun and we have some interesting research to ponder.

Calculating body mass, bone density, comparison to living animals, and other factors, Tyrannosaurus rex was probably not entering foot races and jumping contests. A fall would probably be fatal, so it wouldn't be chasing after the other dinosaurs who taunted it by singing, "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands..."

We recently saw questions raised about velociraptors and whether or not they hunted alone. T. rex is portrayed as a solitary hunter, but questions have been raised about whether or not they were also pack hunters because evolution. Since naturalists presuppose evolution and "pressures", evidence was interpreted in only one way, and fossils that were used in the research could be explained by the Genesis Flood. There is no evidence of dinosaur evolution (because they were created, not evolved), but the narrative of naturalism controls how evidence in interpreted.

Noting that slow-moving sauropods (a large herbivorous quadrupedal dinosaur) were rare in those communities where tyrannosaurs existed, with only a single taxon from North America known—and it lived in the southernmost portion of Tyrannosaurus’ range—the researchers believe that T. rex had to target faster prey like hadrosaurs (duck-billed dinosaurs) and ceratopsians (like Triceratops). Because hadrosaurs and ceratopsians are smaller and not as calorie-dense as sauropods, they reasoned that T. rex had “pressure for obtaining more kills due to the fact that each kill provides less resources, thus necessitating minimizing energy expenditure per hunt and maximizing resource extraction per kill, especially if that kill is shared amongst a group, [and which therefore] influenced selection for longer limbs in Tyrannosauridae.”

To read the full article, click on "T. Rex Revisited: Fast, Slow, or Pack Hunter?"



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Distinctive Fossils Oppose Evolution

We recently saw how an odd critter known as the Tully monster has caused problems for evolutionists. While information can be obtained from fossils, it is limited. It becomes even more difficult for paleontologists when they have nothing to draw from for comparisons.

A newly-discovered fossil of the spinosaurus (spine lizard) caused consternation because all of the assumptions were wrong. This is because it appears that the tail could have been used for swimming, and not many dinosaurs are known for being champion swimmers. Of course, a great deal of speculation exists in secular imaginations. Another crazy beast to consider was discovered in Madagascar in 1999 but not discussed so much until recently. Evolutionary history? This unique mammal not only interferes with evolutionary timelines (we've seen that happening quite a bit recently), but it has no so-called evolutionary history.

The three critters discussed in the link below (as well as the one up topside) are further indications of recent creation. Mayhaps the secularists should consider the evidence and declare their independence from the chains of Darwinism. That would not only be good for them, but for science as well.

When fossils are found of one-off creatures without apparent relatives, how could Darwinism explain that?

God must have a sense of humor. Sometimes it seems He likes to confuse the experts who want to explain everything without Him. Here are three fossil discoveries of strange beasts that just don’t fit a nice, smooth, gradual sequence of evolution.

You can finish reading by clicking on "Unique Fossils Defy Evolution".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Four Short Dinosaur Articles

With an abundance of material, I thought it best to combine links to these articles into one post. Each of these is a quick read but they have some interesting information about how paleontologists are baffled by new discoveries — including how one fossil blatantly defies deep-time reckoning.

Credit: Pixabay / GeorgeB2

Our first entry is about sex. Katie, bar the door! Just kidding. It's more about how difficult it is to determine the sex of dinosaurs. There have been many speculations over the years, but it's mighty difficult when all you have are bone fragments and fossils (reasonably complete skeletons are rare). Since paleontologists agree that dinosaurs were probably reptiles, perhaps a comparison with existing reptiles could help. Seems reasonable.

Recently, a new study led by Queen Mary University of London concluded that dinosaur bones tell us little about their sexes. In the past, secular scientists have made various claims about the ability to make sex determinations in dinosaurs. Most concluded that female predatory dinosaurs (theropods like T. rex) were likely larger than males. However, that appears to be unsubstantiated by the actual data.

This new study examined living reptiles to see if their bones alone could determine the sex of the animal. The research team worked with gharials, an endangered crocodilian species.

To finish reading this first short subject, click on "We Still Can’t Determine the Sex of Dinosaurs". Don't forget to come back for the second piece.

It may come as a shock to some folks, but dinosaur movies are not exactly documentaries. Why should they be? People are watching terrible lizard chomp fests for entertainment, and the movie makers want to make money. If you think about it a spell, unless something can be demonstrated to be wrong, the writers' and directors' guesses are just as valid as those of the experts.

Those shows depict dinosaurs like the Velociraptor as large, cunning hunters that worked in groups. Well, the actual Velociraptor of the fossil record were not to be feared; they were the size of chickens, so one good kick and you're home free. Once again, examining the habits of modern reptiles as well as examining isotopes in fossil teeth, gives researchers reasons to believe that dinosaurs were solitary creatures.

A new study published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology has found that the behavior of dinosaurs in movies is not very accurate at all. This should come as no surprise because many movies portray dinosaurs as bigger, faster, and smarter than they likely were in life. In fact, most dinosaurs in movies are more fantasy than reality.

In fact, lead author Joseph Frederickson from the University of Wisconsin's Weis Earth Science Museum has found the hunting behavior of theropod dinosaurs, like the Velociraptor, more likely hunted alone rather than in packs like many movies portray. He added:

You can find out more by clicking on "Dinosaur 'Raptors' Likely Hunted Alone". That's two short subjects, two more to go.

Lately, we've been seeing reports about the comparisons of feet and legs between humans and apes, and learned that the stiffness of the human foot and the lack of it in apes further confounds evolutionists. A good deal of information can be determined from the structure of dinosaur legs as well. The Creator designed some critters to be runners, some to be walkers. Looks like the Tyrant Lizard King was not going to chase down your jeep as you drove off.

A new study published in the journal PLOS ONE has found that T. rex had legs made more for walking, rather than running. Their long legs were well designed for sustained foraging.

T. Alexander Dececchi (from the Department of Biology, Mount Marty College in Yankton, South Dakota) and colleagues from several institutions began their article by stating,

Limb length, cursoriality and speed have long been areas of significant interest in theropod [meat-eater] paleobiology, since locomotory capacity, especially running ability, is critical in the pursuit of prey and to avoid becoming prey.

However, their current study revealed that long leg length in large dinosaurs does not necessarily equate to high running speeds.

To finish our third short article, click on "T. rex Had Legs Designed for Walking". Our final installment is problematic for evolutionists.

Your average evolution devotee believes that fossils are in an orderly progression from simple organisms to complex. However, that's the sanitized version. To look at the bigger picture, fossils appear out of order, in the "wrong" places entirely, and this dinosaur had some traits that don't fit the narrative. If naturalists would drop their preconceptions and examine creation science models, they would see that the Genesis Flood is the best explanation for the observed evidence.

A new study published in the journal Gondwana Research has identified a rather out-of-place bone from a theropod dinosaur called an elaphrosaur that apparently didn’t eat meat. In fact, it was toothless. Adding to the mystery, it was found in rocks thought by secular scientists to be 40 million years too young. Furthermore, the dinosaur was found in a location that is claimed to have been close to the South Pole. Something doesn’t add up.

The new dinosaur bone was found in 2015 near Cape Otway, Victoria, in southeastern Australia by a volunteer named Jessica Parker. It was identified as a vertebra from an elaphrosaur, or “light-footed reptile,” and is the first of this kind of dinosaur found in Australia. This group of dinosaurs fall in the ceratosaur category of theropod dinosaurs, having similarities with Dilophosaurus, a Jurassic dinosaur common in the Western USA.

To reach the startling conclusion of our quartet of short articles, click on "New Australian Dinosaur Surprises Evolutionists".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Big Dinosaurs, Little Eggs

While some dinosaurs were rather small, the ones that get our attention are the towering heavies. It is easy to assume that big creatures came from big eggs. Cartoons and dinosaur movies sometimes show extremely large eggs, but that is not the case. They hatched small and grew like other critters. What are the implications for Noah's Ark?

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Palauenc05 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

An egg could not be the size of a typical human because the shell would necessarily be thick. In fact, it would be too think for the unhatched dinosaur to breath or even escape if it could breathe in the first place. Paleontologists have learned from fossils that, like humans and critters, dinosaurs had growth spurts in their younger years.

Biblical creationists know that God brought animals to Noah. If you think about it, there would have been no reason to have the largest dinosaurs taking up a great deal of space on the Ark. They would have been juveniles, and after they disembARKed, they went on doing dinosaur stuff.

Have you ever thought about how pairs of each of the large dinosaur kinds were able to fit onto Noah’s Ark? Some of the sauropod dinosaurs reached over 30 m (100 ft) in length and likely some 50 tonnes (55 US tons) in weight! If they had been on the Ark they would have been a bit hard to handle (but there was plenty of room). The rather obvious answer is not to take fully grown adults, but rather juveniles, on board.

However, this still poses a problem in some minds. Wouldn’t such giant beasts have had huge babies, hatching out of monster eggs? While movies like Jurassic World depict dinosaur eggs as fairly small, they have been shown in popular media and cartoons as larger than a man, even. So, what is the truth about the size of dinosaur eggs? Did big dinosaurs lay big eggs, posing big questions for Noah’s Ark?

To read the rest of this eggciting article, click on "The biggest dinosaur eggs — Just how big were they, and what are the implications for the Ark?" Also of interest is a feedback article, "Pre-Flood predatory dinosaur interactions and the fossil record".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Another New Pterosaur Discovery

Pterosaurs have been interesting additions to movies about dinosaurs and such, and most of us probably can picture the winged reptiles. What may be less known is that there were many types. Big ones, little ones, many teeth, no teeth — in many parts of the world. Now paleontologists have added another one.

Credit: Modified from an image at Wikimedia Commons by Antonio R. Mihaila (CC BY-SA 4.0)

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are so excited about this, they are going to add it to the festivities when they dance around the maypole. But they still don't know where to place it on the failed evolutionary tree, and have no evidence of its evolution. We may be tempted to say, "Big deal, another flying reptile". Well, it is a discovery, and we can expect additional news about recent pterosaur fossils because some are very well preserved and have soft tissues. That is always bad news for proponents of deep time because these critters were created far more recently than they believe.

Pterosaurs were amazing flying reptiles that came in all shapes and sizes. Not surprisingly, when these bizarre creatures are found in the fossil record they are 100% flying reptiles. Some achieve the size of a fighter jet, such as Quetzalcoatlus discovered in Texas or Hatzegopteryx in Romania. Paleobiologists have recently discovered a new pterosaur (Afrotapejara zouhrii) in Africa belonging to a group called the tapejarids that were small to medium-sized toothless pterosaurs.

To see what the flap is about, wing on over to the short article, "New Pterosaur Discovered".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Apex Predators Before the Flood

It is interesting to think of how critters lived before the Genesis Flood, especially those predators that would not take any guff off anyone. But like in the Old West movies where someone says, "This town ain't big enough for the both of us", there is no reason to think that the mean ones all lived in the same area.

The Animals Entering Noah' Ark, Jacopo Bassano, 1570s

Dinosaurs with sharp claws and (as Tim the Enchanter might say) nasty big pointy teeth. It may be fun to watch them strutting around looking for a fight like rival gang members, but is that plausible? We know from fossil evidence that there were some rip snortin' fights, but those were probably the exceptions. The same kind of safe distance thing can be inferred from predatory animals living today.

A [CMI] reader from Ukraine, B.V., asks some interesting questions about what dinosaurs are found buried together and why. His message follows, with a response from Philip Bell, intended to provoke fruitful thought on the topic, not as an exhaustive answer to the questions raised.

How did that many animals get along before the Flood? For example, there were such apex predators in North America, as Tyrannosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Siats, Acrocanthosaurus, Torvosaurus, Allosaurus etc.

We see traces of interaction between T. rex and Triceratops, Allosaurus and Stegosaurus. If they lived at the same time, why don’t we see traces of interaction between T. rex and Stegosaurus or Allosaurus and Triceratops?

There were some intelligent and agile creatures among dinosaurs. Why aren’t they as high as most of mammals in the fossil record?

Philip Bell replies:

Thank you for your question. I’d like to answer your question in a slightly unusual way.

To bite into the answer, click on "Pre-Flood predatory dinosaur interactions and the fossil record".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Pigments Ages of the Imagination

Believers in deep time are constantly denying facts as well as principles of science, giving them false confirmation of their biases. For example, despite all the dinosaur soft tissues and other remnants, the discovery of dinosaur DNA, and more, materialists have a "Whaddya know, that stuff does last millions of years!" approach. The same thing is happening with the "oldest" biological pigments.

Credit: Pexels / Sharon McCutcheon

 We've seen science denial (after all, the narrative trumps observed evidence) in the colors of dinosaurs and in dinosaur eggs. While this post is not about dinosaurs, these examples show how secularists clutch their pearls and deny inconvenient facts. It is no surprise that they believe the impossible about other biological pigments (perhaps they studied under Joe Biden at the University of Pennsylvania or something). Cyanobacteria were apparently the culprits that led to colors extracted from marine black shale, but the earth is not nearly as old as secularists want it to be.

Just how long can organic colours survive for? A new study claims they have survived for a whopping 1.1 billion years, more than 600 million years longer than previous similar discoveries. They have found intact porphyrins, ring molecules that are important components of many biological pigments, including hemoglobin and chlorophyll.

You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "‘Oldest’ biological colour discovered".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!