Piltdown Superman

Something other biblical creationists and I emphasize is the importance of definitions. Despite our efforts, the corral gate is occasionally left open, a pony wanders through, and clarification is needed. Some of the difficulty is because of assumptions by readers. For example, I was using the phrase special creation  and assuming that the definition was clear to everyone. Since I had that wrong, I wrote an article specifying which meaning I use . The concern about wording this time involves reports of soft tissues and fossils. Aerodactylus scolopaciceps with soft tissue, Wikimedia Commons / Steven U. Vidovic, David M. Martill ( CC BY 2.5 ) This is not the same as complaining about someone referring to pterosaurs and ichthyosaurs as dinosaurs (even though they were contemporaries and their names ended in -saur). Such brabbling can be waved off. The problem occurs when reports and other things refer to soft tissues . Those words make creationists prick up our ears like a Scottish terr

Rusty Swingset and the hands at the Darwin Ranch are celebrating, but they should be lamenting the demise of scientific integrity. Instead, they spin the data like a top, followed by drinking firewater and clog dancing around a portrait of Papa Darwin. Then there's the Secret Satan gift exchange. Credit: Pexels /  Yogendra Singh I reckon the best jobs to have for security are weather forecasting and evolutionary science, because both can be wrong a large percentage of the time and people still remain employed. Actually, naturalism is better because if that narrative is protected and the non-explanation of " it evolved " is invoked often enough, they get more money. All the while, counting with pagan bead strings and chanting, "Evolution!" Here we have paleontologists admitting they were wrong about forms of soft tissues, spinning the storyline, and salvaging Darwin's sorry hide through the complex (and effective) scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Th

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 Dr. 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. Dr. Armitage had a successful job at the biological imaging facility at California State University, Northridge. The pr

That is a title I did not expect to use. Although a group of fossil octopuses was discovered in 2009, it was not until a few years later that the lovely and talented Esther van Hulsen was commissioned to paint a picture of it using its own ink . If the octopus was Keuppia levante , it may have looked like this Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Smokeybjb ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Using the dried-out ink sacs of cephalopods for writing and art is not a new idea, but the effort by Esther was large and highly publicized. Many questions arise that trouble proponents of deep time: How could a soft critter like an octopus be fossilized slowly? Why is the ink sac still extant after 95 million Darwin years? Why is the pigment of the ink, a kind of melanin, still stable? Shouldn't everything be permineralized after all that alleged time? How do you reconcile this and the discoveries of soft tissues and even DNA — which should not exist according to your paradigm — with observed facts?

Soft tissues of dinosaurs and other critters are becoming more and more common, and so are remnants that are termed spectacularly preserved. These are existential threats to universal common ancestor beliefs, as we will see in the three posts below. Faint not, brethren, most are not lengthy. Plesiosaur skeleton credit: Flickr / Kim Alaniz ( CC by 2.0 ) The first article is about the discovery of well-preserved brains and nerves in the Cambrian period. These things ought not to be because of the alleged long ages! Or is it because of global warming? Instead, fossils are showing great detail. It was thought by archaeologists — yes, I know, should be paleontologists, but the writers made the easy mistake — that soft tissues could not fossilize. Surprise! They could do that during the catastrophic processes of the Genesis Flood, and that is the best explanation. Exquisitely preserved fossils of Cambrian arthropods show minute details of brain and central nervous syste

When soft tissues of dinosaurs were discovered, they were considered oddities or misunderstood. Problems for secularists continued as more soft tissues were found as well as proteins, so rescuing devices were attempted. Another effort was made that does not bode well for evolutionary ideas. Count Krosstich told me that these folks have to deal with a great deal of cognitive dissonance . True, they are  presuming that dinosaur bones have been in the ground for millions of years, but also knowing that soft tissues and proteins cannot last anywhere near that long. The toast concept and  Maillard reactions have been invoked, but nothing popped up with them. New studies have tremendous flaws. These people should admit that the evidence supports recent creation and the global Genesis Flood of only a few thousand years ago. The latest fossil biochemistry paper, published in Scientific Reports , describes “blood vessel structures” recovered from inside a T. rex femur. This is the s

Atheists and evolutionists bucked and kicked at the news that soft tissues were found in fossils. Some even accused creationists of lying or at least misunderstanding the reports. It was not our problem that they were the ones who were uninformed or in denial. Worse for them, the more soft tissues and other fascinating instances of preservation were found. Once again, there was mandatory overtime at the Darwin Ranch where help was needed at the excuse mill to save deep time dogma. Rescuing devices were utilized to no avail; the facts were not made to ride off into the sunset. (Who does  that, anyway? You can't see where you're going none too well.) Sometimes the preservation is on a large scale, and other times very delicate features have been preserved. Sorry Hoss, they cannot  last millions of years, nor can things be buried slowly. Excellent preservation (indeed, as are fossils themselves) are testimony to the Genesis Flood and the young earth. The first question ou

When an employer requires overtime, the employee is expected to work efficiently and accurately with available facts. Also, the use of intoxicants is not allowed. Seems that the hands at the Darwin Ranch (yonder near Deception Pass) are ignoring good work habits when they put in overtime at the excuse mill. Case in point, more shenanigans regarding soft tissues. When soft tissues were discovered in dinosaur bones and shown to be more than a fluke, evolutionists were stricken with the inability to explain what they considered impossible because they "know" that the earth is very old and that dinosaurs took a group dirt name millions of Darwin years ago. In today's exciting episode, we have some denial of reality with flagitious evoporn presented as science. New Soft Tissue Discoveries A Jurassic ichthyosaur was found with more than just remarkably-preserved tissues, but also skin and blubber. Good science was used to discuss the biology, but they ignored the icht

Although is is interesting to read about the people and politics of Russia, something that gets neglected in the news is the natural habitats. Russia is a big place in all four directions, with eleven time zones and many kinds of habitats spread around. This sort of thing happens when you have the largest land mass country in the world, you know. East Siberia taiga image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Terpsichores ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Of interest to us today is the Batagaika crater in the taiga of east Siberia. It's a cold place, but we're finding out that this permafrost isn't. That is, it's not permanent. That "crater" was not caused by a meteorite. Instead, it is the result of melting, which was influenced by the forest around it being removed in the 1960s, and by flooding. For scientists, this was much better than digging. People explore stuff, you know. It's our nature. Many ancient animals have been found there, and are remarkably well preserved

If you want to get the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod, just mention dinosaur soft tissues. This is because soft tissues in dinosaurs and other critters is a threat to old earth uniformitarianism. From there, particles-to-parasaurolophus evolution is severely inconvenienced. There are several articles on that subject here as well as other biblical creationist sites. Metallized triceratops profile derived from an image a Pixabay from  Dimitris Vetsikas Ever since Mary "Iron Maiden" Schweitzer got fame for herself because of dinosaur soft tissues, evolutionists at the Darwin Ranch have been running the excuse mill at full steam. (They don't even get overtime pay from their cheap bosses.) One of the premier excuses was formed by Schweitzer: iron as a preservative. Dr. Kevin Anderson was interviewed by Bob Enyart on Real Science Radio. (Dr. Anderson is one of the scientists in Is Genesis History? My review is here .) You see, Dr. Schweitzer reckons that iron i

One of the biggest issues that gets proponents of universal common ancestor evolution and other old earth advocates on the prod is dinosaur soft tissues. Although soft tissues and such have been found previously, the work of Mary Schweitzer and microscopist Mark Armitage analyzing dinosaur blood and soft tissues really brought the subjects into prominence. Some evolutionists try to deny it, even saying that biblical creationists were misrepresenting the discoveries or outright lying. But the subject simply will not go away. Some of us won't let it. So, secularists and their religious useful idiots keep the excuse mill at the Darwin Ranch running at full steam. Compromiser Dr. Hugh Ross has a kind of cult following and some strange beliefs . He has an associate, Dr. Fazele Rana, who has written a book that is a thinly-veiled attack on biblical creation science. It may seem convincing, but Rana did poor research (none of it with the tissues in question under a microscope). He

The hands at the Darwin Ranch (over yonder by Deception Pass) are busy cranking the Rescuing Devices Generator™, as we saw in " Biochemicals and Evolutionary Rescuing Devices ". This time, we are going to be a bit more specific and focus on excuses made by evolutionist owlhoots regarding dinosaur proteins and soft tissues. Credit: Pixabay / TechPhotoGal Evolutionists and deep time advocates fight tooth and nail to find ways out of the inconvenient truths that dinosaur soft tissues represent. Namely, that the earth is not zillions of years old, that dinosaurs could not have been extinct for 65 million years or so because proteins and tissues cannot  exist that long, and the best explanation for what is found is the global Genesis Flood. No wonder they get on the prod!  Professing Christian Dr. Fazale Rana has a deep time ax to grind because his arch compromiser employer Hugh Ross runs the weird "progressive creation" organisation called Reasons to Believe .

The flap over well-preserved tissues and bones in fossils continues. Not only are more and more being found in dinosaur remains, but they are found in other fossils as well. According to materialists' dating methods, these fossils are alleged to be millions of years old, so soft tissues and such simply cannot last for such long periods of time. Unfortunately, secularists are so locked into their mindset, they have to deal from the bottom of the deck in hopes that they get a winning hand. That'll be the day! The truth is, what they continually discover debunks long ages and evolution, and supports recent the Genesis Flood and recent creation. Credit: Pixabay / suju Two creationary organizations released articles about sensational bird fossil discoveries, and I thought they were both reports on the same thing. Nope, didn't happen. So I'm giving you a twofer in this post. The first involves finding a gland that secretes oil that birds use for preening and such, and

Advocates of deep time and dust-to-dinosaur evolution presuppose that dinosaurs died off 65 million Darwin years ago, and biblical creationists presuppose that Earth is much, much younger. With incontrovertible evidence of soft tissues in dinosaur bones, evolutionists had to circle the wagons and open fire on facts (and people presenting those facts) that threaten their belief systems. Credit: Freeimages / jim daly Some people tried to say that there were errors in lab testing, and Darwinoids on the web called the creationists who knew more about science than they did "liars". Other folks tried to get dismissive about this massive problem for deep time and evolution, hoping that their bad news would go away and things would be peachy keen if they pulled the covers over their heads and got a good night's sleep. Didn't happen. People at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (who are also fond of advancing the bad science promoting evolutionism) c

News keeps getting worse for the hands at the Darwin Ranch down Deception Pass way. Trying to deny science related to dinosaur soft tissues and still believe in long ages is downright difficult, but they make a serious effort. Now the prospect of actual dinosaur DNA is becoming more of a possibility. Some evolutionary scientists are being confronted with a choice: the narrative that dinosaur fossils are multiple millions of Darwin years old (which is based on assumptions), or the scientific fact that DNA degrades rapidly, and cannot for long periods. Secular scientists are loathe to admit that facts show the earth was created recently because minerals-to-mastodon requires those long ages. According to Dr. Adrian Lister, a British paleobiologist, DNA cannot survive in dinosaur bones because dinosaurs lived far too long ago for their DNA, which is inherently unstable, to survive to the present . . . Dr. Lister is no stranger to Ice Age remains, having a particular expertise in

One of the items that the bosses at the Darwin Ranch have filed away in the locked back room under Try Not to Discuss is soft tissues from ancient critters. Although we've been hearing about those tissues for a spell, it's not such recent news as some people may think. Just that the more recent events about dinosaur soft tissues have rightly exploded since that business with Mary Schweitzer, Mark Armitage , and others. Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Some uninformed but loyal evolutionists have tried to deny the tissue problem (even lying about it in forums and on social media), since it's a serious problem for them: dinosaur soft tissues and proteins cannot last for millions of years. That means dinosaurs have not been extinct as long as their dogma requires, and gives another indication that Earth was created much more recently than evolution requires.

It's a bad time to be an advocate of microbes-to-mycologist evolution, since the facts keep undermining evolution and supporting creation. They get mighty ornery when soft tissues in dinosaurs are mentioned. Although soft tissues in the rock have been found for many years, things have really escalated with the finding tissues, blood cells, and the possibility of DNA in dinosaur remains. These things point to a young (as in recently created) Earth. Image credit: Freeimages / Cam Campbell Although some evolutionary polecats will resort to presenting tall tales as scientific facts in museums for propaganda purposes , all they can do with the soft tissue thing is make lame excuses and give outrageous extrapolations. You know, iron preserved this sample for a spell, so it must have been so for 65 million years. That's not science, old son, that's desperation. So, how do we test this stuff? How long can something last? Darwinists have challenged biblical creationists by

Soft tissues in dinosaurs has cause considerable agitation at the Darwin Ranch, and reactions have been disbelief, ad hoc excuses, weak extrapolations of tissue preservation possibilities, and the expected ad hominem attacks. But the evidence against long-age paradigms just keeps on rolling in. New soft tissues and blood cells from dinosaurs and other critters that have been dead for millions of Evo Sith years are being recalcitrant, instead supporting young Earth biblical creation models. The truth is there, and is being presented, that God created the world recently, and the Genesis Flood is the best explanation for what has been found. Scientists keep finding short-lived biochemicals and even soft tissues in fossils! Over the years, they have found unmistakable evidence of specific proteins like collagen and hemoglobin, and even what look like red blood cells and bone cells, in dinosaurs and other fossils. Most soft-tissue structures occur as mineralized remains that prese

The first thing taught in Darwinian catechism is that evolution is a given. Second is that Earth is billions of years old. When evidence is presented that threatens either assumption, evolutionists tend to get on the prod and try to dismiss the evidence (you may like " Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists ", " Dinosaur Soft Tissues and Evolutionist Science Deniers ", and " Soft Tissue Time Paradox " by ICR's Dr. Vernon Cupps). Dinosaur soft tissues have them mighty angry because the evidence strongly refutes not only the idea that dinosaurs have been extinct for tens of millions of years, but that the planet is as old as they want it to be for evolution to happen. The real  evidence, without evolutionary trappings, shows that everything was created recently, and did not evolve in the Darwin way. Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact (modified) Someone sneered on one of my posts, "What next, dinosaur DNA?" Pay attentio

People are a mite confused about the word fossil,  seeing as how it's used to mean old stuff as well as organisms that are permineralized (organic material is replaced by minerals) or petrified  (turned to stone). I could call my mother-in-law a "fossil", but people would know it would be a disrespectful term about her old age, and they would have sense enough to know that she doesn't fit any scientific use of the word fossil.  When it comes to old dead things called fossils, sometimes scientists as well as us reg'lar folk do it. Ian Juby mentioned the shilly-shallying over that word in this video clip, starting at the 20 minute 13 second mark . Hadrosaur fossil. The 2010 article referred to both  fossil  and  bones. Image credit: Mark E. Jacobsen , Bureau of Land Management Believers in particle-to-parasaurolophus evolution don't cotton to having the news of soft tissues and actual bones being found because those facts refute their long-age presupposi