More Soft Tissue Is Discovered

Soft tissue from ancient animals like dinosaurs have been controversial. Not for creationism because this confirms the biblical account of the earth and the rest of the universe of being thousands of years old, not billions. Scientists who believe in evolution have had a new challenge among them since the discovery in 2005, by Mary Schweitzer which she found by accident. Prior to that time, no researcher was looking for soft-tissue. However, the discoveries must be by a person who believes in evolution! California State University, Northridge scientist Mark Armitage who is a creationist was fired after his discovery of soft-tissue which was published in a peer-review paper in 2014! Socialism breeds no freedom outside its narrative likewise so does evolution! The two go hand in hand.

To date, 41 fossils and counting have been discovered containing their original soft-tissue in them. Researchers are not only looking for soft-tissue which has lead to more new discoveries within the fossils, but they are also are in an uphill losing battle about trying to explain material that rapidly decays in a short period of time and then turns that observation around as proof of vast long periods of time which would confirm their belief in evolution.

Yale’s press release caption

We will now take a look at one of the more recent explanations, then turn our attention to some cool new discoveries concerning soft-tissue!

Yale put out a new study in its press release

“We took on the challenge of understanding protein fossilization,” said Yale paleontologist Jasmina Wiemann, the study’s lead author. “We tested 35 samples of fossil bones, eggshells, and teeth to learn whether they preserve proteinaceous soft tissues, find out their chemical composition, and determine under what conditions they were able to survive for millions of years.”

While the study embraces long periods of time due to its Darwinian narrative, its estimate on “rapid decay” of organic material is massively overstated. They estimate organic material completely degrades in a span of four million years. Yet, even by their own estimation, it presents a major challenge for them. How do you explain fossils with organic material in them that is supposedly 65 to over 100 million years old that was able to survive in extreme environmental conditions for long periods of time as well.

Trying to defy the Law of Entropy is no easy task but some scientists are determined to come up with an explanation that just does that! If not, more people might start doubting evolution or it might even confirm doubts from those on the fence who were leaning toward evolution but not quite fully embracing it and perhaps some of their funding would also be affected as taxpayers find it more necessary to fund other things.

The Toaster Effect

In order to defy the Law of Entropy, you have to come up with an ideal environment which produces material that is resistant to decay. Sounds like rust inhibitor for your car which didn’t happen by accident but intelligently designed. They partly tested their theory in a lab, one problem and it’s a major problem, scientists do not believe soft-tissue can be found in reducing environments!


Decalcified vertebrate hard tissues (representing a total of 7 specimens). a Paleonisciform ganoid scale (Oxfordian (Jurassic), Xinjiang, China) showing articulated blood vessels (abv) of the dentine and organic matrix with peripheral aligned and ordered (otpn), or unordered (utnp), tubular nerve projections. The left scale bar equals 500 μm, the right one 250 μm.
The Toaster Effect (which I call it as) requires that this delicate material along with its fine details remain fully intact as a result of miraculously avoiding rapid decay over a period of 65 million to over 100 million years. It is quite a challenge in trying to convert something thousands of years old into many millions of years! This hypothesis fails to confirm evolution which is why we will see many more explanations about this particular issue in the future!

On to more exciting discoveries! Two more fossils have been discovered, one in Germany and another in China that contains soft-tissue. Mary Schweitzer who was previously mentioned at the beginning of this blog posted a press release about the new discovery…

“Both the body outline and remnants of internal organs are clearly visible,” says Lindgren. “Remarkably, the fossil is so well-preserved that it is possible to observe individual cellular layers within its skin.”

“Researchers identified cell-like microstructures that held pigment organelles within the fossil’s skin, as well as traces of an internal organ, thought to be the liver. They also observed material chemically consistent with vertebrate blubber, which is only found in animals capable of maintaining body temperatures independent of ambient conditions.”

Because these animals haven’t been in the fossil record for millions of years, we can learn more about them because their bodies are more intact than they would have been otherwise. It’s awesome to find out that ichthyosaurs were warm-blooded and may have had camouflage! Interesting to note, a question for evolutionists, how could an animal fossil supposedly 180 million years old still have its original protein that is still stretchy and flexible? Caught up in their own narrative of evolution, they wait for someone to come up with a miraculous but impossible explanation to confirm it whereas observations are falsifying it.

“The team’s discoveries relied in part on an array of new technologies for studying fossils. But the German fossil is also unusual in that it appears to have fossilized very quickly, preserving soft tissues before they rotted away. It won’t be the only one of its kind, Lindgren says. “I expect there are other specimens out there, for sure.”

Yes, I agree with Lindgren on this issue, he’s right about other possible specimens who have been “fossilized very quickly” but what about a great flood that buried this animal and others like it? Creationists believe that is exactly what happened to this animal. It had been rapidly buried by Noah’s flood and since it’s not that old its original protein was preserved and now available for research! Since Lindgren is trapped into the narrative of evolution like so many others in his field, he calls the ichthyosaur a “reptile” despite the fact that this animal is warm-blooded and has no scales and looks like a toothed whale or dolphin. The narrative requires a belief that the sea made animals evolve alike! If this was a valid theory, one of the things we would be finding is less variety in the sea, not more, many creatures do not look alike in the sea! Since the evolution narrative says that reptiles were before mammals and these two fossils are before what they consider the mammal period, they clearly have to believe despite evidence to the contrary that this mammal (ichthyosaurs) is a reptile. Confusing isn’t it? This generally happens consistently in the explanations of evolution. 


Main slab of Pengornithid Enantiornithine, preserved in three-dimensions unlike most compression fossils from the Jehol Biota. Scale bar is one centimeter. Credit: Jingmai O’Connor

The second fossil discovered in China is a medullary bone commonly found in female birds today and some dinosaurs from the past. The bone itself contains a very fragile type of tissue which only exists during egg laying. A huge problem for those trying to explain millions of years but not a problem for a young earth. The medullary bone was also discovered in a T-Rex back in 2005, which shocked many evolutionists who are now working on an explanation, one of which we previously went over in this blog.

In conclusion, we don’t have to be trapped inside such a narrative that gets astoundingly confusing because of conflict with observations! There are surprises in science but not like this on a regular basis. We can think outside the box and get excited about new discoveries which confirm the Bible! Looking forward to more new discoveries in this area of science. Thanks for reading this article!

Why Does Soft Tissue Exist In Fossils?

Prior to 2005, no evolutionary scientist was looking for soft tissue in fossils, it was widely believed it was impossible for it to exist after millions of years due to the fact that soft tissue decays quite rapidly. When soft tissue was accidentally discovered in a fossil of T-Rex, it created controversy among evolutionary scientists but since then the soft tissue discovered in T-Rex was confirmed thus ending controversy and beginning the search for more soft tissue in fossils. And as a result, many more fossils have been discovered with its original soft tissue along with developing improved methods which was unheard of nor was it even remotely considered prior to 2005.

Not only are evolutionists improving the methods for their search for soft tissue in fossils which is great, but also have been focused on explaining how the impossible happened. There have been some very weak explanations, but this latest one is a classic. Remember in the previous post when it was stated that when a fundamental in evolution is falsified, that falsification is added to the theory (becomes a prediction) even though it’s the opposite of what the theory had predicted in the first place, thus preserving the fundamental. This of course doesn’t usually happen in other areas in science, mainly in evolution or other related topics that has to do with some sort of evolution.

Bacteria along with the soft contents as you may or may not know is the main reason why soft tissue breaks down easier as it decays rapidly. Now we have some scientists claiming bacteria is responsible for preserving soft tissue! I kid you not, they are actually claiming this.

Here is what science magazine says…

“The overwhelming majority of organisms will never fossilize. Preservation of an animal’s anatomy in rocks is a rare event requiring a strict set of geologic and chemical conditions. Fossilized soft tissues like skin or muscle are even rarer, as they decay very quickly beyond recognition before mineralization occurs. It would be tempting to assume that microbes—the great mediators of rot and recycling—would be a natural enemy to high-quality fossils, but [Philip] Donoghue’s time spent watching shrimp waste away seems to hint at exactly the opposite.”

The team of researchers were using brine shrimp in their experiment. As expected, the bacteria rendered the soft tissue unrecognizable but in a low oxygen environment the team rationalized, the gut would be the most ideal place where the best preservation would occur.

“The researchers also point out that animals with true “through-guts”—ones that contain both a mouth and an anus—are much more likely to leave behind high-quality fossils than animals like corals and jellyfish, which eat and excrete through the same hole and are home to far fewer bacteria. The evolution of the anus appears to have given rise to a more complex microbiome and, thus, that “definitely increases your chances” of leaving behind an exceptional fossil, Donoghue says.”  

It is assumed that these particular researchers who are considered experts know their fossils such as jellyfish fossils (their bodies are soft) which have been discovered in huge amounts, something that this team says has less chance to be preserved. Remember T-Rex back in 2005? Soft tissues were not discovered in T-Rex’s gut, rather it was red blood cells and osteocytes, discovered in T-Rex’s bone! Again, it is assumed that these researchers are aware of that too. Here is a kicker, Ediacaran fauna (older than the Cambrian explosion) don’t even have guts yet its soft tissue have been discovered all over the world! There are other examples of soft tissue that were not from the gut or mouth of the animal. It is certain that these researchers in particular are aware of these facts as well but is in sell mode with their research.

As a result, it renders the explanation useless!  So why are researchers discovering soft tissue in fossils? The answer is quite simple, the fossils are not millions of years old, only thousands which makes perfect sense with rapid decay. This is also direct proof that the earth is not four billion years old nor are these fossils many millions of years old. Fossils once considered the best piece of evidence for evolution is now actually one of the worst while their explanations are getting weaker.

Stacking Up “Scientific Consensus” For Policies

Back in the early to late 70’s scientific consensus was that of the earth was cooling down, so much in fact, they believed a return of some sort of ice-age. Until the 80’s came along where man-made climate change became the prevailing viewpoint among the so-called, “scientific consensus” and anyone who questioned it, were in denial in fact some have suggested it’s the same as being a holocaust denier or someone who just doesn’t believe in science.

There is a similarity between how evolution which used to be questioned within the framework until 1998, where it was declared a declaration of fact that was beyond question, and a new focus was put in place that involved rescuing explanations from falsifications which often times happens in the framework of evolution.

The belief in man-made climate change has a more profound effect on economies on various governments including the United States than does many research projects on evolution. Computer models without knowing an array of compensating factors became a form of popular evidence for man-made climate changes during the 80’s and it still is, today! Computer models are based on assumptions about the present or future reality, but is absolutely not reality itself.

Scientific Consensus and critics alike do agree that the earth’s temperature hit a peak in 1998, and has not shown any warming trend in the last 15 years or so. In temperate pattern in the last 50 years has been lower than what the computer models had predicted yet the UN climate chief continues to sound the alarm, claiming that the earth is running out of time! Just like in evolution when an assumption is falsified, they go into rescuing mode which sounds better in science fiction than reality.

Like the UN climate chief, Nature News continues to sound the alarm by calling this trend “a pause” and then tries to explain why the earth warming trend has pulled back. Science Daily is even alarmed by the impact the pause will have on public opinion which says is lacking because they believe the public is greedy…So they propose strategic conversations or in other words re-education camps. Other supporters have turned their focus elsewhere from the data to the skeptics themselves and are trying to demonize them in particular.

Like evolution, governments take sides by creating mandates that are agreement with man-made climate change or fund researchers that only agree with one side thus stacking  “scientific consensus” with a particular viewpoint.

“Would you rather have €40 (about $55 US) or save the climate? When the question is put in such stark terms, the common sense answer is obviously: “stop climate change!” After all, we are well-informed individuals who act for the common good and, more particularly, for the good of future generations. Or at least that’s how we like to think of ourselves.”

They like to think of their selves as rulers over the weather, but in reality there has been historical climate change long before the industrial era. It’s not denying science at all, this pause could last for years to come or not, but how do they know it’s man-made rather than historical? They have yet to define the difference. One thing is for sure man cannot control the weather, the earth does go through warming and cooling trends just like it did before the industrial era as well in the seventies and eighties till the present.

2009 Represented An Outstanding Year For Creationism

Science has limitations, but in a year that was supposed to celebrate Darwin’s birthday and his book on “Origins of Species” has turned up many things that verify creationism. In contrast, 2009 has not been kind to evolutionary thinking as it has been falling by the wayside in terms of evidence.

For example, Johns Hopkins University conducted a study on variation of phenotypes in populations and diseases as reported in science daily

“For more than 100 years, mainstream science has embraced the basic tenets of Darwin’s view that characteristics that increase an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce will be passed from generation to generation. Scientists later demonstrated that stable, significant traits are indeed inherited in the DNA carried in parental genes on chromosomes and randomly distributed to offspring.”

Evolutionary scientists such as Andrew Feinberg and Rafael Irizarry looked at gene regulation for a mechanism but found that to be inadequate. So for 150 years they are still looking for a mechanism that supposedly Darwin had proved. Without a mechanism they come up with a variety of untested models and expect the public to embrace it as though they have proven something.

Speaking of evidence, transposons which are parts of DNA machines that replicate themselves, was used as one of their best evidences for evolution. You were not for science if you rejected this so-called; magnificent proclamation. These scientists and some continue to believe it, that these were functionless parts that evolution could develope over time in a random non-thinking way.  However, true science said otherwise.

In a new study published in Nature Genetics, it was discovered that transposons have a function after all. They can regulate the expression of gene products. So not only did this study disprove one of evolution’s best arguments but it verified what was actually predicted by creation scientists who did not believe the activity came from viral or random processes, but instead was part of a well-designed, original created cellular process.

As every year, there is always some debate on whether or not creationism or intelligent design is a science. Could science really point to a Creator or intelligent agents which is what the modern intelligent design movement advocates as the source of the design.  Here is some of their argument…

“What he has just done is to admit that the hypothesis of a Designer is not science, as it predicts every possible result. If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything! …If there are none, then the Design he speaks of is an infinitely flexible hypothesis that predicts nothing, and thus is really not a scientific hypothesis at all…which is what I originally said.”

According to this, in order to qualify a proposal as a science the theory or facts must be able to distinguish between different outcomes. So it’s argued, naturalism can only fit such a standard.  However, evolution fails to meet this standard! For example, when we observe these incredibly fantastic, mind boggling designs from the simplest forms of life to the most complex, they always give credit to one source, “natural selection.”

Whatever we find in biology, evolutionists say it must have evolved. Their expectations and predictions fail on a regular basis, just like one of their strongest arguments mentioned previously which recently crashed and burned. They are always in a process of patching up their hypothesis.

If distinguishing between outcomes is the hallmark of true science, then evolution is the theory that doesn’t qualify. One evolutionist told me a long time ago, creationism has to prove itself on a higher level than evolution because evolution is fact he said or in other words, he had faith in it. Christians all over the world should rejoice, the Lord has revealed many things in 2009! I can’t wait till 2010…

When Empiricism Fails In Evolution: Where Do They Turn?

Has anyone seen evolution take place? When I first started writing this blog, a gentlemen came in and responded to my statement that “macro-evolution” is not observable. Instead of agreeing with me on the obvious he rather tried a different approach and stated that “bacteria” trying to resist medication like an anti-biotic was a prime example of evolution in action.

Richard Dawkins who appeared in the movie “Expelled” and is considered to be one of the leading spoke persons on the subject of evolution, he said…

“Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period but they have seen the after effects, and the after effects are massively supported. It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen and yet you have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute.”

-The Genius of Charles Darwin, Series 1, (UK) Channel 4 TV: Sat 11 Oct 2008

Dawkins admits evolution is not observable. It’s too slow to be observable in his opinion. Now this is not empirical science but rather inference or analogy which creationists have been using for many years. I have covered a variety of topics that use this method.

Now evolutionists basically believe they can figure out the past by studying the present.  Stellar evolution theory is a recent example. It had claims sunlight on the early earth would have been 20-30% dimmer than it is today but geology shows the oceans were liquid in the earliest (Archean) rocks which verifies the Bible.

In order to supposedly solve this problem, they claimed carbonyl sulfide produced by volcanoes is the answer because of it’s ability to create a greenhouse gas effect which they believe would have been large enough that it would be able to save the earth from a weaker sun.

Why would carbonyl sulfide not be a problem today with warming the Earth? Well because free oxygen of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would destroy carbonyl sulfide.

So this is how they look for things in the present in order to try and explain the past even though there is no real direct evidence that was the case. I do believe this method in evolution is dying somewhat. Let me explain…

Specified complexity of DNA has really opened eyes. We know that DNA is the source of information needed for protein to understand then execute that information by performing construction which creates more DNA. Without DNA, those proteins cannot build more and without proteins, DNA cannot be built either. So evolutionists have taken to the notion, that DNA was much simpler with no precise parts needed to function rather than linking the present DNA with the past as seen previously in another field of science.

There is nothing wrong with inference or analogy but it certainly destroys the evolutionary argument on one hand, but verifies the Bible on the other. We observe information being created by intelligence. We have observed languages being created by intelligence. So when we observe DNA language, and microscopic machinery that resembles man-made machines but only far more advanced one can draw an inference for being designed by God.

When we see organic material like fossilized  trees standing upright through several meters of sedimentary rock layers we can assume the layers were laid down fairly quickly before the trees could rot, happened by a flood not millions of years. When we observe unfossilized animal tissue containing amino acid sequences  within fossils of dinosaur bones, we can assume those fossils to have been formed fairly recently (thousands of years ago, not millions) because of the chemical decomposition rates involved.

All of the logical conclusions based on the above analogies and inferences prove devastating to evolutionary presuppositions.

Creationist Museum’s Second Anniversary

Containing more space than London’s Natural History Museum, the BBC asks the question, “who goes to the creationist museum and what motivates people to make a visit?

I remember the controversy when this particular creationist museum was proposed. As I recall, they had to change locations due to special interests groups which turned out to be much better, and added more space to the project. When the museum did finally open it was greeted with some protesting from airplanes flying by to protesting signs on the ground…

I find it interesting, those who believe in a faulty view of separation from church and state (the government can only disagree with religion), would be so worried about a creationist museum. One of the reasons is competition from other museums, another is the fact that they just don’t like Christianity or any other religion.

Back to the BBC quest in answering why people go to a creationist museum. They interviewed a few people, not a very good study but interesting comments nevertheless…

Laurie Geesey, the former high school teacher, who says she believes God created “everything visible and invisible”, feels people look down on her views “especially under the current [White House] administration”. “It interferes with their lifestyle, you know ‘If it feels good go ahead and do it’ – the Bible doesn’t teach that,” she says.

Scott Rubin, “Evolution is a good theory, I don’t believe in it, but parts of it are sensible and parts of creationism are sensible,” he says. “When it comes down to it, how can you know for sure? What I do know is God’s changed my life. I believe God created the world in six days, I do believe that.”

Dan Schoonmaker, the Army helicopter pilot (who as a member of the military gets in free) described himself as a “creationist in training”, admitting it needed “a lot of faith”. “I personally don’t know, but natural selection seems to be the only thing people go on. It should be more open,” he says.

Robert Mailloux, the retired businessman dismisses Darwin’s theory as “not even a low grade hypothesis” and said it had “no substantial science” in it. “The Bible says God created the Earth in six days and we flat believe that. There are over 100 ways science is able to look at the Earth and 90 say it is thousands of years old – only 10 say it’s real old…Darwin buried with kings at Westminster Abbey? He’s not a king. He’s the king of the atheists’ movement.”

What I found also interesting, the BBC enters the creation vs evolution debate by trying to make a case for evolution with the fossil Ida found years ago, which has been dismissed by most evolutionists even as a ‘missing link’ and used for profit reasons.

So there has been skepticism from the other side about Ida’s impact on the hypothesis of evolution but the BBC makes a weak attempt to say otherwise…“The most recent such finding, a “47-million-year-old fossil” of a primate, called Ida, may have given scientists a “fresh insight” into evolution.”

Speaking of skepticism, what I found lacking in the BBC report, was the fact that anti-creationists have visited there as well, not just outside protesting, but actually taking on tour on the inside. The Creationist Museum is a great family destination,  and refreshing to see that evolution is not taught like a religion like you see in secular museums.