Fatty Oil Discovered In A Fossil

The earth is young, some of its processes are much quicker than evolutionists want to believe because their assumption is that the earth is billions of years old along with evolution moving at a very slow pace. If that is the case, why are scientists discovering soft tissue in fossils which they assume are many millions of years old? Prior to 2007, they didn’t even attempt to look for it. Soft tissue was discovered by accident in a T-Rex. Now a new discovery surfaces which have absolutely stunned them! 

“As a rule, soft parts do not withstand the ravages of time; hence, the majority of vertebrate fossils consist only of bones. Under these circumstances, a new discovery from the UNESCO World Heritage Site “Messel Pit” near Darmstadt in Germany comes as an even bigger surprise: a 48-million-year old skin gland from a bird, containing lipids of the same age.”

 Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum

“As shown by our detailed chemical analysis, the lipids have kept their original chemical composition, at least in part, over a span of 48 million years. The long-chain hydrocarbon compounds from the fossil remains of the uropygial gland can clearly be differentiated from the oil shale surrounding the fossil,”

Mayer claims this is a very rare occurrence, or really? They never tested the fossils for soft tissue prior to 2007, how does he know its rare? Oh, the age assumption! How can organic material which is known for decomposing within weeks, sometimes years last many millions of years? How is that possible? It takes a lot of faith and denial of what goes on in the real world to believe in evolution. Here comes an unproven invention of how…

“It is possible that hey hardened into nore [sic, more] decomposition-resistant waxes under exclusion of oxygen. In addition, the researchers assume that one of the properties of the preen oil played a role that is still shown by modern birds today – its antibacterial components. They may have been the reason that after the bird’s death only few bacteria were able to settle in, preventing the full-on decomposition.”

Nobody will be able to test such an explanation but from human experience, we all know that soft tissue degrades quickly! And even with the earth was billions of years old, evolutionists claim the earth went through extreme climate changes over a course of millions of years and if this was true, it would have affected the soft tissue.  

And there is another thing, this fossil doesn’t show any evolution because this ancient bird had a gland that is identical to modern birds of today. Overall the ancient bird is not that much different than we see today and yet it is assumed to be 48 million years old with fatty oil still present. Any common sense would tell you the remains indicate the bird did not fossilize very long ago! It confirms creationism, not evolution! Not long ago more soft tissue was discovered in a turtle claimed to be 54 million years old! The list continues to grow. 

We live in exciting times, a young earth will provide a lot of information from the past that normally evolutionists assume should have been gone a long time ago because of their view on materialism moving very slowly. 


Evolutionary Hypothesis Goes Into Reverse

Some scientists are exploring a part of their story which requires certain genetic instructions and changes to embryonic development. The question they are trying to explain about their story is, how did fish grow feet? They conceptualized it this way…

“A team of researchers identified two new genes that are important in fin development. They report in the journal Nature that the loss of these genes could have been an “important step” in the evolutionary transformation of fins into limbs.”

“Marie-Andree Akimenko, from the University of Ottawa in Canada, led the research. She and her colleagues began their study by looking at the development of zebrafish embryos. They discovered two genes that coded for proteins that were important in the structure of fins.”

Who gave this team of researchers a grant to come up with this? Marie should do her government and the people of Canada a great favor and give the money back! Subtracting genes from animals which are already complex and poof new information emerges in that vacated space which then affects the structure of the animal is total nonsense! Is this how evolution works?  Does anyone consider this a ‘theory’? Generally evolutionists proclaim theories are well-tested and a consensus emerges to validate it to a ‘theory’ status.

And lastly, she  continues with the nonsense by claiming “whether the fin genes were knocked out to help make the transition.” Knocked out, by what or who? Further work is needed to confirm this ‘theory’ they say. Well let me tell you something, building new skyscrapers doesn’t require bulldozers!

They are going to be knocking themselves out by removing genes from fish to see what emerges. The BBC is certain that this supposed clue was going to shed light on Darwinian evolution, then makes a promise to the public while being misleading, “A study has shed light on a key genetic step in the evolution of animals’ limbs from the fins of fish, scientists say.” Did it really “shed light on a key genetic step” in the evolutionary story?

The Problem of Research Fraud in Evolution

While there have been many accusations of fraud on both sides of the issue when it comes to Creationism and Evolution, but one thing is for sure, there is indeed a problem of fraud in the study of evolution.

Back in June 2008, Nature magazine publishes an article called; “Repairing research integrity.” In July 2008, researchers from all over the world wrote back in response to the article, sharing their experiences of research corruption in which there were no controls in place to help prevent such a problem.

Two researchers from America wrote a distrubing response, they said and I quote,  “The academic and financial rewards of calculated, cautious dishonesty on the part of some scientific leaders are, we believe, all too apparent to the junior scientists they supervise,” they said.  “No amount of tutoring, stricter supervision or courses in research ethics will fix this problem.”

What lacks with these types of researchers from top to bottom is the fear of God. This type of sinful conduct deludes research even more with the faulty conclusions about naturalism. The love for money is one of the reasons of why conducting solid and objective research is tainted.

This is not to say all evolutionary scientists are in it for the money because there are some who are wrong about their faith in evolution, but still conduct their research in an honest way.