How old is the earth? And how old are the fossil-bearing rock strata in the earth? The answer to the second question will have direct bearing upon the first question. If the fossil-bearing rock strata of the earth are much younger than the hundreds of millions, or billions, of years usually assigned to them by evolutionists, then the earth itself is much younger than claimed by our secular, Darwinist, evolutionary establishment.
One of the most compelling reasons that have come to light in recent decades to reject the Darwinian-Lyellian hypothesis of millions-of-years-old fossils is the fact of soft original organic tissue (i.e., UNfossilized) finds of dinosaurs and other extinct organisms in the rock of the earth! These original soft tissue finds utterly DISPROVE the evolutionary hypothesis that these creatures lived millions of years ago because organic tissue even under the most ideal conditions conceivable cannot survive even 100,000 years, to say nothing of a million years—to say nothing of the supposed 65 million years of time since the extinction of the dinosaurs. Proteins, for example, have a maximum possibility of about 40,000 years duration under perfect, ideal conditions for preservation. Collagen tissue, which is somewhat more durable, may last up to 100,000 years under absolutely ideal conditions. This is all established by the empirical, known science of chemical kinetics. (I will cite Mary Schweitzer to that effect below.)
Amazingly, these original soft tissue finds are also yielding significant Carbon-14 content in the original tissue, which is another impossibility if, in fact, the tissue is 65 million years old as claimed by evolutionists, as C-14 has a very short half-life of about 5,500 years. In addition, these soft original tissue finds of dinosaurs and other organisms are also yielding unracemized DNA, that is partly undegraded (still left-handed) DNA which rapidly randomizes (racemizes) after the death of the organism to a 50/50 ratio of left and right handed DNA, and then gradually disintegrates completely. DNA’s half-life is even shorter than C-14, maybe about 600 years at most. (DNA in ALL living organisms consists of exclusively left-handed DNA.)
This triad of facts, 1) extant original organic tissue, 2) significant Carbon-14 content in the original tissue, and 3) extant and unracemized DNA remains, is like a Molotov cocktail thrown into the gasoline tank of evolution. These things cannot possibly be if the tissue is millions of years old, and this is not conjecture but known established science. These finds have utterly and conclusively demolished the evolutionary pretensions of the Darwinists.
Unfortunately, the administrators of the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine have no interest in educating the general public about the significance of these facts nor students attending our colleges and universities. In fact, they are quite determined to make sure the general public does NOT get educated about these things and are spoon-fed MISinformation about this subject. (After all, it is the general public from whom ultimately the floodgates of money and funding flow. Gotta protect the gold mine!) All we are getting from the Darwinian establishment now is special pleading after the fact, propaganda, in contradiction to all known and very well established science about organic tissue decay and chemical kinetics.
Mary Higby Schweitzer, more than anyone else, has been front and center in the theater of soft dinosaur tissue finds and investigation. Schweitzer is a paleontologist at North Carolina State University. She is also the protege of the famous Jack Horner who, according to Wikipedia, “is one of the best-known paleontologists in the United States. In addition to his many paleontological discoveries, Horner served as the technical advisor for all of the Jurassic Park films, and even served as partial inspiration for one of the lead characters, Dr. Alan Grant.”
Horner is reported saying to Schweitzer, upon learning of Schweitzer’s discoveries, “The creationists are going to love you.”
In public news media interviews, Schweitzer has said:
“It just doesn’t seem possible. But yes you can actually take the vessels [i.e. soft dinosaur blood vessels] and they do have internal components and so you can take a probe and kind of squeeze those things out into solution and the vessels are fine. It’s just…I can’t explain it to be honest.”
And:
“Well it is very amazing. It is utterly shocking, actually, because it flies in the face of everything that we understand about how tissues and cells degrade…the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone. It should be degraded completely.”
And:
“A lot of our science doesn’t allow for this. All of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we’ve done don’t allow for this. So if this material turns out to be the actual remnants of the dinosaur then, yes, I think we will have to do some, certainly rethinking of some of the basics of the model of fossilization.”
That rethinking should start with the basic time assumption, that the dinosaur tissue under examination is millions of years old and that fossilization takes many hundreds of thousands or millions of years to occur (an assumption which is overwhelmingly contradicted by the internal evidence of many, many fossils). That would seem to be the logical and rational conclusion to make—but NO, that is simply not permitted because that would interfere with faith in evolution. Re-evaluation of the time assumption is simply not up even for discussion, to say nothing of serious consideration. No way, no how. VERBOTEN! Subsequent investigation has shown that the tissue being found is, in fact, original organic tissue, the remnants of the dinosaur.
Until very recently, I was under the impression that the very first soft dinosaur tissue finds were unearthed by Mary Schweitzer in 1997 until recently being informed better by Mark Armitage in a video. Apparently soft dinosaur tissue finds go all the way back to at least 1966! Roman Pawlicki of Jagiellonian University in Poland has apparently published at least fifteen scientific papers on his finds.
To judge from the things Mary Schweitzer has said publicly, Mary Schweitzer herself appears to have believed that she was the first scientist to discover soft dinosaur tissue. She was not. Apparently, the self-appointed Guardians of Evolutionary Dogma have not been very interested in spreading the word about Pawlicki’s findings. I ask, how is it possible that an educated scientist such as Mary Schweitzer could have been in ignorance of fifteen (15!) scientific papers spanning from 1966 to 1995 in her own specialty? Apparently, the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine not only quarantines information from getting outside of academia but also within.
According to Mark Armitage, Mary Schweitzer’s first such discovery was in 1997 in the fossilized (?) bones of the most popular of all dinosaurs, the tyrannosaurus rex. Found there were soft blood vessels, proteins, various blood cells, collagen and even DNA sequences! I encourage the reader to investigate this information at the ICR website here, and Bob Enyart’s page from Real Science Radio.
Until these discoveries started to be unearthed in 1997 by Mary Schweitzer, there was universal agreement that soft organic tissue could survive at the outside maximum, under the best, most optimal of ideal conditions, for maybe up to an absolute maximum of 100,000 years and certainly not for multiple hundreds of thousands of years — to say nothing of millions of years. This is why fossils were never before investigated by scientists for soft tissue. It has just simply been assumed by the evolutionists that the dinosaur and other remains MUST be millions of years old—hence, it was not possible for them to contain soft tissue, and therefore there was no need to look for it. (Bob Enyart of Real Science Radio has asked a pertinent question: How much valuable scientific information has been lost forever over the last 150 years due to the false beliefs of the evolutionists?)
Organic tissue, which consists of complex molecules, rapidly degrades of itself after the death of the organism even absent any external influences. Organic tissue is unstable and degrades even from its own molecular motion of the constituent atoms and also from very slight temperature variations. Needless to say, the evolution-minded scientists have been scrambling to explain away the obvious significance of these finds. They are trying to concoct ad hoc explanations to advance the assertion that these soft tissue finds have survived for millions of years—despite their own previous universal agreement that such extant soft tissue was known to be impossible. This attempt smacks of special pleading after the fact to me, as the referenced ICR article also observes.
Secular paleontologists and geologists and biologists (that is to say, those who have faith in the religion of Naturalism) over the last 150 years have been so universally convinced that dinosaur fossils were so old (i.e., millions of years) that no one ever dreamed of attempting to find extant soft tissue in them. Dinosaur bones with extant soft tissue inside of them have been on display in museums around the world, all the while the curators of these museums being completely in ignorance of what they had in their possession. Extant soft tissue finds in dinosaur bones has utterly astonished the scientists. It certainly astonished Mary Schweitzer, according to her own testimony. Mary Schweitzer was so incredulous at the facts before her eyes that she tested the samples 17 times searching for laboratory error!!! The old-earth evolutionists’ minds are blinded by their religious faith (the religion of Naturalism) to the truth manifestly before their eyes, namely, that any surviving soft tissue conclusively proves that the specimen is only several thousand years old at most.
Conclusion: the entire age scheme of modern Lyellian geology and Darwinian evolution is now completely and definitively discredited and must be discarded in favor of a young earth model. The facts warrant this. (But, of course, admitting this self-evident fact to the general public could possibly cause very severe interruptions of the allocation of public money, and that is just unthinkable.)
The obvious and irrefutable conclusion to be made from all of these dinosaur (and other) soft tissue finds is that the unfossilized remains examined (and, therefore the rocks they are found in) are merely thousands of years old, not millions. The number of such finds keeps mounting up to the point where these soft tissue finds are now the norm. A few random citations include, 1) organic tissue found in a triceratops horn, 2) soft tissue found in a hadrosaur, 3) a supposedly 80 million year old mosasaur, 4) a supposedly 150 million year old archaeopteryx, 5) and, get this, soft tissue from supposedly 500 million year old pre-Cambrian beard worms!!! The evolutionists now want us to believe that organic tissue can survive for half a billion years! The known facts of empirically demonstrated science regarding organic tissue decomposition are simply ignored and dismissed.
These finds dramatically disprove the fundamental axiomatic, a priori age assumptions pre-loaded into virtually all archaeological, paleontological, and geological research of evolutionary academia. This issue constitutes a test of the honesty and integrity of our academicians. The scientists who have faith in the religion of Naturalism have simply been wrong about the age of the fossils (or in these cases, the unfossils) and, therefore, of the age of the earth, and it is time to admit it. They are now beginning to look very, very foolish, indeed, trying to defend the dogmas of the religion of Naturalism and its premier article of faith, evolution.
Recent Comments