Creation-Chronicles

creation, evolution

Search

Recent Comments

    Archives

    Categories

    Meta

    THE MARK ARMITAGE LEGAL VICTORY AND A CLARION CALL FOR LAITY TO CARRY THE TORCH IN THE CREATION-EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY

    by

    Mark Armitage Jurassic-documentary-2015-on-Dinosaurs

    “If I profess with loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except that little point which the world and the Devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”—Martin Luther

    Creationists who work in academia or science research should not be lulled into a false sense of security because of the recent Mark Armitage legal victory against his persecutors at California State University Northridge. I am writing this article on the assumption that the reader has some knowledge of the Armitage case and his science research and publication. (For those of you who may have little or no knowledge of the case, a good sense of the case and its history can be gleaned at the following article links here, and here, and here, and here and here, and here, and the following video links hereand here.)

    Armitage was the victim of religious discrimination and persecution perpetrated by Dr. Ernie Kwok and others at CSUN in the form of wrongful job termination because of his religious beliefs and the exercise of his free speech rights. Armitage’s legal and Constitutional rights were violated. Armitage sued and won. That’s wonderful. But let’s put this in perspective: one lone legal victory for a creationist in a State Court does not by any stretch of the imagination signal a reversal of the pervasive discrimination and persecution that has been perpetrated for many decades against many THOUSANDS of others who have never seen an iota of justice. As far as I am aware, Mark Armitage is one of a very small handful of Darwin doubters (that perhaps that can be numbered on one hand) to prevail in his battle against religious discrimination in American academia. Illegal discrimination, willful violation of Constitutional rights, and bigotry against creationists in the form of wrongful job termination goes on routinely and pervasively, perpetrated by, and with the blessing of, academia and our judicial establishments. The law simply does not matter to the academicians or to most of the judges ruling in most of these cases. The law itself is routinely treated as irrelevant.

    We can rejoice, and I certainly do, that there has been a modicum of justice in the Armitage case. I don’t want to rain upon anybody’s parade. But what I want to know is this: why does Ernie Kwok (et al) still have a job at CSUN? If I understand the dynamics of the Armitage case as well as I think I do, Kwok was the prime perpetrator of religious discrimination against Mark Armitage. If Ernie Kwok and Armitage’s other persecutors still have their jobs (at taxpayer expense), then is not CSUN in principle still endorsing discrimination and persecution based upon religion?

    The failure of CSUN to terminate the employment of faculty who have violated the fundamental Constitutional and civil rights of their fellow Americans declares that they are still committed to a policy of religious discrimination, especially against Christian creationists. They may have acquiesced to a particular battle they knew they could not win (and was simply too damaging because of its publicity) but they are still at war against all those who do not share their own religious faith in Naturalism. Make no mistake about that. So let’s stay the course and not get too heady about the Armitage victory.

    The Mark Armitage case is significant for multiple reasons, one reason being that his case demonstrates the two principal modus operandii of the Darwinists in academia (what I refer to as the GDPM, the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine) and science research: 1) censorship and repression of information and 2) punishment against dissenters. Another reason the Armitage case is significant is because of the actual science at the root of it.

    Make no mistake about it, Big Brother thought control, in the vein of Orwell’s 1984, is precisely what the Darwinists in academia seek to achieve. Freedom of inquiry in academia is a myth where it concerns the subject of evolution. The straw which broke the proverbial back of the camel in the Armitage case, the thing which exceeded the toleration level of the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine, was not “hellfire and damnation” preaching on campus, it was not a sermon on the book of Genesis and creation in the biology classroom. No, it was a peer-reviewed scientific article, titled “Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus,” by Armitage published in the prestigious Acta Histochemica containing straight reporting of raw data on his find of soft dinosaur tissue from a triceratops horn from the Hell Creek Formation in Glendive Montana. The truth screams aloud from such finds: to wit, “if it ain’t fossilized (permineralized), it ain’t millions of years old!” Crash goes the Darwinian and uniformitarian paradigms. The significance of this is not lost on the devotees of Naturalism and worshipers of their idol, evolution.

    In the attempt to put an end to the dissemination of such knowledge, Armitage had to go. The American Inquisition and the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine, in the form of Dr. Ernie Kwok, et al, at California State University Northridge, leapt into action. Two weeks after the publication of Armitage’s article, Ernie Kwok, in Machiavellian fashion, engineered the firing of Mark Armitage from his job. Information which conflicts with the story-line of evolutionary and old earth fairy tales simply cannot be tolerated and neither can the people who publish such information.

    Another example which exemplifies and demonstrates the extent of Orwellian thought control in our universities is that of Michael Behe, famous for his book, “Darwin’s Black Box.” Behe is famous for coining the phrase “irreducible complexity,” a feature of biological organisms which is a dead giveaway of intelligent design.

    In a video production of the Discovery Institute, Behe makes some very eye-opening and significant comments:

    At approximately 12:05 – 13:25 in the video, Behe staes:

    “For the longest time I believed that Darwinian evolution explains what we saw in biology, not because I saw how it could actually explain it but because I was told that it did explain it. In schools I was taught Darwinian biology and through college and graduate school I was in an atmosphere which just assumed that Darwinian evolution explains biology and again I didn’t have any reason to doubt it. It wasn’t until…I read a book called “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” by a geneticist by the name of Michael Denton, an Australian, and he put forward a lot of scientific arguments against Darwinian theory that I had never heard before, and the arguments seemed pretty convincing. At that point, I started to get a bit angry, because I thought I was being led down the primrose path. Here were a number of very good arguments and I had gone through a doctoral program in biochemistry, and became a faculty member and I had never even heard of these things.”—Michael Behe, emph. supp.

    Behe’s comments here are worth dwelling upon at length to grasp their significance. Think about this: here is a scientist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry, a faculty member, who had never heard “a lot of scientific arguments” in the realm of his own specialty! And don’t think for one moment that Behe’s case is unusual. Behe’s experience of being kept in the dark and “led down the primrose path” (to use his own characterization) is typical of academia in general. As cynical as I am about the Darwinian academic establishment, this type of comment is still absolutely astounding to me. How is it remotely possible, one must ask in utter astonishment, to go through at least seven years of university training and be in total ignorance of an extensive body of knowledge, a lengthy detailed book full of pertinent information in one’s own discipline? That is mind-boggling to me and demonstrates the extent to which the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine engages in bona fide thought control and brainwashing of its disciples in our academic institutions. The paradigm, the model—in this case, commitment to a religious faith, Naturalism, and its supreme article of faith, evolution—takes priority over facts and data. If the empirical facts are contradictory, then damn the facts and—and don’t let any one else know.

    Censorship reigns supreme in this regard, and don’t let any naysayer on this point deceive you with sophistries. This is all deliberate and conscious, as it certainly was in the Mark Armitage case. Like Stalin’s tyranny in Communist Soviet Russia, there are ongoing purges to cast out Darwin doubters, especially Christian creationists, from academia by systematic and pervasive denial of tenure, outright firings, demotions and campaigns of vilification directed against “scientific sinners.”

    Persecution by the Darwinian establishment is real, and is well-exemplified in the cases of Mark Armitage and many others. These purges of academic dissidents are for the purpose of maintaining strict control of “scientific” orthodoxy (the “orthodoxy” in the case of evolution being pseudo-orthodoxy) and stamping out “science sin.” I like the observation of Stephen Jay Gould: “Academia is a den of vipers” (pg. 112, The Panda’s Thumb”). Anybody who believes we have “open inquiry” in academia is ignorant of the reality. The firing of Mark Armitage from his microscopist job at California State University Northridge because of his religion and his “creationist projects” is just one such example. Another is the demotion of Richard Sternberg (an evolutionist) at the Smithsonian Institution. Another is the firing of creationist David Coppedge at NASA because of his creationist beliefs (yes, even NASA terminates employees on the basis of their religious beliefs). Another is the firing of Guillermo Gonzalez from the University of Iowa because of his religious beliefs, specifically belief in ID. Another example is Dr. Caroline Crocker, author of “Free to Think,” who was purged out of George Mason University because of herbeliefs. These five examples are most emphatically not exceptions to the rule or anecdotes. They are drops in the ocean. The list of names goes on and on and on with mind-numbing endlessness. Just ask Jerry Bergman. (See his video presentation here, and the results of his investigation of censorship in academia here.)

    Which brings me to my central point and conclusion in this article: the torch in the creationist movement needs to be carried, probably primarily, by knowledgeable LAITY, that is to say, those of us who are not employed in academia or science research and not vulnerable to termination of employment because of our religious beliefs. It is not enough to just sit back and expect academicians and research scientists to speak up and publish relevant material. As in the Mark Armitage case, speaking up can carry a heavy price, and most will simply remain silent. Until the active hostility and persecution against Darwin doubters in academia changes, there will continue to be a severe dearth of degreed professionals doing this work. Most (if not nearly everyone) in vulnerable positions in academia and science research will not dare to risk their jobs and their professional and academic accreditation. Even those who are willing to endure persecution regarding themselves will seldom be willing to subject their families to such severe life disruption.

    For those who are in academia and science research and who ARE willing to take the associated risks, Armitage lays out the program. In a personal communication with me about this matter, Armitage states:

    “I do agree with your point that the laity needs to carry this torch…(T)he pattern I have laid out is an easy one to follow if people are willing to do the work to follow it. As I say I took the time to learn my craft. I got off the path of being an expert microscopist for the microscope companies and got onto the path of Academia. I went back to school and learned electron microscopy. I then sought employment in Academia with my highly honed unique skills. There will always be need for microscopists so I have set a pattern that others who are skilled in biology or chemistry can follow. Next I sought employment at universities who are looking for a microscopist. Sadly I was thrown out of Azusa Pacific University for being a literalist on Genesis. But the settlement they gave me for wrongful termination was enough to buy my own electron microscopes. Then I had the opportunity to work for a State University and I gave full disclosure in my interview about being a creationist and being a Christian. Because I had a publication history, a secular publication history they hired me on the spot. Then I excelled at my craft for the University and won the hearts of 95% of the professors there. So I’ve established a pattern that others can follow, and we need to do this. The only way we can get through to the professionals and the millennials is to have a track record of excellence in The Sciences. So yes the laity need to take up the torch but they need to follow the pattern that I have laid down.

    “I only got a master’s degree and look at how far the Lord took me. But you are right we need Christians to get their Ph.Ds and learn these skills and get hired in universities where they have access to the research equipment and can do the studies. Then they will be effective…This is the front line of this battle and we need the laity to step up to jump in and to follow the pattern that I have established.”

    Featured image credit: Godinanutshell.com

    LIBERALISM, EVOLUTION AND ORIGINAL SIN

    by

    Adan and Eve Expelled from the Garden
    Adam and Eve Expelled from the Garden

     

    The Western world today typically divides itself into one of two camps in a multitude of arenas, typically identifying themselves either as “liberal” or “conservative.” But what do these words, “liberal” and “conservative,” actually mean and denote in terms of the actual, real underlying ideological forces animating and driving them?

    I am here to tell you something you will never hear on any major television network or any major news network: the inner fundamental essence of modern so-called “liberalism,” political, religious and otherwise, is philosophical atheism. This philosophical atheism is not rationally derived as its proponents would like everyone to believe. Rather, it is the outworking and manifestation of a psychopathology–original sin. The particulars of this psychopathology have been codified by believers in the religion of Naturalism, complete with a sectarian Confession of Faith (see The Humanist Manifesto of 1933).

    Original sin in the Biblical sense is, at its deepest root and core, the drive and impulse to autonomy (i.e., “auto” = self, and “nomos” = law), that is, the will to be a law unto one’s own self, which is, practically speaking, the drive to be one’s own God in defiance of the only true and eternal Law Giver.

    Modern conservatism, in its essence, is grounded in the proposition that there is a God (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created…”), the Creator, and that He is the ground and source of all objective morality and ethics. This was the faith of virtually all of the Founding Fathers of America, regardless of what their personal fidelity may have been, and it is the reason why Jesus Christ is referred to in Article VII of The Constitution of the United States of America as “our Lord.” Virtually all of the conflict within the Western world (and much of the rest of the world, for that matter) is the outworking and manifestation of these two opposing forces. There are a multitude of variations and shades and places along the spectrum, but never doubt that this dichotomy is the central core of all the conflict; these are the two opposing poles from which all of the other particulars flow.

    The favorite and most cherished dogma of the faithful devotees of Liberalism (notice I have now switched to a capital “L”) is Evolution. Next to the proposition of atheism itself, Evolution is “liberals” most dearly beloved Article of Faith. Make no mistake about it, Liberalism is a religion (its real name is Naturalism), and Evolution is veritably an Article of Faith. It is founded upon unproven and unprovable philosophical presuppositions about the ultimate nature of reality and is at variance and conflict with all empirical knowledge (one example of which I will get to below),

    There are many deceivers among the faithful of this religion who actively try to subvert the faith of theists. You run into them in almost every corner saying, “I believe in God and I also believe in Evolution.” When you hear a man say such a thing, mark that man as a liar. Such a man is dishonest to the core.

    It behooves every Christian, at some point in life, preferably earlier, to devote a significant portion of time to the study of the Creation-Evolution controversy to the point where the highlights of the issue can be accurately articulated to others. (I have created a YouTube page with a collection of videos which you can think of as a kind of quick crash course on the subject and I will include a list of recommended reading at the end of this article.)

    In particular, and perhaps primarily, every Christian should be aware that the fossil record emphatically does NOT give evidence in support of the evolutionary religion, a fact evolutionists know and confess themselves (or not, if they think the general public is listening in). Charles Darwin’s prediction that the (in his day) fairly young discipline of archaeology-paleontology would in time uncover the multiplied thousands or millions of minute variations that “must” have lead from one species to another has failed – and failed miserably. The only thing that can be found in the fossil record are distinct species. Period. Living organisms are all biologically isolated at the species level. And absolutely no one, especially any paleontologist, now holds out any hope at all that any line of nearly infinite gradations ever WILL be found, Charles Darwin’s failed prediction notwithstanding. There are, of course, variations within species, but all varieties of the cat species, for example, are distinct and biologically isolated from all varieties of the dog species, and all varieties of cattle, and all varieties of horses, etc. (For obvious reasons, I accept neither the nomenclature nor the classification scheme of modern taxonomy or “cladism.”)

    Consider this extraordinarily revealing admission from Niles Eldredge, the preeminent paleontologist from Columbia University who, along with Harvard’s Stephen J. Gould and Johns Hopkins’ Steven M. Stanley, brought the evolutionary establishment into the new age of “punctuated equilibrium”:

    “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while really knowing that it does not.” –quoted by Philip E. Johnson in “Darwin on Trial,” pg. 59, from Eldredge’s book,  “Time Frames.” —emph. supp.

    Dear reader, did you get that? This is a candid admission from an evolutionary insider at the very top of the evolutionary academic establishment,  an evolutionist of evolutionists, that the entire evolutionary establishment has not been honest about the facts of their profession!!! There is no apology here, just a simple reporting of the fact!

    Eldredge elaborates further:

    “Each new generation, it seems, produces a few young paleontologists eager to document examples of evolutionary change in their fossils. The changes they have always looked for have, of course, been of the gradual, progressive sort. More often than not their efforts have gone unrewarded–their fossils, rather than exhibiting the expected pattern, just seem to persist virtually unchanged…This extraordinary conservatism looked, to the paleontologist keen on finding evolutionary change, as if no evolution had occurred. The studies documenting conservative persistence rather than evolutionary change were considered failures, and, more often than not, were not even published.”–emph. supp.

    Bear in mind, this is not a biblical creationist speaking but one of the high priests of the evolutionary academic establishment. Eldredge’s oblique reference to the studies that never were published refers, in many cases, to the fact that the paleontologists were not able to get their studies published due to the stringent and pervasive evolutionary censorship mechanism in place in the academic world. It starts with self-censorship motivated by fear: if you are able by some miracle to get past the strict peer review process which is under the control of the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine, publication of such studies places one in jeopardy of being refused application for Ph.D. programs, denial of Ph.D.s after being earned, loss or denial of tenure, de-funding of one’s department, or even job termination if one is brash enough to publish studies contrary to evolutionary dogma in defiance of the evolutionary establishment.

    It cannot be stressed too strongly that this total and complete lack of any intermediate forms is not a guess, it is not speculation, it is not deduction; it is empirical fact. Those who continue to adhere to the evolutionary religion are painfully aware of this reality. This is why since the 1970’s more and more of those of this religion have converted in droves to the “Punctuated Equilibrium” model of evolution.

    For those not familiar with all of this, basically Punctuated Equilibrium (or Equilibria) says that biological organisms go on for thousands and millions of generations without changing very much until —voila!, rabbits out of the hat!–suddenly, and without any recognizable cause, virtually miraculous transformations take place over a relatively short period of time, leading to all sorts of new species. Evolutionists call it “allopatric speciation”—as if giving the concept an academic-sounding name somehow bestows more credibility upon the concept. Basically, it is the idea that evolution happens in quick bursts of “adaptive radiation” over a relatively short period of time in small populations that get isolated from the parent group and evolve separately, and this is supposedly why transitional forms are never found in the fossil record. Moreover, punctuated equilibrium is basically equivocation as far as the dialogue about evolution is concerned, confusing and conflating a real phenomenon (variation within species) with an imaginary one (fundamental transformation into different kinds of organisms). This is basically where the academic evolutionary establishment hangs its proverbial hat today.

    It should be noted that this new brand of evolutionary thinking did not come about due to any additional evidence whatsoever. It is simply a reinterpretation of the existing fossil and geological data on the part of evolutionists trying to explain WHY there is no indication of evolution in the fossil record (or among living organisms, for that matter: why don’t we see any existing sequential spectrum of life among living organisms? Why isn’t the living world of species one great blur?). This is true even if the geologic strata containing fossils is interpreted as representing long geological ages in the millions of years, rather than the obvious interpretation that they are the result of rapid deposition over a short period of time as a result of a flood.The evolutionists have been struggling greatly with this lack of evidence all along and the proposition of some kind of rapid evolution was proposed, to my knowledge, as long ago as 1940 by renowned geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, whose theory was self-dubbed as the “hopeful monster” theory. Goldschmidt was very severely ridiculed and ostracized by his contemporary evolutionists, the scientific and educational establishments, for introducing this heresy into their religious dogma. After all, everyone “knew” that evolution happened by innumerable small gradations over millions and billions of years.

    Ironically, what the proponents of Punctuated Equilibrium have done is to introduce magic and the miraculous into their schema! There are some who remain faithful to the old Darwinian gradualism despite the lack of fossil evidence but the inertia within the ranks of the evolutionary religion is definitely in this direction. After all, the fossil record has to be explained (away) somehow and the stasis of organisms found there is simply too embarrassing for evolutionists. Some explanation is needed no matter how preposterous. They would rather believe another lie, or a variation of the lie, than embrace the obvious truth that there never has been any evolution of one species into another. (The implications are just too unacceptable!) The sheer weight and magnitude of this empirical and factual consideration, and its obvious relevance to the issue, and the nature of the schema to avoid the obvious meaning and implications of the lack of transitional forms, reveals the nature of the denial as a psychopathology. There is simply no rational reason to believe in evolution on the part of anyone actually acquainted with the science of the matter. The underlying cause of this evasion of reality is a moral and ethical sickness, the manifestation of original sin.

     

    Recommended reading:

    1. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by geneticist Michael Denton
    2. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by science journalist Richard Milton
    3. The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb (this is the book that started the whole modern creationist movement)
    4. Creation’s Tiny Mystery by Robert V. Gentry
    5. Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen C. Meyer
    6. Darwin’s Enigma by Luther Sunderland
    7. Darwin’s Creation Myth by (evolutionist) Alexander Mebane (subtitled: “What It Is, How It Has Proved ‘Unfit,’ Why It Survives“
    8. Slaughter of the Dissidents by Jerry Bergman
    9. Living Fossils / Evolution: The Grand Experiment by Dr. Carl Werner
    10. The Ghost in the Machine by Arthur Koestler
    11. Janus by Arthur Koestler
    12. From Darwin to Hitler by Richard Weikart
    13. That their Words May Be Used Against Them by Henry M. Morris
    14. Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith? by Don Boys, Ph. D. B
    15. Bones of Contention by Prof. Marvin L. Lubenow
    16. Bones of Contention (same title, differnt book) by evolutionist Roger Lewin
    17. The Young Earth by John Morris
    18. Young Earth Science by Jay Hall M.S.
    19. The Intelligent Universe by Fred Hoyle
    20. Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer
    21. Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe
    22. Darwin Retried by Norman MacBeth
    23. Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson T
    24. The New Evolutionary Timetable by Steven M. Stanley
    25. The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse
    26. The Bone Peddlers by William R. Fix
    27. Fossils in Focus by J. Kirby Anderson and Harold G. Coffin
    28. The Fossil Record by John D. Morris and Frank J. Sherwin
    29. Mystery in Acambaro by Charles Hapgood
    30. Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines by Dennis Swift
    31. Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record by Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
    32. Dinosaur by Carl E. Baugh, Ph. D.
    33. Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds? by Carl E. Baugh, Ph. D.
    34. Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells
    35. The Case of the Midwife Toad by Arthur Koestler
    36. Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy by Barry Setterfield (different subject but very relevant due to the significance of time to Darwinian dogma)

    THE UN-FOSSILS – SOFT DINOSAUR TISSUE AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH

    by

    Creation Chronicles UNfossils featured image1280 x 853

     

    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.

    copyright Tom Shipley, all rights reserved

    Content coming soon!