Category Archives: Creation Science

Dinosaur Soft Tissue An Issue

Within the last twenty-four hours news stories have appeared which report that scientists have extracted soft tissue from dinosaur fossils, specifically blood cells and collagen. These samples were extracted from fossils that were allegedly 75 million years old. The buzz in these stories is that the samples were taken from specimens that were not well preserved, implying that soft tissue preservation might be more common than previously believed.

That soft tissue has been found in fossils is not a new revelation. Back in 2005 Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist with North Carolina State University, discovered a “fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.”1 This discovery caused a fire storm because according to the known laws of science, they should not have been preserved given their advanced age.

“By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It’s a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million” years alleged for the age of the dinosaurs.2 According to scientists then, this life-like tissue “had no business inhabiting a fossilized skeleton” because it would be longer lasting than “scientific theory might predict.”3

It is instructive to note how the proponents of an ancient earth reacted. Most evolutionists were skeptical of Schweitzer’s discovery because, as she herself observed, “everyone knows these things don’t last for 65 million years.”4 She even had a hard time getting her findings published in peer reviewed journals. However, when it became impossible to deny the existence of the soft tissue any longer, evolutionists then had to change their view of how long such specimens could last. And they had to, because other research produced soft tissue in 50 % of their samples that supposedly dated back to 145 to 200 million years ago!5

These findings pose an obvious problem for the evolutionist. Known scientific facts show that blood, collagen and other soft tissue samples like those discovered do not and cannot last for the millions of years needed for the evolutionary explanation of these finds. Evolutionists, in an effort to salvage their hypothesis of evolution, have to assume that somehow, contrary to all that is known, such tissue can last through such vast ages. They have resorted to several theories as to how the tissue could be preserved, but those theories are about as convincing as their original objections to the soft tissue preservation itself.

The preservation of soft tissue in fossils poses no problem for the creationist. In fact, these findings fits perfectly with the Biblical description of a world-wide deluge four thousand years ago which produced the vast majority of fossils now known. It is interesting that Schweitzer had trouble getting her findings published, even though she is not a creationist! If she had trouble publishing her findings because they seem to contradict evolutionary theory, then you can imagine the difficulty creationists have in getting their research published and the kind of resistance with which they meet.

Furthermore, the fact that the soft tissue was found in poorly preserved fossils, suggests that the preservation of soft tissue is much more common than would be expected by evolutionary standards. It’s abundance would suggest that highly specialized conditions needed for preservation over vast eons of time are not necessary or likely and more probably, even impossible. It is much more likely that it is a common occurrence because these fossils were formed not so long ago.

Eric L. Padgett

1. Barry Yoeman, Discover Magazine, Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery, April 2006,
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. Ibid
5. Stephanie Pappas,, Controversial T. Rex Sot Tissue Find Finally Explained, Nov. 26, 2013

Back-up Your Info In Your DNA!

The January 23 issue of Nature reported that some information–in this instance all of Shakespeare’s sonnets, a photograph of a building, two science articles, and an mp3 clip of a Martin Luther King, Jr. speech–had been stored in a short strand of DNA. The resultant DNA was just a barely visible speck on the bottom of a small test tube. The scientists who brought about this experiment tout it as a possible means of storing massive amounts of information in the future for long periods of time.

However, scientists already knew about the nature of genetic information stored in DNA and creationists have long pointed to this as evidence that there is an intelligence behind it’s design, only to have evolutionists ridicule the idea. Now that scientists have managed to store non-genetic data in DNA it is even more obvious that information creation and storage require intelligence.

According to the article, it took over two weeks to read the information encoded in the DNA and cost $10,000 using the best technology known to man. To store the world’s existing data would cost more money than is even available on our planet! Yet DNA is read every minute of the day with ease in living things and the evolutionists expect us to believe this just happened by natural selection without any intelligence behind it.

If, later, someone were to sequence a strand of DNA and find a book of Shakespeare or an audio file or an image embedded in the DNA, would anyone think that this just happened by natural selection? Wouldn’t this be even greater evidence of intelligence and design than finding a watch on a beach, an illustration offered by William Paley back in 1802? And yet, the genetic material in DNA is even greater than any work of Shakespeare or photo or human speech. These genes produced the minds that create these works of art.

The authors also propose that in a decade, when technology has much improved, this might become a way to store information for long periods of time without decay. Normal digital storage media quickly become obsolete (remember 8-Track tapes and cassettes?) and degrade over time. It is said, however, DNA lasts much longer.

It is interesting that in the  article on the subject, reference was made to Woolly Mammoth DNA being preserved for “tens of thousands of years.” However no reference was made to dinosaur DNA being found in T-Rex fossils. This was not mentioned perhaps because scientists also know it is not possible for DNA to last for 65 million years. Yet, according to Dr. Mary Schweitzer “material consistent with DNA” has been found in dinosaur fossils of that age. This caused quite a stir when announced. However, undaunted, Evolutionists never even considered re-thinking their view of when dinosaurs lived but, instead, changed their view of how long DNA could survive even though the experimental evidence is against it!

Nevertheless, while man-made digital tape degrades and is limited, God’s storage methods are permanent and unlimited.  That is especially true of God’s revealed word.  It will never pass away (Matt. 24:35).

But the bottom line is DNA is information that God stored in our cells to build our physical bodies. Anyone of normal intelligence would be impressed with both the design and intelligence exhibited not only in our bodies but in the world itself.

Eric L. Padgett

The Recent “Debate” Between Ken Ham and Bill Nye (2)

In the debate between creation science and evolution, the real problem is not that creationists reject science, it is that evolutionists reject the evidence of the Bible.  They not only reject the Bible, but they reject any possibility of the supernatural whatsoever.  Though they aver that they are objective, in actuality anything that conflicts with their materialistic world view is rejected or shrugged off.

For instance, Ken Ham introduced a piece of evidence for Bill Nye that he did not really touch.  He made one attempt, but then spoke of it no more.  Ham spoke of a piece of wood that was discovered entombed in a basalt flow 70 feet down.  Samples of the rock and wood were sent to a lab to be dated.  The rock was dated to 45 million years old but the wood was dated to 45,000 years old.  Two widely divergent dates in the same layer.

Nye tried to suggest that the 45 million old rock slid on top of the wood.  But Ham pointed out that the wood was found encased in the rock, not under it.  Nye never answered this again.  Never attempted to answer it.  He just shrugged.  These examples could be multiplied many times.

In attempting to defend Big Science dating methods, Nye unwittingly undercut himself by admitting that their predictions about the age of asteroids were incorrect.  They initially predicted that there would be a wider spread between the age of the asteroids, but it was discovered that the ages were actually quite close together, which Nye described as a “mystery.”  These dates are not a problem for creation scientists, but they are for evolutionists.

Furthermore, Nye is fond of pointing out that science actually makes predictions about what should be if certain things are so.  He says this often as if to imply that creation science doesn’t actually make predictions, thus it is not science.  While we would agree that making predictions is essential in the scientific method, science often gets it wrong, as in the case of the age of asteroids.  Creation scientists often make predictions as well.  But in every instance where all the evidence is available, the Bible has been found to be completely accurate.

When addressing the idea of racism that has been promoted by the belief in evolution (remember, the original title of Darwin’s book was “Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life), he never addressed the issue.  Nye simply said that racism was proposed by people of European descent who said “Hey, were the best. Check us out.”  But the point is that Darwinism gave cover to racism by promoting the idea of a “favored race.”  Nye did not even attempt to address the point.

Nye continued throughout the debate to dismiss the Bible as unreliable because it has been translated many times and that creation science is merely Ham’s fallible interpretation of an old, outdated, fallible book.

In response, Ham pointed out that it was not simply his view but that it was backed by many credentialed scientists.  “I do want to say this, that you said a few times you know, ‘Ken Ham’s view’ or ‘Ken Ham’s model.’  It’s not just Ken Ham’s model.  We have a number of PhD scientists here on staff. . . It’s Dr. Demadian’s model, it’s Dr. Fabish’s model, it’s Dr. Faulkner’s model, it’s Dr. Snelling’s model, It’s Dr. Perdams model, and so it goes on”.

Again, either Nye was completely ignorant of what the Bible says regarding sin, or he purposely misrepresented it.  He said:  “Are the fish sinners?  Have they done something wrong to get diseases?  That’s sort of an extraordinary claim that, ah, takes me just a little past what I’m comfortable with.”  Obviously, no one claims that fish have sinned, but there are consequences to actions.  Many people who have never imbibed one drop of alcohol have been hurt or killed by it, however.

Nye once and again tried to characterize Ham’s position.  For instance, he said: “So this idea that you can separate the natural laws from the past from the natural laws that we have now I think is at the heart of our disagreement.  I don’t see how we’re ever going to agree with that if you insist that natural laws have changed.  It’s ah, for lack of a better word, it’s magical.  And I have appreciated magic since I was a kid but it’s not really what we want in conventional, mainstream science.”

But Ham responded: “I would also say that natural law hasn’t changed.  As I talked about, you know, we have the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature.  And that only makes sense within a Biblical world view anyway of a Creator God who set up those laws.  And that’s why we can do good experimental science, because we assume those laws are true and they’ll be true tomorrow.”

Ham also brought up the “Horizon Problem” to show that Big Science also has problems with how heat and radiation can transfer across the universe, producing a stable and fairly constant background radiation.  According to Big Science, there should not be a consistent background radiation because the universe is too large for all the energy to have reached all other parts.  Yet, this prediction was found to be wrong.  So, Big Science had to come up with a solution.  Therefore, it invented Inflation, the idea that at some very early point in the formation of the universe (according to Cosmic Evolution) the universe expanded at a rate much more rapidly than they say it is doing to day.  But isn’t this, for lack of a better word, “magical”?  That’s what Nye said it is when laws from the past differ from laws from the present (see above).

There is so much more that could be said, but I’ll make one final point.  Experimental science is wonderful and God given.  God has given us a world full of wonders to explore and understand.  We are, in fact, to subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28).  Good Bible exegesis has nothing to fear from honest, objective experimental science because Truth does not contradict itself.

After having listened to the debate a second time, I find that Mr. Ham actually did a much better job of addressing the issues, answering questions and challenging his opponent than I initially thought he did.   Nye merely characterized his opponent’s positions and never answered the arguments presented substantially.  I don’t know if this is Bill Nye’s true character or if this was all he was left with because he could not answer the truth.

Eric L. Padgett