Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Dinosaurs and Man lived together/the next five reasons why evolution will not fly

A young woman provides a comparison for a large section of a polystrate tree.

The recent excitement about Mary Schweitzer's findings of actual tissue being preserved in a Tyranosaurus Rex fossil? It only makes sense. In fact, now we know that soft tissue has been found in more than one fossil, which naturalistic materialistic scientists used to claim could not possibly happen. After all, dinosaur fossils would have to have been in the ground for millions upon millions of years! Now they are saying that, who knew, actual tissue can be preserved for millions of years despite all evidence to the contrary! Yeah, right.

Let me remind you of the article I published in April of 2006, Beowulf, Grendel, and a preponderance of dinosaurs. It began thusly:

"Dinosaurs and Man

Having established that the
Bible mentions and describes dinosaurs, I wish to begin laying out the historical evidence for the coexistence of dinosaur and man after the Noahic Flood. I wanted to give the Bible evidence first, allow doubters to emit their first "Piffle!" and move on from there. Time to begin compiling the evidence. "

If you click the title link you can read the entire thing.

I am pretty happy with the research done by Bill Carroll on this subject and borrowed heavily from his work (attributed, of course). There are signficant problems for old earthers and here are the main ones:

1) Drawings, carvings and figurines dating from several hundred to a few thousand years old depicting dinosaurs of many varieties. How did people from 500, 1,000 or 1,500 years ago know what dinosaurs looked like?

2) Myriad stories of man doing battle with various kinds of dinosaurs.

3) Myriad official reports and documents in the archives of towns and cities throughout Europe mentioning encounters with dinosaurs.

4) The mentions of dinosaurs in the Bible.

5) Now we also have tissue that has not yet petrified being discovered in dinosaur remains. One has to wonder how many times in the past this was discovered and destroyed? We all owe a debt of thanks to the nevertheless staunch Darwinist Mary Schweitzer for her honest appraisal of her T-Rex remains, thereby letting another cat out of the bag.

I also mentioned and discussed the recent Creation on the Web article about soft tissue finds, which I am copying below:

Best ever find of soft tissue (muscle and blood) in a fossil

by Carl Wieland
Published: 11 November 2009(GMT+10)

A salamander allegedly “18 million years old” is the latest fossil to produce astonishingly well preserved soft tissue. This time, it’s muscle tissue, and it is supposedly the most pristine example yet.

The muscle and blood found in the salamander fossil are the latest soft-tissue evidence in a long line of similar discoveries. Earlier, these flexible branching structures in T. rex bone (left photo) have justifiably been identified as blood vessels, while microscopic structures squeezed out of the blood vessels (right photo) look distinctly like cells, as evolutionary researchers themselves have admitted. (See Still soft and stretchy.) Soft-tissue evidence such as muscle, blood and cells should not be there if the fossils really are millions of years old.
Background—the “dinosaur connection”

Readers may recall the controversy that erupted when we first started reporting (in Creation magazine and later also on this site) on the discovery (by evolutionists) of blood vessels containing red blood cell remnants, and later other soft tissue, in dinosaur fossils (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!). This included flexible transparent branching blood vessels with nucleated red blood cells visible and more (see Still soft and stretchy: Dinosaur soft tissue find a stunning rebuttal of ‘millions of years’, also the trail of links leading from that to later articles, including the discoveries of dinosaur proteins).

There was not only astonishment that such fragile tissues could have survived for more than a few thousand years at most, there was frank disbelief from many circles. Even some creation-believing scientists made sceptical comments showing that they didn’t understand the issues (as shown), and not surprisingly “progressive creationist” long-agers published detailed attempts at refutation which fell flat. The reason for their problem is clear; the physics and chemistry indicates that the protein molecules responsible for such structures could never, in the best of circumstances, last for millions of years. So this is powerful evidence for the Bible’s young age for the earth.

Evolutionist and dinosaur expert Prof. Phil Currie acknowledges the opposition faced by those who have published on such finds that upset the traditional viewpoint—see the ‘extras’ interviews on CMI’s DVD Darwin: The Voyage that Shook the World for Professor Currie’s very revealing comments on the topic.

And the evidence continues to mount, including carefully repeated analyses of the actual proteins themselves. And there are now so many published reports and detailed documentation and analysis of similar finds that it is rapidly becoming “mainstream”. This latest report on preserved salamander muscle should really serve as the final nail in the coffin of ill-informed opposition.

The best yet

According to University College Dublin geologist, Dr Maria McNamara, the lead author of the report1 just published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the muscle specimen in this particular fossil showed “very little degradation since it was originally fossilised … making it the highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.”2

The muscle tissue was preserved ‘organically’ in three dimensions, with many fine microscopic details. Its circulatory vessels were ‘infilled with blood’.

McNamara says that the team, which consisted of researchers from Spain, the UK and Ireland, undertook “a series of highly detailed analyses to limit the possibility that it was simply an artefact of preservation” or something non-biological. The muscle tissue was preserved “organically” in three dimensions, with many fine microscopic details. Its circulatory vessels were “infilled with blood”.1

The authors say that their results are “unequivocal evidence that high-fidelity organic preservation of extremely labile tissues [i.e. extremely unstable ones-Ed] is not only feasible, but likely to be common.” They then mention similar discoveries in Germany’s Messel oil shale pit.1
OK, it’s soft tissue—what now?

One could hardly wish for a better demonstration of the bankruptcy of deep time

It wasn’t hard to predict that such inconvenient facts, even when they could no longer be denied, would not lead to a wholesale abandonment of such a carefully constructed worldview artifice as evolution’s “deep time”—especially given its crucial importance for the materialist religion of the age. All it will take is for report after report to talk about the “millions of years” ages for each such “squishy fossil”, and everyone will relax and come to accept that “we know that soft tissues can last for millions of years”. As if there was never any doubt. And no one will bother to explain how it is that all that “hard science” said (and still says) that they shouldn’t be there, period, in anything anywhere near that old. As Bible-believers, we need to keep holding their feet to the fire, so to speak. We need to be graciously but persistently pointing out this potent and unresolved inconsistency in “long-age religion”, despite the convenient apathy that is already shrouding the issue.

For those who are open to believing God’s Word one could hardly wish for a better demonstration of the bankruptcy of deep time and the reality of Genesis history.


1. M. McNamara, P. Orr, S.L. Kearns, L. Alcalá, P. Anadón and E. Peñalver-Mollá, ‘Organic preservation of fossil musculature with ultracellular detail’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, published online before print 14 October 2009.

2. ‘Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil’,, November 5, 2009.


Now recently I found that a commenter pointed out a very interesting site that must be seen to be believed, DINOGLYPHS - DINOLITS,
the Out-of-Place Artefacts (OoP-Arts) carved, hewn and painted by our common forefathers. What if Man and dinosaurs coexisted, after all?

The site lists a few names used by man to identify dinosaurs:

Tinshemet, behemot, leviatan, leviathan, tannin, rahab, raahab, belua, addanc, carrog, wyrmeynnes, saedracan, nicor, niceras, ythgewinnes, lyftfloga, widfloga, ligdraca, lyftfloga, widfloga, ligdraca, grendel, gryndel, grund-wyrgen, Grindelwald, Grendelwood, Dinosaur, dinosaurs, dinosauria, dinosaurus, dinosaurukset, dinotopia, dinoglyf, dinoglyph, dinolit, dinoglyfit, dinoliitti, dinocritic, Beowulf, Beowolf, Beewolf, Gilgamesh, Enkidu, Flintstones, Kiviset ja Soraset, hirmulisko, hirmuliskot, dragon, dracon, draco, draconite, pendragon, pendracon, ископаемое, вымирание, lohikäärme - LEVIATANIA

There are all sorts of pictures of various carvings, drawings and other artifacts. Regular readers of Radaractive will remember my posts concerning the Acambaro figurines and the overwhelming evidence that the makers of the figurines lived with dinosaurs. I spent a couple of columns discussing the stegosaurus carvings on an old Cambodian temple earlier this year. Feel free to search for them and reconsider the evidence again.

Those who have no reasonable arguments simply scoff and make fun and yet there are no Darwinists who can explain such evidence. So therefore they simply try to ignore it and cover it up. So in that light I will present the numbers 6-10 of the Fifty Reasons Why Evolution Will Not Fly.

6. TRANSITIONAL LIFEFORMS: If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one species to another, as evolutionists insist, then we would expect to find many fossils intermediate between all the species. Yet, we do not find any transitional species. Instead of finding fish growing limbs and reptiles sprouting wings in the fossil record, what we actually see are gaps. Creationists continually ask evolutionists to explain the following gaps; non-living matter to protozoan, protozoan to metazoans, metazoans to invertebrates, invertebrates to fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to fur-bearing quadrupeds, quadrupeds to apes, and apes to man. Have you ever seen or heard of a transitional fossil? Of course not. They don’t exist!

Quick article on Polystrates.

7. PETRIFIED LOGS: Petrified logs represent something of an enigma for evolutionary scientists. These logs point to a rapid, catastrophic event, such as a massive worldwide flood, rather than a slow burial. These trees all have their branches stripped off and yet their bark is intact. This would indicate a very different method of deposition than we currently find in forests and it speaks of an event of enormous power. Creationists believe much evidence exists for a worldwide (Noah’s) flood. Which belief system best explains petrified logs to you, evolution or creationism?

8. POLYSTRATIC TREES: Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers (“many strata”) of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 feet deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, no one doubts that these trees were buried rapidly, from top to bottom. Otherwise, the top of the trunks would have decayed well before new rock layers had a chance to surround them. An example of polystratic trees can be seen at Spirit Lake in Washington State. The observable, catastrophic events at Mt. St. Helens buried thousands of trees rapidly. Sometimes evolutionists try to explain polystratic evidence as a reburial event, but this can hardly be the case when the rock layers are situated directly against the trunk of the tree.

9. EPHEMERAL MARKINGS: How long do animal tracks last in the woods? Does rain leave an imprint for millions of years? Ephemeral markings include ripple-marks, rain imprints, worm trails, and animal tracks. These fleeting emblems are found in great abundance in the fossil record. As you can well imagine, such fragile marks are very easily disturbed, yet the fossil record yields a large amount of them. Most of these imprints were made in soft, wet sand that hardened into rock. These marks must be buried very fast or they will just wash away with the next wave. Furthermore, they must be buried at least to the depth of the imprint or the rock above the imprint will squash it away to nothing. This is ample proof that these ephemeral imprints were buried in a fast-moving, catastrophic environment such as Noah’s flood.

Man and dinosaur footprints at same time?

10. BIOTURBATION -- Bioturbation is evidence of animal activity left in rock. This phenomenon would be expected in the upper few feet of most layers of rock. Rapid bioturbation is seen on the East Coast of the U.S., where hurricanes regularly deposit fresh new layers of sediments along the exposed beaches. These sediments are thoroughly inhabited by creatures within a few weeks time to a depth of many feet. If the top few feet of rock layers have been exposed for thousands or millions of years, as evolutionists maintain, we should find profound evidence of animal life, as well as root tracts from plants. Yet, as we look carefully at the geologic column, we find precious little evidence of bioturbation. How can we explain the absence of these animal “tracks?” Consider the expected results of a worldwide flood as described in the Biblical book of Genesis. Such an event would deposit rock layers so quickly that no bioturbation could occur. What do you think? Why can’t we find evidence of bioturbation in so-called “ancient” rocks?
Gee, I wonder if the reason they are not found is the same reason soft tissue is being discovered in fossils and that carvings and reports and drawings of dinosaurs are common in the historical records of mankind before 1500 AD. God made the world in six days, destroyed the face of it in a world-wide flood and then we humans have had about 4,000 years to try to fill the world with people and we have not yet succeeded. How many of you are willing to throw off the old, tired Evolutionist paradigm and actually THINK?


WomanHonorThyself said...

hey radar! SWEETEST HOLIDAYS to u my friend..big NY hugss!!! xoxoxox

Anonymous said...

AronRa lays it all out:

How could creationism not be dishonest?

radar said...

I show you actual evidence and you show us a youtube by a boob with a sock puppet? How could evolutionism not be stupid?

AronRa may be self-satisfied by trying to make Behe look foolish but stacks of books are not evidence. They represent the common paradigm rather than evidence. Don't try to make a lawyer's trick into scientific enquiry!

How high would the stack of books containing Jaeckels faked embroyos go? How high would the stack of books asserting aliens live among us? How high a stack could I make of books by "diet experts" of diets that make you sick? Good grief!

radar said...

I show you actual evidence and you show us a youtube by a boob with a sock puppet? How could evolutionism not be stupid?

AronRa may be self-satisfied by trying to make Behe look foolish but stacks of books are not evidence. They represent the common paradigm rather than evidence. Don't try to make a lawyer's trick into scientific enquiry!

How high would the stack of books containing Jaeckels faked embroyos go? How high would the stack of books asserting aliens live among us? How high a stack could I make of books by "diet experts" of diets that make you sick? Good grief!

Anonymous said...

LOL, Radar; the double-post doesn't make your reply less of a failure.

The sock you're talking about is actually taken from a CREATIONIST video.
Indeed: how could creationism not be stupid.

Really Radar, I truly advise you to stop commenting before you make yourself look even more foolish.

Good grief, Radar, how can you live with posting failure after failure? It's truly beyond me. You must have SOME pride?

Anonymous said...

in the beginning there was nothing but nothingness. then Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked that nothingness in the face... and the universe was born

the Bible was originally called "Chuck Norris and Friends"

many biblical figures have a beard/mullet like Chuck Norris, this is not a coincedence

wilvic said...

^that's impossible. Bruce lee beats chuck norris. go home.