Search This Blog

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Real Flesh and Blood Remains Rather than Fossils Debunk Darwinism!

Crinoid fossils are quite common in the Great Lakes area of the United States.  Often known locally as "Indian Beads" because some tribes did use crinoid fossils in making jewelry, they were so commonplace that we rarely kept many of their fossils, preferring trilobites or complete shellfish and other more interesting fossil specimens from that formation.  Supposedly "ancient" limestone is often the very top layer of sedimentary rocks found in the Great Lakes area.   


The Chicago Reader had a story on crinoids and limestone that began, curiously, with this quote:

People, as curious primates, dote on concrete objects that can be seen and fondled. God dwells among the details, not in the realm of pure generality. We must tackle and grasp the larger, encompassing themes of our universe, but we make our best approach through small curiosities that rivet our attention--all those pretty pebbles on the shoreline of knowledge . . .
--Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life
How often do Darwinists slip up and say "God" or "design" and such words, I wonder?  
One cannot escape the drone of Darwinist propaganda when researching fossils.  As a child/teenager/young man I paid no mind to the dates assigned to fossils, I simply found them and collected them along with any spearheads or arrowheads that might be found in the places most people did not go.  I memorized the long list of Darwinist ages for science classes and studied various dinosaurs especially.   I could immediately give you the name of any common dinosaur depicted in textbooks or made into plastic toys.
Ah, the joys of exploration!  I have found abandoned automobiles buried in sand bluffs, dug up pieces of out-dated machinery from the foundations of abandoned factories, and found many fossils from locations all over North America.  I've found them high in the mountains and at the bottom of deep canyons.  Once I thought I was seeing the record of hundreds of millions of years of Earth history.
Now I know better and, having been thoroughly indoctrinated in Darwinism, I can look back and see it in perspective.  Darwinists will rarely admit to it, but every supposition Darwin suggested that involved long ages and gradually developing organisms "climbing up" from primitive forms has been tossed aside.   With Uniformitarianism left behind, they try to fit Catastrophism into the long ages somehow.  With transitional fossils not being found, they've changed the definition so they can point to some dubious examples while realizing that actual transitional forms are as rare as flying pigs.  
I read with mirth one commenter's idea that an obvious flow-caused sedimentary layer was formed by a river!   The river would have had to have been around 800 miles wide!!!   Sure, in a global flood there will be several flows within that ocean and, once the water began to fall into deepening basins and the land began to rise, the off-flow of flood waters carved up the landscape in ways still inexplicable by Darwinist claims.  But back on track - Crinoids have now proven to be yet another proof of young ages and evidence against Darwinism:

Gilding the (sea) lily—Evolutionists’ absurd defense of their long-age story as Mississippian crinoids yield organic molecules

For a hundred years, this evidence of rapid burial in recent history has been right under evolutionists’ noses—yet even now they still claim these crinoid fossils are 350 million years old
Published: 19 March 2013 (GMT+10)
The photograph at right appeared in an Ohio State University press release, with the following caption:
“Different species of the sea animals known as crinoids display different colors in these 350-million-year-old fossils. Ohio State University researchers have found organic compounds sealed within the pores of these fossilized animals’ skeletons. Photo by William Ausich, courtesy of Ohio State University.”1
Now, there’s a major problem with that caption. Can you spot it?
The problem is not that it says the sea animals are crinoids. They are indeed crinoids—also known as ‘sea lilies’.2
Crinoids which died and then lay on the ocean floor waiting to be slowly covered over would not look like this.
The problem is not that the caption says they’re different species. ‘Species’ is a human construct, for convenience of classification and communication between biological and other scientists, so it’s surely quite legitimate to refer to them here as different species in this case. (We mention in passing here that ‘species’ is not the same thing as the biblical ‘kind’.)
The problem is not that the different species show different colours. The different colours are indeed evident in the photograph, thanks to the sea lily fossils being so beautifully preserved.
Nor is there a problem with the caption’s referring to the recent discovery of “organic compounds sealed within the pores of these fossilized animals’ skeletons”—for that is indeed what a recent Geology paper3 reports. The photographer of the above picture, paleontologist William Ausich of Ohio State University, was one of the authors of that paper, along with his PhD student and lead author Christina O’Malley (who completed this work to earn her doctoral degree), and chemist Yu-Ping Chin. Some readers at this point will remember that Professor Ausich was the lead signatory to a letter of protest to the superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park, demanding the removal of the creationist book Grand Canyon: A different view from bookstores in the park. His complaint centred on the book’s statements concerning “the age of the rocks” and its challenge to “broadly accepted interpretations of the geologic history of the Grand Canyon”.4 Which brings us to the problem in the caption to the photograph above.
The problem is the claim that these sea lily fossils are 350 million years old, rather than the much more logical conclusion that they are a legacy of the global Flood of Noah’s day, around 4,500 years ago.
Consider this. With crinoids in the world’s oceans today, after death, the head of the creature almost immediately disintegrates. So when one finds fossil sea lilies as beautifully preserved as in the photograph above, it indicatesvery rapid burial of the live creatures. Crinoids which died and then lay on the ocean floor waiting to be slowly covered over would not look like this.
If only the researchers had stuck to the facts (their own eyewitness testimony), rather than feeling the need to go ‘gilding the (sea) lily’ with 350 million years worth of evolutionary fairy tale.
And indeed, to give credit where it’s due, the researchers can see that the sea lilies must have been “buried quickly and isolated from the water above by layers of fine-grained sediment”.
However, they say it happened when the sea lilies “appear to have been buried alive in storms during the Carboniferous Period”; specifically, the Mississippian Sub-period. But to label strata as belonging to ‘periods’ or ‘sub-periods’ millions-of-years long ignores worldwide evidence that these and other extensive strata were laid down quickly, on top of each other, without long periods of hiatus between or within them.
And it also ignores their own notable findings, reported in their research paper. Although these fossils have been known of for a century or so, this latest study was triggered when lead author O’Malley noticed “something strange” about these crinoid species that had perished side-by-side and became preserved in the same piece of rock. Namely, that the different species were preserved in different colours, as the caption to the above photograph mentions.
For example, one rock sample she studied had a light bluish-grey sea lily, a darker grey one, and a third which was creamy white.
“People noticed the color differences 100 years ago, but no-one ever investigated it,” she explained. But with the armoury of sophisticated analytical tools now available to her generation of scientists, O’Malley and her colleagues were able to extract molecules directly from the different fossilized sea lily species in the rock. And they were able to determine that different species contained different molecules.
The molecules were organic—specifically, aromatic compounds called quinones, just the same as those found in sea lilies living today. Quinones are known to sometimes function as pigments. So the researchers are quite excited to have found these ‘biomarkers’, i.e. species-specific organic molecules. In fact, in their paper the researchers proclaim they have found “the oldest examples of biomarker molecules extracted directly from fossilized remains.”
The millions-of-years paradigm is wrong, wrong, wrong. These beautifully preserved sea lilies, containing intact species-specific complex organic molecule biomarkers, give testimony to fast processes, not millions of years of slow burial.
But not so fast. This ought to be a bombshell to anyone still thinking these fossils could be millions of years old. As the Ohio State University press release said in its introduction, “scientists have long believed that complex organic molecules couldn’t survive fossilization”—i.e. that complex organic molecules couldn’t survive for millions of years. Yet, bizarrely, researchers O’Malley, Ausich and Chin choose instead to not even question the 350-million-year supposed ‘age’ of their fossils. Rather they blithely say that their results suggest that “the preservation of diagnostic organic molecules is much more common than previously realized”.
The millions-of-years paradigm is wrong, wrong, wrong. These beautifully preserved sea lilies, containingintact species-specific complex organic molecule biomarkers, give testimony to fast processes, not millions of years of slow burial. If only the researchers had stuck to the facts (their own eyewitness testimony), rather than feeling the need to go ‘gilding the (sea) lily’ with 350 million years worth of evolutionary fairy tale.
Now some might ask how I know that the real age of the sea lily fossils is only around 4,500 years old? Well, let me make a candid admission. In my own strength, I’m pretty sure that I would never in a million years have been able to arrive at that figure. But I’m not writing this in my own strength. That’s because God has spoken by His prophets (Hebrews 1:12 Peter 1:20), and we have a record of that—the Bible.
The fossil crinoid Anthedon [or Antedon] pictured at the bottom was found in the Upper Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of western Germany. It is ‘dated’ by evolutionists as supposedly being around 150 million years old. Yet the modern-day living Anthedon is virtually identical—showing no evolution has taken place. No wonder evolutionists refer to this, and many other modern creatures with supposedly millions-of-years-old fossil counterparts, as ‘living fossils’. But they’re actually a powerful argument for creation.
Three whole chapters (Genesis 6–9), plus numerous verses citing them throughout the Bible (e.g. Psalm 104:6–9Matthew 24:37–391 Peter 3:20), are devoted to the account of the global Flood. This gives us a tremendous ‘heads up’ in understanding the world’s geography, rocks and fossils, and wipes away latter-day human speculations of millions of years.
Such an understanding is available to Christina O’Malley, William Ausich, and Yu-Ping Chin, too, who could then try to undo the damage (Matthew 12:36) they’ve done through having gilded the sea lily story—if they’re game. I say ‘game’, because for them the academic consequences of proclaiming a biblical thousands-of-years-not-millions timeline in their line of work would likely be fearful indeed.
Witness Expelled and Slaughter of the Dissidents—when even just a hint of apossibility of a Designer is even enough to get evolutionist PhD scientists sacked, it’s easy to imagine that any challenge on their ‘hero’ time would render them apoplectic! It’s their line-in-the-sand, the proverbial ‘hill’ they’re willing to die for.
But my appeal to researchers O’Malley, Ausich and Chin is this—the eternal considerations surely outweigh any temporal persecution you might face. As Jesus said …
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. (Luke 9:24–26)
… and:
Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. (Matthew 10:33)

Related Articles

Further Reading


  1. Gorder, P., Ancient Fossilized Sea Creatures Yield Oldest Biomolecules Isolated Directly from a Fossil, Ohio State University—Research and Innovation Communications,, 18 February 2013. Return to text.
  2. Crinoids with a stem are known as sea-lilies. They are like a feathery starfish perched on top of a stem, which floats above a holdfast (or ‘root’) attached to, e.g., a rock surface. Crinoids that lack a stem are known as feather-stars. Return to text.
  3. O’Malley, C., Ausich, W. and Yu-Ping Chin, Y.P., Isolation and characterization of the earliest taxon-specific organic molecules (Mississippian, Crinoidea),Geology 41(3):347–341, 2013. Return to text.
  4. Matthews, M., Geologists in an uproar demand book’s removal from Grand Canyon National Park,, 6 January 2004.Return to text.

As it happens, Mary Schweitzer got much grief from other Darwinists for revealing the flesh remains found in her now-famous Tyrannosaurus Rex...including blood cells...and the attempts to call it all "biofilm" were disproven by testing.  Now more and more paleontologists are willing to share their finds of fossils with flesh remains.   This is deadly to Darwinism!   One of these days people will begin to realize that actual flesh in dinosaurs and frogs coming to life and hopping around after being freed from a coal seam are indications that the world is very young.   

Triceratops Horn Soft Tissue Foils 'Biofilm' Explanation

Decades ago, when researchers began publishing their discoveries of transparent, floppy tissue with recognizable intact cells inside dinosaur bones, plenty of shocked evolutionists disputed their results. After all, nobody knew—and still nobody knows—a process whereby flesh and bones could persist over the eons that evolutionists insist dinosaur fossils have endured.
One popular pushback asserts that the soft tissues are not from the dinosaurs at all, but from bacteria that somehow infiltrated their bones and built biofilms in the same shapes as dinosaur tissues and cells. A new report of eight-inch long sheets of soft tissue inside a 22-inch long triceratops horn presents three difficult hurdles for the "bacterial biofilm" hypothesis, which suggests that certain species of bacteria manufactured a polysaccharide film that took the shape of each dinosaur tissue that they consumed millions of years ago, before the dino flesh decayed.
Two biology professors coauthored the report in Acta Histochemica.1 Their electron micrographs (below) show fine detail inside the bony triceratops "horn core." The authors obtained the horn from the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, famous for its well-preserved dinosaur remains. The horn was damp when removed from rock, and it soon broke into several pieces, showing that it was already fractured. The researchers therefore suspected that bacteria could have penetrated the horn through these cracks and lived on the nearby liquid. Despite what promised to be a bacteria-friendly environment, the soft tissue they found looked nothing like bacterial biofilms.
The research pair demineralized part of the bone by soaking pieces of it in a mild acid bath for a month. Soft tissues emerged as some of the dinosaur bone's original minerals departed. The study authors found "large strips of thin, light brown, soft material (20 cm by 10 cm)." They also identified bone cells called osteocytes, "including internal nucleus-like spheres, primary and secondary filipodia, and cell to cell junctions."1
The first hurdle for the bacterial biofilm story to face is that no known biofilm looks just like bone cells, complete with their thin "filipodia" extensions. Second, wouldn't the supposed bacteria deposit their biofilms on the bone's outer surface even more readily than deep inside the bone? Yet the study authors found no biofilm there. And they described yet a third hurdle when they wrote, "What is also not clear is how such biofilm structures could themselves survive the ravages of time."1
This report of triceratops soft tissue adds to the long list of discoveries of original skin, blood vessel, blood and bone components found in tyrannosaurs, hadrosaurs, titanosaurs, psittacosaurs, Sinosauropteryx, and other animals.2 Bacterial biofilms neither match nor explain any of these finds. Is it time to interpret dinosaur fossils as recent sedimentary deposits from a global flood recorded in Genesis?3 The fossils say yes!
  1. Armitage, M.H., and K. L. Anderson. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaurTriceratops horridusActa Histochemica. Published online before print, February 13, 2013.
  2. Thomas, B. Published Reports of Original Soft Tissue Fossils. Posted on July 21, 2011, accessed March 6, 2013.
  3. Morris, J. and F. Sherwin. 2010. The Fossil Record. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on March 18, 2013.

Related Articles


DNA cannot last millions of years, nor can flesh or blood.  It is time for Darwinists to quit being "surprised" by flesh remains and admit that they were wrong.  We need to reset all the history clocks!   The Earth is only a few thousand years old and honest science would admit it.   Honest scientists should admit it. 


Jon W said...

"Real flesh and blood remains? [snork] Your creationist sources are lying to you again, Radar.

It never, ever fails. Creationist makes grandiose "science-killer" claim. I trace back the original data (new or old) behind the claim. I find that the original data doesn't say anything like what the creationist claimed it does, and that the original data is perfectly explainable within conventional theory.

In this case, the original find was of extremely well-preserved crinoid fossils. "Buried quickly and isolated from the water above by layers of fine-grained sediment, their porous skeletons gradually filled with minerals, but some of the pores containing organic molecules were sealed intact." (from a Science Daily article on the find.

In other words, this is a good example of a lagerstat, a rare type of fossil deposit that preserves fine details. No "flesh and blood" was found, only detectable amounts of a particular molecule that is unique to crinoids. Sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere for that elusive evidence that lets you crush the whole structure of modern science and cover the land in a second theocratic Darkness.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Jon. And yet it's an extremely safe bet that Radar will not acknowledge your correction.

radar said...

Jon is not correcting me, as I am sure he is well aware of the flesh and blood remains of Mary's T-Rex. In fact his argument is ridiculous. Darwinists have invented a new word to try to explain away the preservation of organic molecules in the fossils. He is either ignorant or lying, one.

The land is currently covered in a layer of Atheopathic darkness. We have so much evidence for a young Earth that it is truly a shameful game Darwinists are playing, trying to hide from the truth like the Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike. But more holes open and soon his hands have no more fingers. So others rush over to try to stop other holes.

But Darwinism is going to have so many holes it will collapse entirely. Meanwhile the colleges and organizations and media consistently show their prejudice and fear by casting out Creationists and covering their eyes and ears to new information.

You are the people who are like the Holy Roman Empire and the Spanish Inquisition. It is you who censor, you who destroy (or try to destroy) careers, you who hold fast to fables and fight against real science. You are the same kind of people that Martin Luther and Roger Bacon and Copernicus had to fight against to champion real science against dogmatic belief systems.

Naturalism is your god. You fall at it's feet and with religious zeal you fight against truth because of your faith rather then because of evidence.

Tell Mary Schweitzer I am lying. Even though she still believes in long ages, it was hilarious when she presented the evidence for the possibility of biofilm being found rather than flesh and blood in her T-Rex. It was a blank screen.

Now we have dozens of examples of recent fossil finds with organic materials intact, we have bacteria found alive in supposedly ancient salt or in "86 million-year-old" clays in the Pacific Gyre.

Now we have enough space missions to show us that the planets are all young. What about the Earth's magnetic field, which would be too strong for life several thousand years ago? What about C-14 found in EVERY LEVEL of sedimentary rock without fail? What about the C-14/12 ratio in the atmosphere having not yet reached equilibrium?

You remind me of the Dark Ages but it is you who are the Ruling Paradigm, trying desperately to keep truth from the people. You fear that your Naturalist god will topple and Social Darwinism along with it. For the sake of humanity I do hope and pray it happens soon. Ignorance is your weapon, wielded by unceasing and mind-numbing propaganda.

Jon W said...

" I am sure he is well aware of the flesh and blood remains of Mary's T-Rex."

Mary Schweitzer did not find "flesh and blood remains" either. She found traces of organic tissue in an exceptionally well-sealed bit of T-rex leg bone.

"Darwinists have invented a new word to try to explain away the preservation of organic molecules in the fossils."

New word??? The word lagerstatte was coined by paleontologist Adolf Seilacher in 1970, more than forty years ago. It's a combination of two existing German words: lager ('storage') and statte ('place'). Dozens of lagerstatten are known from every part of the world and almost every period of geologic time, from the Cambrian to the present.

radar said...

Yes, a word that came into use that recently is a new word.

No, Jon, you can hide yourself from the truth but it has been proven that actual flesh and blood remains were preserved in that T-Rex. Plus many other fossils now are being revealed with remains intact.

Sigh. The ignorant snork and the intelligent research. Do some research before you make assertions, Jon, and don't expect me to do it for you. Anyone can easily research that T-Rex and the tests done on those remains. Just because you have a couple of "me, too" guys commenting after you doesn't make a words you say true.

Secular scientific organizations go to great lengths to hide the implications of such findings. I suspect a large percentage of Darwinists, if finding a human and dinosaur skeleton in the same rock layers, would destroy the human fossil if no one could see them. If one of them came upon a living dinosaur in New Guinea or the Congo, they might well shoot it and cut it up to feed to the river. Darwinists do not WANT to know the truth. That is why they persist in their beliefs.

radar said...

I will also remind you all that, until remains were becoming a common fossil find, Darwinists declared the existence of any flesh remains could not be found unless frozen after a period of 100,000 years. That in 1970 they invented a new word to hide another piece of evidence hostile to their belief system is quite typical. They sent an "evidence hit man" to proclaim the Acambaro figurines to be fakes and his report was obviously a complete lie. Yet Darwinists still pretend the Acambaro figurines were not made by natives who lived along with dinosaurs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are so determined it is hilarious, like calling the stegosaurus carved into an ancient Cambodian temple a "Hippo" or dismissing all the records of dinosaur sightings in town records throughout Europe and a few from America as late as the 18th Century.

Like a toddler, you can hide your eyes or cover your ears but the evidence will not go away. Smarter men than Jon and I have noted that the Universe itself is too ordered and delicately balanced to NOT be designed and so are organisms.

I challenge any of you to honestly study the Monarch Butterfly and tell me how such a thing evolved. How does an animal fly thousands of miles to a place it has never been, a place perfect for wintering, and then fly North and go through two or three or four generations of butterfly to egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to butterfly and then the "Methuselah Generation" knows to fly back South to the place where great-grandparents had been.

This is entirely inexplicable by evolution. Most Darwinists do not try, because it is futile. Or try explaining the cell, which has several very complex systems which all have to be in place for it to exist. You cannot.

Anonymous said...

Still hauling out the old "Mary's T-Rex" lie as some kind of anti-evolution silver bullet are we, Radar?

Here is a great TED Talk from renowned Paleontologist Jack Horner, where he goes over Mary Schweitzer's T-Rex findings in great detail,

Also funny that Radar chooses to completely change the topic when called out on the sensational lies in the title of this post. Where in the body of the post does he refer to "Mary"s T-Rex"? Oh right, nowhere. As Jon points out above with 100% accuracy, "Your creationist sources are lying to you again, Radar". And you are just spreading lies by posting this drivel.


Anonymous said...

Seriously? The "Acambaro figurines"? Again? You mean these figurines?

I think my favorite line from the Wikipedia entry is this one stating that the figurines "are accepted by no credible scholar of archaeology or paleontology".

Do you know what is truly hilarious, Radar? The fact that you use primitive sculptures (of highly questionable origin) from a long dead tribe, as genuine proof that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time. What are your thoughts on the Loch Ness Monster photographs? More proof? LOL

All that said, I say, keep floggin' those golden oldies and demonstrating absolutely no critical thinking when it comes to claims that support your opinions, Radar, it only serves to undermine everything you are "trying" to accomplish with this blog.


Anonymous said...

Oh man, I missed one more of Radar's oft regurgitated logical fallacies, his Monarch Butterfly argument from incredulity.

Remember Radar, just because you don't understand something doesn't automatically mean "goddidit".

And here's an explanation from rationalwiki, because I know how much you love this site (and I'm sure you want to show us how you don't understand Ad hominem, yet again),


radar said...

Jon is either the a)liar OR b)the one who has not done his research. The T-Rex was tested to show it had actual blood remains and the flesh remains were actually able to be stretched out and snap back into place! Now dozens of such finds are being publicized and Jon can naysay all he likes, the cat is out of the bag! The oldest possible age of any fossil we have found would be 100,000 years...if the Earth's magnetic field would have allowed life that far back, which it would not.

Canucklehead, Wikipedia articles can be posted by any joe blow who joins he herd. The local authorities, the representative of the national museum, the people native to the region and Erle Stanley Gardner all confirmed that the figurines are genuine. The old ages of the figurines were confirmed by a secular laboratory (Laboratory of Isotopes Inc. in New Jersey) until somebody told them they were "dinosaurs" at which point the lab retracted their findings.

The Julsrud Museum in Mexico display many of the figurines.

Gardner was a best-selling mystery writer, an attorney and occasionally an investigator. The Acambaro fuss caught his attention and the creator of Perry Mason and many other characters put his full powers of detection to work and declared the figurines to be genuine.

Charles Hapgood realized the implications of the figurines. He was a writer and college professor, among other things. He saw problems with the Darwinist scenario but was primarily interested in ancient documents and records that supported a Post-Flood world before the Ice Age that was radically different.

A list of witnesses to the authenticity of the figurines is found here:

The only person who initially investigated the figurines and declared them fraudulent was that Charles Dipeso guy, a con man who first tried to purchase them and then did his hit piece for hire. He claimed to have examined a huge number of them in so short a time it would be impossible. The people who met him in the area found him to be a reprehensible fraud.

Mexican archaeological scientists first confirmed the validity of the finds, but later recanted (no surprise considering the price scientists pay for being honest about such things) in order to keep their jobs, apparently. The Darwinist science community has the power of organized crime when it comes to scientific careers. They'll do a "hit" on any scientist who dares defy Darwinism.

There were no kilns in the area that were capable of making the figurines. The kids who found them in the ground were selling them to tourist for less than they would have cost to make, had they made them. Some of them were stone and not clay, anyway. Many were found with not only soil but tree roots growing around them! The researchers went so far as to get the police chief's permission to pull up his floorboards and dig under his own house (built in 1930) and found more under the soil there! Remember, these figurine were dug up and sold by natives for pennies as they had no idea of their significance other than they were interesting and could be found by digging in the ground.

Not only that, the figurines were more anatomically correct than the drawings of such dinosaurs that secular paleontologists had made at that time. The figurines show skin patterns and dermal spines that scientists of the time did not know about because they'd not yet found fossils with such detail. So the Acambaro figurines are simply embarrassing to Darwinists because they have no choice but to lie about them. Otherwise they have to admit that dinosaurs and man obviously lived at the same time.

radar said...

Canucklehead, Darwinists have turned the "argument from incredulity" into a shield to ward off logic and evidence they cannot handle. You are like a backwards tribe who will listen to arguments that explain that automobiles are not "magic" but actually are designed and the processes that operate it are identified. Pretending that such a so-called logical fallacy pertains here is frankly the same as Roberto Duran crying, "No mas!" and giving up in the ring.

Darwinists are afraid to address the Monarch, are afraid to deal with Acambaro, afraid to face overwhelming evidence on all sides that their Darwinist belief system is built on nothing because it is their religion. Those who must have Naturalism because they cannot tolerate the existence of God does not make the evidence or God go away.

The Monarch is something Darwinism cannot ever hope to explain, so they avoid the argument.

The cell is too complex and interdependent so Darwinists hide from that as well.

Jon W likes to have a discussion that crosses posts and often comments on ideas unrelated to the post he picks to comment on, so I do the same back to him.

As to secular science acknowledging Acambaro Figurines? Guess what, in the Soviet Union all scientists who failed to tacitly agree with the communist regime were sent to prison or at least booted out of their jobs and would be penniless. Right now Darwinism rules secular science like the Soviets ruled in the USSR. Ruthless punishment comes swiftly to the dissidents. So scientists either pretend to agree with evolution or they must escape over the Darwin Wall and work in Christian, ID and Creationist organizations because they've been blacklisted.

Acambaro is a good example. The same Mexican scientists who agreed with the validity of the find reversed field three weeks later even though the evidence did not change and in fact was more compelling with each find. They were obviously pressured. Same with the laboratory in New Jersey.

They used to hold elections in the USSR and the communist candidate would get 100% of the votes. Same thing happens in North Korea. Secular science is a tyrannical dictatorship with all the trappings. Censorship is alive and well with the NCSE and ACLU leading the charge. Careers are summarily exectuted, just as was Dembski's and hundreds like him. Very few top scientists in the USA are in a position to stand up to Darwinism without repercussions. Even those who survive career destruction, such as Michael Behe, are attacked and ridiculed.

In short, Darwinists are ignorant bullies who push people around because they have the power and money and influence to do it. Much like the bandits in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre who didn't need to show their badges (because they didn't have them) the Darwinist dictatorship rules by force rather than by evidence. You can have Wikipedia and the lame talkorigins links up the wazoo and it means nothing at all. What you do not have is truth.

Anonymous said...

So many jaw dropping lies in in your "responses" above Radar. Here are a few of my faves,

"The T-Rex was tested to show it had actual blood remains"
- Massive lie. The only ones saying this are you lying creationists. See the youtube video above, to understand what they actually found.

"Wikipedia articles can be posted by any joe blow who joins he herd"
- If this is true, correct the "Lies" yourself. Oh wait, you can't because your claims are based in fantasy, not reality.

"The Monarch is something Darwinism cannot ever hope to explain"
- Except, of course that the evolution of insect metamorphosis has already, in fact, been hypothesised by "Darwinists" here, - this one is actually the refrence from the Talk Origins link I posted above - And here,

And I'm not even going to touch your entirely ridiculous comparison of the global scientific community to the Soviet Union and/or North Korea. You know, because anyone that puts forth a global conspiracy theory like this is obviously completely nuts, and one not really capable of logical thought. Sorry to break it to you Radar, but scientists would be excited to talk about absolutely anything as long as they have the evidence to prove what theyre saying. And it's only when they have no proof that they get scared to talk, for fear of losing their jobs, and have to set up their own pseudo-journals in order to get published, you know like your creationist/ID friends.


Anonymous said...

That said, I really love how you take these acambaro accounts from individuals as complete gospel and yet can't/won't accept scientific consensus on evolution, geology, global warming etc., etc., etc.. And all you have when it comes to the critics of the figurines is derision. Still not an argument, by-the-way. Although I did find an interesting article written based on a 2010 visit to your aforementioned Julsrud "Museum". See it here,

I was searching because I had read on one of the fundie sites that there were 2000 figurines at the "museum" and 1000 were dinosaurs, which really got me wondering what the other 1000 figurines looked like. Now, unfortunately, to see the whole article you have to pay for it. So while I'm certainly not doing that, the excerpt is still interesting, as it contains a description of a lot of the figurines at the Julsrud. Now, even if we ignore the fact that at the end of the clipped article the author states that the dinosaur figurines looked "crude, even childlike" unlike the items described in the other areas of the "Museum". The author states that before encountering the "dinosaur room" the museums other areas included similar clay figurines of "women with conical breasts and Medusa-like hair", "men with bat ears, and men with hammer heads", and "Minoan-style human figures covered in thin parallel lines, with arms shaped liked bird wings". How interesting. So the obvious question here is, if you think that the mere existence of the "dinosaur" figurines is proof that man and dinosaur lived together, do you also believe Medusas, and Hammer-headed men also walked the earth with man? Or maybe you believe that a real life "Batman" once lived in the jungles of Mexico? Is it even possible for you to see how silly your claims about these acambaro figurines look to normal human beings in light of this information?

It just boggles my mind that you can dismiss the work of thousands and thousands of accredited scientists and then turn around and take a first hand accounts like the acambaro ones, made by by people with a clear motivation to lie, and treat them as gospel. I mean, say you are standing blindfolded on a road, 99 people you don't know anything about are standing at the side of the same road screaming at you to look out for an approaching pickup truck, while 1 single person you also don't know, who happens to be a christian, tells you to not worry about it. What do you do? Do you really just stand there and trust the christian for that reason alone or do you go with the consensus? Or maybe you take off the blindfold and see for yourself. Because the way you seem to approach everything on this blog, it looks like you're just standing there blindfolded directly in front of the approaching vehicle trusting in only your "christian source". And, not surprisingly, you are gonna get crushed buddy.


radar said...

Calling me a liar and shouting nonsense from virtual rooftops will not help you, Canucklehead. You just believe what you are told and do not think carefully or critically about what you have been taught.

Most of the arguments made in this blog are based on evidence, not fantasy. Evidence is the fried of the Creationist. Propaganda is the friend of the Darwinist.

You are just a mouthpiece for a tyrannical religious sect that has taken over science and converted it into Naturalism. I got news for ya, the thing that is made does not make itself. Naturalism requires no supernatural forces and therefore goes to extremely nonsensical places with wild fairy tales about the start of existence, life and information. Peek under the Darwinist rock and the Grimm Brothers scurry out.

Anonymous said...

So all you have for me is more derision? Hmmm... sounds familiar.

You say I'm "shouting nonsense" and yet you are the guy pushing a dictatorship-control level global conspiracy involving practically every scientist from every discipline and every country on the planet.

I mean, can you even explain why the acambaro dinosaur figurines stand as "proof" that man and dino existed at the same time and yet the same conclusions aren't drawn from the human figures with animal features? Even if you ignore the fact that many of the dinosaur pieces are very likely fakes, isn't the easiest explanation that the figurines were simply the product of the imaginations of a long dead central American tribe?

And the psychological projection in your last statement is simply overwhelming. Again, Radar, you're the guy that's flogging a religious viewpoint, you are the literal creationist here pushing the genesis version of man's origins. You are the one shoehorning very sketchy unsupported "evidence" into your worldview, in order to try to prove it. On the other hand my worldview lines up with actual scientific consensus. In other words mine lines up with reality and yours simply doesn't.

I mean you even say it yourself pretty clearly in the second last sentence of your comment above; your worldview actually REQUIRES magic (or the "supernatural" as you put it) in order to make sense and mine doesn't. And it's pretty obvious, to me at least, that when it comes to the big questions, "we don't know yet" is an infinitely better answer than "goddidit".


radar said...


Before I go back to work - can you not see that your worldview requires God-like acts of creation without a source? Your Universe just pops into existence by itself and makes itself into a logical existence of logical laws and processes, invents information and magically forms organisms which, by Darwinist propaganda, basically decide to evolve into whatever they wish to become.

Darwinism thinks mutations (mistakes) are creative. Big Bang theorists suppose that nothing exploded and became everything. Although they can't find 96% of the everything that was supposedly created by the explosion.

Cosmologists cannot figure out how stars and planets form. The nebular hypothesis does not work.

Our space missions to the planets have revealed young planets and moons with magnetic fields and spewing volcanoes and remarkable and inexplicable features. The gas giants give out more energy than they take in.

The geological column is imaginary and not real. The fossil rocks are catastrophic in nature.

Organisms have not only irreducibly complex systems, they have interdependence within the cell and between organisms. If most organisms were not fully formed from the beginning, then few organisms would be alive today at all, if any. Guess what? The Cambrian rocks have fully-formed organisms and include every major family of organisms represented despite being the likely first layers of the Flood and expected to only yield bottom-dwelling sea creatures.

Evidence, Canucklehead. Evidence. God did it was what the great scientists who basically invented the sciences believed. We have a First Cause. You don't. So you are the one with wishful and magical thinking.

Anonymous said...

Oh man. We get it Radar, you don't understand many, many fields of science, and particularly evolutionary theory. No need to rub it in our faces.

Almost every statement you make above about evolution and science is a straw man that creationists have invented in order to tear down themselves. Bravo. Don't agree? Give me a credible source for this statement that Darwinists say that organisms "decide to evolve into whatever they wish to become". Just this one statement. Show me where Dawkins or any other evolutionary biologist says this? Unfortunately, you know that you cant do that, so as per usual, you'll likely run away after hurling a few insults my way and telling me that I'll be really sorry when I'm dead.

Seriously though, my worldview requires "god like acts"? Really? You mean like how ancient explanations for Thunder and Lightening required acts of gods before man figured out the science behind the phenomenon? The truth is that we don't really know how the universe began or even if it had a beginning, for that matter. We have some ideas but until science advances to the point where producing evidence surrounding the origins of the universe is possible, the answer will be "we don't know". And frankly, this is much better than any made up explanation that contains no proof but relies solely on faith in order to be accepted.

Yes. Evidence is key. At least we agree on that. The problem here is that you throw away so much of it simply because it doesn't line up with your religious scripture. You don't even know how lopsided this debate is because you start out with the idea that "the bible is true" and work your way back from there. Science works much differently, and you should know that by now. Stop being so scarred of modern science Radar (a true fear made clear by your grossly ignorant statements about Cosmology and Geology). It's not that troubling and, in fact, it can be really interesting and awe inspiring at times. You may have to drop some of your creationist baggage, but hey, deep down we both know that would be a good thing for everyone.

And how can you say both that my worldview "requires no supernatural forces" and then turn around and say I rely on " magical thinking"? Are you confused or something? I remind you that you are the one that thinks that god "made" man out of dirt and fashioned a woman out of that guys rib. I mean, I'd ask you to show me where in my comments above, I have relied on any kind of magic but I know that you cant. And, like most creationists, you ignore most of my questions anyway.

Have fun at work, dude.