Search This Blog

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Evolution? Nonsense! Darwinists DO know better! That is why they lie..ICR Edition...

Yes, some Darwinists behave badly...

The Problem With Evolutionists according to Piltdown Superman

Living organisms are filled with designed molecular machines.   In fact, mankind studies them to try to build more efficient machines themselves!  Don't even TALK about how far more advanced DNA code is than modern computer coding...

Quite a few of them just plain hide evidence and tell lies.  But the majority apparently prefer not to think about uncomfortable facts.   Flesh remains are found on almost a weekly basis now in fossils after the "cat was let out of the bag" by Mary Schweitzer and her T. Rex.   More research shows that flesh remains and even living creatures have been found in fossil rock for longer than there was a book written by Charles Darwin.  I would contend that there has been a concerted effort by Darwinists to hide evidence and make up fact, I can prove it!   Are any of you willing to research beyond all the propaganda sites that Darwinists produce?   How long have they known that birds and mammals have been found WITH and even BELOW dinosaurs?

Evidence says design and creation.   Darwinists say otherwise.  Which side will you choose?  Do you prefer blissful ignorance or informed knowledge?   Cue the prolific and terrific science writer, Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research...

Organisms did not have TIME to evolve, even if they could!

Scientists Broom Challenging Discoveries Beneath 'Contamination' Rug

Recent years have witnessed many revolutionary discoveries of original tissues in fossils. Each new find challenges the widely held notion that fossils formed millions of years ago. After all, lab tests repeatedly show proteins and other biological materials lasting no longer than hundreds of thousands of years—millions are out of the question. As a result, these fossils clearly look like recent deposits. What tactics do evolutionists use to accommodate these original organic remains into their entrenched belief in deep time?
One tactic is to simply turn a blind eye to the whole fossil tissue issue. A possible example of this occurred when an ICR employee attended a 2010 debate featuring the late atheist and evolutionist Christopher Hitchens. After the event, the employee asked Hitchens what he thought of blood vessels recently found in Tyrannosaurus rex bone?Hitchens replied that he knew nothing about it.
His ignorance conveniently insulated him from having to reconcile data that refuted his secular view of history. How could such a prominent author on origins topics have for so long "missed" all hints of paleontology's most game-changing discoveries? Shouldn't an expert be well read in the very subjects he debates?
Some deny the science showing that the tissues are real proteins, and others deny the science of tissue decay rates. Biblical creationists deny the millions of years—rather than the science—and this actually solves the key dilemma.
But secularists who do at least look at the soft tissue fossil reports deploy another tactic. In response to the recent discovery of original protein inside tiny dinosaur bones from China, Smithsonian Institution paleontologist Hans-Deiter Sues cited contamination.Supposedly, the proteins in question recently "snuck into the fossils" from some source other than the fossilized animal.
He told Science NOW, "You can never really totally rule out contamination."3
Technically, his statement is scientifically accurate. But it can lead to absurd conclusions. If one can never totally rule out contamination, then one can always excuse the data by claiming it—playing the convenient "contamination card"—even when it defies common sense.
For example, one can never totally rule out the possibility that my plate of dinner is contaminated. Instead of it coming from my kitchen, another person might have cooked the identical meal elsewhere, then secretly set the full plate of food on my table. Though possible, this contamination speculation is so unlikely that it can be ruled out on the basis of its extreme implausibility.
What quality of soft tissue fossil data would similarly refute claims of contamination beyond reasonable doubt?
This chart contrasts the maximum time required to convert bone collagen into dust with ages that the secularists themselves assigned to collagen-containing fossils. The tiny red column represents the maximum age of bone collagen determined by repeated decay measurements. It assumes that unrealistically cold temperatures preserved collagen for as long as one million years.
The blue columns represent seven fossils with collagen or similar protein. These examples build seven arguments favoring the view that fossils formed only thousands of years ago. Secular scientists reported each of these finds in evolutionary journals.4
What are the odds that contamination infected so many varied fossil proteins from so many different places?
Instead of following the evidence where it clearly leads, some use broom tactics to sweep away scientific challenges to secular beliefs. Sometimes human will—not reason—drives conclusions and behavior. Some ignore the fossils, ignore protein decay, or claim contamination. But all three tactics create far more problems than they solve. The most straightforward solution follows this fossil evidence straight to biblical origins in Noah's recent Flood.
  1. Schweitzer, M.H., et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307 (5717): 1952.
  2. Reisz, R.R., et al. 2013. Embryology of Early Jurassic dinosaur from China with evidence of preserved organic remains. Nature. 496 (7444): 210-214.
  3. Wade, L. Giant Dinosaur Got a Head Start on Growth. Science NOW. Posted on April 10, 2013, accessed April 20, 2013.
  4. ICR news articles binned on this web page cite most of the relevant secular reports: Fresh Tissues Show That Fossils Are Recent. Institute for Creation Research. Posted on, accessed April 20, 2013.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on May 15, 2013.

Man did NOT evolve.

Surgeon Says Human Body Did Not Evolve

In a recent paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism," Baylor University Medical Center surgeon Joseph Kuhn described serious problems with Darwinian evolution.1 He first described how life could not possibly have come from chemicals alone, since the information residing in DNA required an input from outside of nature.2
He then addressed Darwinism's inability to account for the all-or-nothing structure of cellular systems, including the human body. As a medical doctor, Kuhn not only knows the general arrangement of the human body's visible parts, he also understands the interrelated biochemical systems that sustain and regulate all of those parts. He recognized that the human body contains an all-or-nothing system in which its core parts and biochemicals must exist all at once for the body to function.
Biochemist Michael Behe named these all-or-nothing systems "irreducibly complex."Removing a single core part from one of these systems keeps the entire system from working, and this implies that the system was initially built with all of its parts intact.
This is exactly what researchers expect to see if God purposely created living systems, rather than if natural processes accidentally built living systems bit-by-bit—as Darwinian philosophy maintains.
Kuhn cited the work of another medical doctor, Geoffrey Simmons, who described 17 "all or nothing" human body systems.4 These combine with many others to form the entire human body—a system of systems—that is irreducible at many levels, from gross anatomy to biochemistry. For example, just as a woman would die without her heart, she would also die without the vital blood biochemical hemoglobin.
But even an intact heart and hemoglobin need regulation. A heart that beats too fast or too slow can be just as lethal as having no heart, and a body that produces too much or too little hemoglobin can be equally unhealthy. Thus, the systems that regulate heartbeats and hemoglobin must also have been present from the beginning.
Kuhn wrote that "virtually every aspect of human physiology has regulatory elements, feedback loops, and developmental components that require thousands of interacting genes leading to specified protein expression." Thus, "the human body represents an irreducibly complex system on a cellular and an organ/system basis."1
Evolution has no proven explanations for the origin of just one irreducibly complex system, let alone the interdependent web of irreducible systems that comprise the human body.
Could the human body have evolved? According to Kuhn, to change another creature into a human "would require far more than could be expected from random mutation and natural selection."1 However, a wonderfully constructed human body is exactly what an all-wise Creator would make, and He promised that those who trust in Him will one day inherit new bodies "that fadeth not away."5
  1. Kuhn, J. A. 2012. Dissecting DarwinismBaylor University Medical Center Proceedings. 25 (1): 41-47.
  2. See Thomas, B. Baylor Surgeon 'Dissects' Darwinism. ICR News. Posted on February 3, 2012, accessed February 3, 2012.
  3. Behe, M. 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 42.
  4. Simmons, G. and W. Dembski. 2004. What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.
  5. 1 Peter 1:4.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on February 6, 2012.

Plants did not evolve!

Plant UV Detectors Could Not Have Evolved

The first chapter of the timeless text of Genesis states, "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day."1
In direct contrast, modern consensus insists, "Documented deep in the earth's crust are the progressive changes and modifications undergone by various groups of the plant kingdom through millions of years."2
So, did plants really evolve over eons, or were they created in one day? New research demonstrates exactly why plants had to have been created in an instant.
A team of scientists led by researchers at the Scripps Research Institute and the University of Glasgow investigated the marvelous mechanism by which plant cells detect harmful UV-B radiation and then send signals that activate cellular UV-B protection regimes.3 Without UV detection and prevention, and without all the biochemicals for photosynthesis, plants would have long ago died.
A protein in plants called UVR8 responds to light in just the UV-B range. The protein consists of two identical halves that automatically link to one another just before light hits them. Investigators learned that when UV-B light hits a particular amino acid near the center of the dual complex to change its electrical charges, the halves separate and activate the protein.
The study appears online in Science Express. The lead authors said, "Other light-sensing proteins require a chemical modification or helper molecule to detect light, but UVR8 is unique in that it has these inbuilt UV-B-sensing tryptophan pyramids—structures that no one has seen before."3
Credit: Getzoff lab, The Scripps Research Institute. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.
When separated, each UVR8 protein half somehow quickly signals its cell to activate UV-B protection systems. Human skin cells employ similar tactics to protect against UV light damage, which can cause cancer by disrupting a cell's vital DNA.4
To discover what plant life would be like without the dual-purpose protein UVR8, the researchers mutated UVR8 proteins. "The mutant plants grew poorly when exposed to UV 'B' wavelength radiation—the range most responsible for tanning and burning of human skin," according to a Scripps Research Institute news release.3
If plants evolved over millions of years, then nature would have constructed their UV detection and protection system one piece at a time. But there are too many precisely specified parts for evolution to explain, such as various communicating molecules that detect UV, transport the correct signals to the correct places, receive those signals accurately, and deploy specific responses like activating a gene or producing more or less of a specific protein based on those signals. Building each of these separately and over long periods of time is unrealistic.
This is because it takes more than just UVR8 for all of this to work properly, just as it takes more than just a key for a car to function. In other words, all the parts had to have been put in place all at once. Otherwise, the first imaginary evolving plants would have incurred DNA damage from sunlight faster than the damage could be repaired.
UVR8-like proteins also occur in algae and moss. The evolutionary authors tried to fit these observations into their nature-only paradigm by insisting that UVR8 evolved early and all descendant plants inherited it. But because UVR8 would be useless without many other precisely interacting molecules, inheriting it would have been a waste of energy. 
UVR8, along with all other vital plant molecules, was created on purpose. The fact that UV damage is detected and repaired by all kinds of plants just means that God designed all plants with foresight.
And that means that the Genesis record had it right all along.
  1. Genesis 1:12-13.
  2. Delevoryas, T. 1962. Morphology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. In Prothero, D. R. 2004. Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 435.
  3. Ultraviolet Protection Molecule in Plants Yields Its Secrets to Scripps Research Team. Scripps Research Institute news release, February 9, 2012, reporting research in Christie, J. M. et al. Plant UVR8 Photoreceptor Senses UV-B by Tryptophan-Mediated Disruption of Cross-Dimer Salt Bridges. Science Express. Published online February 9, 2012.
  4. Guliuzza, R. 2009. Made in His Image: Melanin, the Sunblock That's Just Skin DeepActs & Facts. 38 (8): 10-11.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

The fossil rocks betray Darwinist denial...they SHOULD know!

Dinosaur Fossil 'Wasn't Supposed to Be There'

Workers with the Canadian energy company Suncor unearthed ankylosaur remains while mining oil sands near Fort McMurray in Alberta. The carcass of the four-legged land creature was not flattened, as is the case with many fossilized vertebrates. But most strangely, it was found in an area known primarily for fossilized marine creatures.
Previous vertebrate fossils found in this oil sand formation were marine reptiles, like the ichthyosaur and plesiosaur. Marine invertebrates such as clams and ammonites are the more typical fossils found in the region, so a large, land-living ankylosaur "wasn't supposed to be there."1
But finding a mixture of fossilized marine and land creatures together is not an unusual occurrence. For example, the famous dinosaur beds in the Morrison Formation at Dinosaur National Monument contain logs, clams, snails, and mammals.2
And the Institute for Creation Research's front lobby features a juvenile hadrosaur taken from the Two Medicine Formation—a sandstone formation which extends from the east side of the Rocky Mountains eastward to Edmonton, Canada—that was fossilized alongside marine clams and snails, as well as birds, mammals, and other dinosaurs.
Medical doctor Carl Werner actually used fossil-related criteria as a test for evolution.He reasoned that if the evolutionary story were true and that dinosaurs lived in a unique "Age of Reptiles," and if everyday natural processes were responsible for their fossilization, then no fossils of creatures from other "ages"—for example, creatures that had not yet evolved—should be mixed up with dinosaur fossils.
But Werner found that a fossil mixture of very different kinds was typical. He told Creation magazine:
Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers….But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums.3
Werner also learned that dinosaur-containing rock layers have "fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today," and that dinosaurs were mixed in with varieties of fish, amphibians, "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc."3 If museums displayed these real fossils instead of adorning dinosaur dioramas with feathers, then the evolutionary story that "dinosaurs evolved into birds" would be quickly seen as the fiction that it is.4
There are many other examples of land-dwelling dinosaur fossils mixed with sea creatures.5 This kind of evidence is to be expected if a world-destroying flood was responsible for the bulk of the world's fossils, dinosaur and otherwise, considering that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."6
  1. Gordon, J. Rare dinosaur found in Canada's oil sands. Reuters, March 25, 2011.
  2. Werner, C. 2008. Living Fossils. Evolution: The Grand Experiment, vol. 2. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Press.
  3. Batten, D. 2011. Living Fossils: a powerful argument for creationCreation. 33 (2): 22. Emphasis in original.
  4. Thomas, B. Fixed Bird Thigh Nixes Dino-to-bird Development. ICR News. Posted on June 22, 2009, accessed April 13, 2011.
  5. Thomas, B. Canadian 'Mega' Dinosaur Bonebed Formed by Watery Catastrophe. ICR News. Posted on July 13, 2010, accessed April 6, 2011.
  6. Genesis 7:19.
Image credit: National Park Service
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on April 14, 2011.

No comments: