Welcome to series 3, where I will discuss a discovery by scientists that never seems to be discussed publicly, and I'm sure it is not covered in textbooks. It is all about science, but not from the scientists you would expect. This discovery comes from Creationist Scientists. So, what is a Creationist Scientist?
"A creation scientist is a scientist who has received a PhD or master’s degree from an accredited university, believes that God created the earth in six 24-hour days, believes the earth is 6,000 years old, believes Noah’s Flood was global, and interprets research starting with the understanding that God’s Word is true. Can Christians who believe in creation as described in Genesis really do good science? Absolutely!"
https://creationmuseum.org/creation-science/creationists/
The key point here is that they are PhD scientists in various areas of science, such as biologist, archaeologist, geologist, Hebraist (specialist in Jewish and Hebraic studies), Marine Biologist, Taphonomist (analysis of the decay of organisms), Paleontologist, and others.
Like the Big Bang scientists, these Creationist Scientists are highly educated in their specialties. The only difference is that one group has faith and is working on trying to prove that God created the world, whereas the opposite side is trying to disprove what they discover.
Their research is based on Genesis and uses the same scientific methods all scientists use. So, why do we not hear a lot more from these people? Some of these findings would turn the scientific community upside down, requiring theories and books to be thrown away or updated. The other side doesn't want to have the conversation because they can't explain these findings, which would be a significant paradigm shift.
The source for this session comes from a great site called Is Genesis History. (https://isgenesishistory.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/) It is well worth your time to visit and review their material because scientists are ignoring the findings. They go in-depth with scientific information, some of which is above my head but interesting nonetheless. This session will cover the discovery of a dinosaur horn and what was inside when it was opened in the lab - TISSUE.
The following information and images are from this video.
https://isgenesishistory.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/
"If this horn or part of a dinosaur had been buried for millions and millions of years. You would not expect to still be able to see tissue, but are you saying that's what we're finding? That is absolutely what we're finding."
The comment stating that tissue was discovered in this horn is impossible given the current carbon dating science, but here we are. So, what process was accomplished to ensure this tissue was real and not some anomaly?
The testing of this tissue was intense, as described in the video:
"Mary Schweitzer, who was the first one to really make this popularized, no, the first one to really get discoveries that were noticed by a wide range of scientists. She comments in interviews that she had her technicians repeat the study over and over and over again, simply because it's so difficult to understand how you could have this material still in a dinosaur fossil that is supposed to be 65707580 million years of age."
Mary did what any scientist would do: test, test, and test again to see if you got the same results. So, we know proper testing was accomplished, but what about the science behind the discovered tissue? How long should tissue live in theory? Back to the video.
"Because any competent biochemist knows that tissue cells, proteins breakdown, they don't just they're not concrete, they don't just exist for eons of time. They break down. And in fact, they tend to break down fairly quickly depending upon the conditions. And certainly in Hell Creek the conditions would be warm up, cool down, warm up, cool down. We found this horn, for example, just a mere 1 foot below the surface.
So it would have been very much subjected to fluctuations of hot and cold and any biochemist can tell you that is the fastest way to destroy material. It's difficult enough to envision its surviving for four, 5000 years, but 60 million years, 70 million years, see that really becomes very difficult to make any kind of Biochemical basis for how it could have survived."
This is a significant finding that could change many theories, past and present. So why don't we hear from scientists? They are staying as far away as they can from this finding. Scientists don't like what they can't explain, and they don't want to evaluate it.
"Well, we see then this is using scanning electron microscopy. You see the extreme detail of the cells, see how well that's preserved. I mean, that doesn't speak for something that has been degrading or something that has been found in a nonpristine condition for 6570 million years, we would not expect to see such enormous and elaborate detail. I mean these structures are incredibly small. You know, this is our 20 Micron bar here and see how small these structures are still intact and yet see that kind of detail then obviously the preservation process is surprising really to everybody. But I think as creationist we have a lot less to explain than someone trying to suggest that this is, you know, 6570 million years of age."
Scientists cannot envision this tissue remaining elastic at this time because doing so would require a significant paradigm shift. So, there has not been much attention paid to this finding, which is very concerning. You would think scientists would be happy to investigate something that may very well be a breakthrough scientific finding. Or at least come out with why this is possible but they only know how to walk away saying something like - the tissue was compromised, end of discussion.
This finding was published in scientific journals, but it did not impact scientists because many just shrugged off the findings because they could not believe the results. The results did not match their long-term beliefs that this tissue cannot be elastic or that something was wrong with the testing or handling of the specimen. The following provides more details from the video.
"Work has been published. We've actually made the cover of American Laboratory. We also published in a journal called ACTA Histochemica, and that's a more technical article. It goes through and explains what we did, how we processed the horn, and then of course draws some conclusions from that.
The paradigm is it has to be old. Therefore methods that give us an old fossil are what we choose. Something that doesn't give us an old fossil, like tissue, we have to reject or explain away. And the big push at the moment is to explain it away, to come up with some explanation of how the tissue survived."
This video provides extensive detail on why scientists dispute this finding, but it starts getting very technical. My goal here is to provide information, not to teach science. I suggest you watch this video if you are interested in more details.
The following summary from the video provides a great recap.
"Explanation is simply that the fossils aren't as old as they're being claimed to be, and so that clearly this is in violation of the dating process. It challenges the entire dating process if the fossils of dinosaurs have been dated incorrectly, which I would say this is clear evidence they have. Then it's very likely the fossils of any Organism have been dated incorrectly, and therefore, the geologic agents themselves are incorrect, and we have to go back and recognize that they use evolution as they're controlled, if you will. It's the filter. If I don't get a date that fits what evolution expects, then the data is rejected. It doesn't make a difference what the date is.
It doesn't make a difference how you came about getting the date if it doesn't fit the filter of evolution, if it doesn't fit what we need. If you have something that's out of the Jurassic but it's dated at 300 million years, that can't be right. Therefore it's automatically tossed out. Why can't it be right.
Because we have in the evolution, assumptions determine that organisms that live during the period of the Jurassic are this old, and so it sets then the interpretation for everything when you have problems like the soft tissue.
See, you either have to reject the entire dating process, or you have to reject the soft tissue. You know, you really can't have both. They're trying to have both, but it clearly is one or the other. You know, either the fossils aren't as old as we think they are, or there's some mysterious, unknown magical process that preserves them. Which is more scientific? What we know today. The tissue can't last that long, therefore the fossils can't be that old, regardless of what other dating methods you claim you've used."
I hope you enjoyed this session, and I will do more sessions like this going forward. My big takeaway from this video is that, for some reason, we are not getting scientists to take this seriously, only because they can't see out of their glasshouse. If this finding is factual, we have a lot of theories to reevaluate. All IMO.