How do those trained in evolutionary theory respond to fresh dinosaur tissue found in bones asserted to be 300 million years old? New DNA finds that don’t match evolutionary predictions of Phylogeny and fail to show an increase in complexity over time? Abundant helium in deep rock and carbon clocks still ticking away in dino bones and diamonds?
Two new articles from the ICR webpage demonstrate the Darwinian theories amazing ability to morph itself to fit any and all new evidence. Example given; the fossil record shows no evidence of evolution because, a) we haven’t dug up enough fossils yet (Darwins time) or, b) because evolution happened so quickly it left no trace (the modern explanation). But can a theory that can’t be falsified have any value for prediction making?
As Frank Sherwin asserts in Darwins Rubber Ruler,
” A key element of the scientific method is the ability to test whether a hypothesis is true or false. A theory that can neither be confirmed nor falsified cannot be considered “scientific,” Sherwin quotes Berkely Law proffesor Phil Johnson as saying, “If new forms appear, the credit goes to creative natural selection; if old forms fail to change, the conservative force is called stabilizing selection…” Sherwin goes on to discuss some of the latest finds in molecular biology and in DNA research that fail to support original evolutionary predictions. Read more from Sherwins article at http://www.icr.org/article/5147/
In Brian Thomas’s Fresh Tissue from Solid Rock, he discusses the wealth of new finds of fresh collagen, meat and muscle being found in fossils on an increasing scale world wide. Thomas points out,“These tissue finds are typically accompanied, in either the technical literature or science news, by the phrase “remarkable preservation.” If one is to believe in the great ages assigned to these artifacts, then the quality of preservation is beyond “remarkable”–it is not scientifically possible in such a context. This is, of course, why authorities increasingly offer assurances that soft tissues, despite what is known about their decay rates, can somehow be preserved for millions of years.” He points out evolutionary reactions in various interviews, such as one from CNN, “At one point, Schweitzer showed Stahl soft tissue from a Tyrannosaur. Stahl then commented, “It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone. This was impossible. This bone was 68 million years old.” Stahl’s statement that it is “impossible” makes more sense than the implied assurance from Schweitzer that these discoveries are somehow indeed possible in the context of “80 million years.”
Read Thomas’s article at: http://www.icr.org/article/5148/
[if the listed urls dont work, just go to icr.org and click on Acts and Facts]