Nathaniel Jeanson Breaks Darwin’s Theory
An Interview with Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson
In the Origin of Species is a famous quote by Darwin which reads, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”
Using this statement as a test for evolution, Jeanson addresses examples that do break his theory.
Why don’t more people know about dinosaur soft tissue?
Interview with Brian Thomas
The Creation Research Society and Evidence Press are producing a documentary about the discovery of soft tissues in a variety of dinosaur specimens.
This is one of several interviews we have filmed with scientists talking about the discovery. In this interview Thomas said, “…science shows that these bio-materials fall apart at a regular rate under the optimum preservation conditions. Best case scenario, it still falls apart. Why, because of the second law of thermodynamics.” He went on to say that the fact that bio-materials fall apart applies to all of biology, there are no exceptions.
The establishment scientists have two camps for explaining the soft-tissue discoveries. The first says, we understand soft tissue decay and nothing can survive for millions of years, these are not original bio-materials from dinosaurs. Rather, the results are either from contamination or bio-film.
The second camp explains the problem by saying, the discovery of proteins and numerous observational tests have proven these are original dinosaur bio-materials. They go on to explain the presence of soft tissue in 68 million year old dinosaurs by claiming the presence of iron acts as a preservative. They then minimize the problem by saying we can expect these bio-materials to last millions of years — it’s not a problem.
Neither camp considers that the obvious alternative explanation, evolutionary dates for dinosaurs are wrong! However, the implications for such a conclusion are too catastrophic to consider. It is unthinkable and they cannot provide that option to the media or to the public. However, in our documentary Echoes of the Jurassic, we will. This is why we are producing this documentary. While the evolutionists want to keep this evidence in the closet (or at least keep it minimized as a preservation issue) we want everyone to know about it and understand its significance especially in light of the collaborating evidence we will provide.
Help us spread the word on Facebook and other social media outlets. We are running a crowd funding campaign to help raise funds to produce the project and have it ready for distribution by June, 2016. We have an abundance of interesting incentives as part of the campaign. Go to the Echoes of the Jurassic crowdfunding site where you will find all the details including videos: http://tinyurl.com/q2mbfsy
Destroying Evolution Theory
+Jesse King I appreciate your comment. If all we had was this one piece of evidence then your comment would hold more weight. When one considers corroborating evidence such as carbon dating of the tissues consistently in the thousands of years, the cross bedding geology and areas with swirls of sediment in the deposition — these better support the Flood model. In addition are from around the world ancient petroglyphs, tapestries, drawings of various dinosaurs. Add to that multiple lines of evidence growing against evolution and in favor of creation such as the overturning of Junk DNA and the so-called 1% difference between humans and chimps. As science progresses more and more people will come to realize the not being able to criticize evolution won’t cut it anymore.
Evidence for God
After watching the following video, Dan b wrote: “reading the bible is the main reason that i’m an atheist. if you believe in any GOD then pray that i receive proof that your GOD is real. i want a life changing event, no matter what it takes.”
I responded with:
+dan b Evidence that God is real is all around us. 1. In the cities the results of human design is everywhere (clothes, phones, cars, buildings etc.). When you see a birds nest, this too is a result of “intelligent design”. Likewise when we look at the amazing workings of the cell we again see design. The cell and all of life is evidence of intelligent design and that is evidence of God. 2. For origin of life, evolutionary scientists point to abiogenesis (the idea that life came from chemicals). But where is the evidence for it? Yet the Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life) is seen every day. 3. We now know that DNA is a massive code similar to a computer’s operating system only much more complex. To go from the simplest form of life (like a bacterium which is a prokaryotic cell) to more complex form of life with eukaryotic cells would require reams of new code that did not exist before. In fact, it would require a rewrite of the original code. Code does not get written by chance, time and mutations. Only intelligence produces code and intelligence of this extreme magnitude is clear evidence for God.
All three of the above sources of evidence are forms of empirical evidence. They are observable, repeatable and they point to a supreme intelligence. The Bible reveals who that intelligence is. I am well aware that there are things in the Bible that are confusing. I recommend books from Lee Strobel such as The Case For Faith. You can also get his materials in DVD but the books are more detailed.
One more science tid bit. Proteins are known as “the building blocks of the cell”. They make up all or part of every structure in the cell including DNA, RNA, the organelles, the cellular membrane, the processes of transcription and translation for making proteins are also made up of proteins. Even the conversion of energy from ADP to ATP is made up of proteins. So without God as creator how could you ever get (by natural causes alone) the first proteins when proteins are required in all these structures and processes? It is not logical to think that they came about by natural causes.
Dan I hope you give some serious thought to the above and check out books from Lee Strobel (local libraries have them too). You can also send me a message by going to www.EvidencePress.com and go to the contact page.
Dan wrote back with:
+Jim Bendewald which GOD are you referring to? every religion claims their GOD created everything, what method did you use to determine that yours actually did it?
I responded with:
+dan b The mono-theistic God of the Bible makes the most sense. All the eastern gods are limited in time and space and many are not personal. The God of the Bible is the creator of all time, space and matter and is not limited by them. He is also personal in that He has revealed Himself to us through the Bible. He has provided clarity about us as His children, that we are sinners and lost without believing in and receiving Christ as His Son and our Savior. Only the God of the Bible loves us unconditionally in the midst of our sin. The God of the Bible has the power and knowledge to create the universe and produce life along with the coding in DNA.
The Bait and Switch
Evolutionists claim that their evidence is fully supported by science. Then in the same sentence or paragraph they attack creationist arguments as being nothing more than religious platitudes. To further their argument evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact and the vast majority of scientists from every field of science accept evolution as fact.
Since evolution is so well established it should be easy for the evolutionists to provide good scientific, falsifiable, empirical evidence which demonstrates simple-life-organisms-to-humans evolution. But where is it? Other than the talk, bluster and hyperbole where is the evidence for evolution? Unless evolution is actually a bait and switch?
Is it possible that evolutionists bait the public with snippets like “organisms change over time therefore evolution is true”? Well I believe organisms change over time too. But so will a fence post; even the wire on the fence post will change over time. In fact, just about all objects if not all objects change over time but objects changing over time is not evolution. Evolutionists start with the bait “organisms change over time” which applies to all objects I know of. Then they extrapolate that organisms change therefore macro evolution is true. They try to make their bate prove the switch. It does not.
So if you disagree, demonstrate how I am wrong with scientific, falsifiable, empirical evidence demonstrating common-descent-with-modification evolution.
Animals We Have Today
In a blog post, someone calling himself John Clancy wrote: Look here, folks. AIG clearly states that around 16,000 animals were on the ark. That’s 8,000 kinds. 8,000 kinds EVOLVED into 8.7 million species. During hyperevolution beneficial mutations took place. This is a fact.
I responded: Not all animals that survived were on the ark. The various marine creatures were not on the ark. I suspect many varieties of insects were able to survive outside the ark. Where did you get your estimate of 8.7 million species — from evolutionary sources? The establishment scientists may have inflated estimates based on their assumption that evolution is true.
John responded: I get my info from legitimate sources. You’re missing the point. 8,000 kinds turned into millions of species in 4,000 years. Mutations took place. At hyper speeds. There must have been beneficial mutations.
Whether you believe it or not, the young earth model needs mutation rates to be at 10^5 times faster than we see today. Several new species would be born each day for 4,000 years. That is a fact.
I responded to John: You are correct that the animals on the ark diverged into the animals we have today. How establishment scientists label species can be misleading. Counting insects and marine animals would be misleading. Concerning the various animals we have today from those on the ark, they diverged with in their family groups or “kind”. Creationists believe that God provided the animals kinds to have DNA code flexible enough to provide for varieties.
All dogs are of the same kind yet they have many various features. Dr. Lee Spectner (Not by Chance) has shown that positive mutations are so rare they don’t exist. A better explanation for the varieties of animals is to consider the amazing versatility of the DNA code God programmed into all His creatures.
Empirical Evidence for Evolution
The following is a discussion I am having with someone on YouTube. Since evolutionists claim to have science on their side and they also claim that evolution is so sure that it is FACT, shouldn’t they have overwhelming observable non-controvertible evidence to support it? But what do they have? Read the following to find out what evolutionists have for supporting their side.
Writing to Mark Ryan: What empirical evidence do your rely on that convinces you evolution is true?
Reply ·
Writing to Evidence Press: Foxes and wolves are related. By blood.
Reply ·
Writing to Mark Ryan: How does your evidence account for the evolution of all of life? Do you not believe that life began from a primitive life form, evolved into something else, eventually gaining more complexity all the way up to humans? How do you empirically, in a falsifiable manor, account for evolution to be true?
Reply ·
Writing to Evidence Press: You are shifting the goalposts know. First you were asking about evolution. Now that I settled that debate, you shift it to “origin of life”. Yes, we know for a fact that foxes and wolves are related. Evolution.
Reply ·
Writing to Mark Ryan: First, the word “related” is not a precise term. Some people would say humans are related to amoebas and in some ways that is true. All living creatures have DNA, RNA and proteins, so we are “related”. But this hardly gives convincing evidence for evolution. It is far better evidence for a single, all powerful designer to have made all of life.
Secondly, I did not mention “origin of life”. I was just making clear what we are arguing about. I am arguing that primitive life (notice I said “life”) did not evolve over billions of years to become more complex organisms and through common descent eventually evolved into humans. I believe that is what you are arguing for.
Evolutionists claim that they offer “science” while we offer “religion”. So pony up. I am asking for some scientific empirical evidence that can be falsified as evidence for simple-life-to-humans evolution. Evolutionists claim it is a fact, so it certainly should be easy to provide some good solid evidence. Right?
Unless evolution is actually a bait and switch. Is it possible that evolutionists bait the public with snippets like “organisms change over time therefore evolution is true”. Well I believe organisms change over time too. But so will a fence post, even the wire on the fence post will change over time. In fact, just about all objects if not all objects change over time but that is not evolution. So starting with the bait of change over time does not confirm organisms-to-humans evolution. That is the switch. You are trying to use the same bait and switch with foxes and wolves which for me is saying nothing anyway.
So what do you have for empirical, falsifiable evidence for organisms-to-humans evolution?
Jim Bendewald (Evidence Press)