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:

Destroying Evolution Theory

A good interview but this finding will in no way “destroy” Evolution Theory. What was found was remarkable and unexplained preservation, not inaccurate dating. No reason to make an argument from ignorance
+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 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?

Mousetrap With Cheddar Cheese - Isolated








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.


Dog Kind







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?

Challenged by Jack

I have a video on YouTube with my interview with Dr. John Baumgardner. I get a number of people making comments.

Jack44M wrote:
+Evidence Press — maybe you can back up your claims: What is the scientific definition of kinds and what is your scientific source?
Where is your scientific evidence for the existence of God? Remember, the category is science….not philosophy. ….and as far as the “empirical evidence for abiogenesis”, are you being dishonest by trying to claim it’s part of the theory of evolution? Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life. Evolution is the study of the diversification of existing life. They are separate fields of study.

“I am a young Earth creationist.” Perhaps you can provide verifiable scientific evidence that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old (the usual Young Earther claim) A few peer reviewed scientific journal publications that show no rock is older than 10,000 years old would seal the deal.

My response:

Evidence Press wrote:
+Jack44M Well gee Jack you are boxing me in.

The term “kinds” is a biblical construct similar to “family” in the evolutionary classification system. Though secular scientists may have commented on it. I am not about to look for a source just to say I found one. Think of it as family in classification then it becomes scientific.

Evidence for the existence of God: OK, first I don’t claim proof for God’s existence. I will provide lines of evidence:
1. The finely tuned universe. It is so finely tuned that it is a huge problem for astronomers. This is a great video to watch on the subject:
2. As already mentioned the complexity of DNA. Multiple messaging within genes called duons is amazing to think about even for design. For it to come by natural causes is preposterous.
3. The making of proteins requires numerous protein-based machines, sophisticated code and usable energy, the kind the cell can use. How do you get the first protein when DNA is made up of protein, the conversion of energy requires protein and the transcription factors and ribosome also have protein?

This is not just a chicken and the egg, this is a slam dunk, evolution by way of abiogenesis never happened. You may say, this does not necessarily mean God did it. Yea, it could have been really smart aliens. Then you are getting way outside of science.

I could mention more evidence but let’s keep this to a manageable size. There are only two possibilities for our existence: 1. natural causes and 2 design causes. The three above items point to a design cause. I believe the designer is the God of the Bible.

In regard to abiogenesis I understand this does not strictly fall under the classification of evolution. However, every basic biology text book which promotes evolution either assumes abiogenesis or tries to provide evidence for it. If there is no abiogenesis there must be a designer. You have to deal with it.

I can get into the age of the Earth another time. But I want to see if you will answer my questions first:
1. Provide your best evidence for evolution. I would prefer empirical data as I have provided.
2. What is your problem with God? Does the thought of Him make you angry for some reason?

The Proof of God

YouTube user +al gore at has challenged me to empirically prove that God exists by emperically proving He created or did something. The following is my answer:

Christians do not claim that God can be reduced to a scientific experiment. Though the preponderance of evidence points to God (finely tuned universe, origin of life, order, biogenesis, DNA information, genetic entropy) we do not claim that we can prove Him. In contrast, atheism claims empirical science as its foundation. Atheists claim that evolution is a fact. Darwin described evolution as “common descent with modification”. What empirical, falsifiable evidence do you offer for evolution as common descent with modification?

If a death of a person is investigated, there are ultimately only two possible causes for that death or for any death: a natural cause or a design cause. If all the evidence leads to a design cause but all design causes are ruled out before hand then the evidence will be made to fit the natural cause. Do you deny that this analogy fits what we are talking about?

God of the Gaps and Empirical Evidence

View the video and dialog here:

A viewer on YouTube feels that our video on Proteins requiring proteins is a God of the gaps argument and simplistic. I wrote back:
I think it is interesting that the USA secular educational system ignores the LAW of biogenesis (life only comes from life and is seen every day) and assumes abiogenesis which has never been observed.

So in our secular educational institutions the only possible cause for the origin of life is a natural cause. So no matter what the evidence, that evidence is made to fit the natural cause. So when you hint that “complexity” points to God as simplistic I will take that over the myopic view of secularists who force the evidence to fit their naturalistic cause (while not allowing a design cause in the door).

The viewer responded with Abiogenesis is new and science is about nature. He also challenged me to provide empirical evidence for creation. So I responded:

I appreciate your comments and questions. First, I deny that this is a God of the Gaps argument. It only is when design or God is not considered an option. If design is considered an option, then where does the evidence better lead, design or a natural cause? For me the clear answer is design.

You wrote, “Science is the study of nature.” That is true. However, the essence of science is the search for knowledge. There is nothing inherent in the study of science that mandates that the cause of a natural thing is a natural cause. That requirement is inserted by materialists who are unwilling to allow a level playing field to seekers of truth. Instead their way is indoctrination without consideration of design as a cause.

Your question is a good one. But as I answer it, what will you have to offer to show empirical, testable data that we are here as Darwin wrote, by “common descent with modification”? And do not give me the standard answer by changes observed in bacteria and viruses. The fact that organisms change fits the creation model as well. Rather, demonstrate bacteria evolving a functional organelle that prior bacteria did not have, or something of the kind.

I can offer several lines of evidence for creation. In doing so I am not trying to prove the existence of God, rather I am offering evidence that creation better fits the evidence than evolution by natural causes.

1. As the above video states, conundrums such as proteins requiring (maybe hundreds or even thousands of proteins) in order to create a protein. This is not simply a chicken or egg issue. We are talking multiple high tech nano machines, with communication, transportation, mechanics (folding of the protein) and who knows what all is going on in order to create a single protein. This is observed, it is repeatable and the best explanation is design not a natural cause.

2. The Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from life. It is observed every day. Never has life been observed to come from natural causes even with the intense help of evolutionary scientists around the world trying to drum up evidence for it.

3. I don’t want to get into an argument about how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics being limited to closed systems and we are supposedly in an open system. So, let me refer simply to order instead. Again order is observed every day in a variety of locations and situations. Intelligent orderers are statistically observed (vastly more so) to be the cause of order than order from natural causes. I do not deny that order does at times come from natural causes. I am saying the vast majority of order coming from an intelligent source far exceeds order coming out of chaos.

I could go on to talk about predictions, information, the finely tuned universe and other sources of evidence such as genetic entropy (search YouTube for Dr. John Sanford). However, it is time for you to respond. I would like to see you provide two or three sources for empirical evidence for “common descent with modification”.

Dinosaurs On Trial — How Old Are They?

Do you know about Sue? I mean the dinosaur named Sue. At the end of June, 2014 I will be embarking on an exciting adventure. Evidence Press is working with the Creation Research Society to produce a documentary about the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaurs. Evolutionists are amazed that soft tissue in dinosaurs can survive 65+ million years. Well, there is another possibility, that dinosaurs are not millions of years old as evolutionists claim.

The problem with that idea is that if the correct age of dinosaurs was in the thousands and not millions of years then the geologic time scale evolutionists depend on for dating fossils is dramatically wrong. If the geologic time scale is dramatically wrong, then evolution never happened. Soft tissue in dinosaurs is just one line of evidence which supports the notion dinosaurs lived recently, not millions of years ago. In total we will be presenting at least five lines of evidence. I hope you find this to be exciting.

I will be traveling to Montana and South Dakota for filming several interviews. I expect it to be a fascinating journey. I will provide pictures and tell a few stories along the way. I hope you will tune in. For now I would like you to check out this movie trailer about the T-Rex named Sue coming out later this year:

Dinosaur 13