Shell-Shocked: Preserved Proteins in Supposedly Ancient Shells Surprises Scientists

Ecphora shellScientists recently studying a collection of ancient shells were surprised to find not only no evidence of evolution in the specimens, but also clear evidence of protein-rich materials that normally cannot survive millions of years.

According to a recent article published in the European Association of Geochemistry’s Geochemical Perspective Letters, researchers analyzed shells found along the coast of Maryland. The shells, which belong to the genus Ecphora and are believed to be several million years old, were subjected to a variety of testing techniques.

The scientists’ research yielded some surprising findings. Despite the purported ancient ages of the shells, the specimens were rich with well-preserved proteins that had somehow escaped decay. The researchers described this discovery as “remarkable,” because proteins usually cannot survive long eons of time without decomposing.

“Results from several analytical techniques are all consistent with the remarkable preservation of protein-rich, polymeric shell-binding material and associated pigments in specimens as old as 18 [million years],” the scientists wrote. “Four lines of evidence support this conclusion.”

The scientists noticed “a very high degree of molecular preservation” in the Ecphora shells, including “the detection of intact amino acids,” which is “evidence for at least intact fragments of protein.” In fact, they say their study “represents some of the oldest and best-preserved examples of original protein observed in a fossil shell.”

Furthermore, the scientists noted that the old shells had compositions “very similar” to that of modern creatures. In other words, the invertebrates have experienced nearly no evolution.

“The organic matter elemental and isotopic compositions are very similar to those from modern marine invertebrates,” the researchers explained. “We conclude, therefore, that essentially intact shell-binding proteins have been preserved for up to 18 [million years].”

  • Connect with Christian News

However, other scientists question the researchers’ claims that the proteins were somehow preserved for nearly 20 million years. Dr. Jay Wile, a popular science textbook author with a Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry, says proteins simply cannot survive that long.

“Even at temperatures of zero degrees Celsius, the hardiest proteins are not expected to be detectable in organic samples that are more than about 3 million years old,” Wile wrote in a blog post last month. “Nevertheless, the authors found lots of essentially intact proteins in fossils that are supposed to be up to 18 million years old!”

“It seems to me,” he continued, “that if you want to believe these fossils are millions of years old, you need to come up with some mechanism by which proteins can stay intact for so long.”

Many other similar discoveries seem to fly in the face of the old-earth, evolutionary narrative. As previously reported, Canadian scientists were shocked in 2013 when they found well-preserved dinosaur skin on a fossil that they believed to be at least 60 million years old. Then, last year, a biologist was fired from California State University after he discovered soft tissue on a Triceratops fossil.

Wile believes the existence of proteins and soft tissues in these various specimens lends credibility to the belief that the fossils are not millions of years old after all.

“If nothing else,” he wrote on his blog, “I can safely say that finding such tissue was surprising to those who believe the fossils are millions of years old, but it wasn’t surprising to those of us who think the fossils are only thousands of years old.”

Photo: Geochemical Perspectives Letters


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • uzza

    Summary:
    A team of Researchers from major Universities found unexpectedly old proteins in some fossils; some lone religious fanatic with a blog thinks that can’t be; the author doesn’t understand evolution.

    • Oboehner

      Summary:
      Evolutionism takes yet another hit and the religious evolutionist zealot fanatic with a Disqus account replies with the old stand-by – the author doesn’t understand evolutionism.

      • uzza

        LOL, great comeback!
        edit: You need to learn to read, it says the author doesn’t understand “evolution” [ a real biological process ], not “evolutionism” [a fictional faith-based belief in evolution ]
        also, learn logic: if “evolutionism” took a hit, that would mean more people came to give it up and accepted evolution as fact. Neither of those things happened here, but it’s still nice to make sense.

        • Oboehner

          Word play and popular opinion, very scientific.

          • MisterPine

            Popular opinion? You mean scientific facts?

          • The Last Trump

            Oh! Oh!
            You FINALLY posted some scientific facts!?
            Where?

          • Oboehner

            LOL, scientific facts.

          • MisterPine

            Yup, and this is the reason you are a laughingstock, because you LOL at scientific facts.

          • Oboehner

            Haven’t seen any, just empty claims rife with religious belief.

          • MisterPine

            In order to see them, you have to take your fundamentalist Christian blinders off. Go ahead…it doesn’t hurt.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz….. I look right at it and see the ever-present assumptions, speculations, and a pinch of circular reasoning – none of which is scientific nor factual.

          • MisterPine

            Yes, and you call scientific consensus “popular opinion” and you call evolution “evolutionism” and you call homosexuals “turd burglars”. In other words, if you can’t bear to admit something is true, you hide your head in the sand.

          • Oboehner

            Who’s the one not admitting?

          • MisterPine

            You.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            The evidence that you see, is the same we see.

            The conclusion you draw is based on a disbelief in the creator God and therefore your science (knowledge) of it is flawed.

            The conclusion we draw, while admittedly incomplete as we do not have all the evidence, nor fully understand what we do have, is in concert with the revelation from our heavenly (sky) Father (daddy) who made it all some 6000 years ago, and didn’t have to use evolution to get it done.

            It’s not popular to have this belief. But with all the evidence pointing to a creator God, we can, with all honesty, have no other.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            It’s to be expected….

            “…having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart…” Eph 4:18

        • jmichael39

          Yeah…he likely only knows as much as he’s researched…which is why he went to a nuclear chemist to try to understand more. Sheesh….oh wait…that nuclear chemist is just some religious nut, huh…and HE doesn’t know what he’s talking about either.

      • MisterPine

        Evolution (not “evolutionism” as you called it) has not taken a hit.

        • The Last Trump

          More like, another haymaker!
          Eh, Pinemeister!

          • MisterPine

            Whatever you like, Rumpy, you’re so used to avoiding reality anyway.

          • The Last Trump

            …9….
            🙂

          • MisterPine

            What are you counting down, your brain cells trickling away?

          • The Last Trump

            Aww. Don’t get mad Mister Intolerant.
            Get educated.
            You won’t look so foolish.

          • MisterPine

            Mad? About expecting me to understand your little countdown? Why would I care?

          • The Last Trump

            About facts and science?
            You’re right. You wouldn’t.
            You’re into magic. What was I thinking!

          • MisterPine

            I wonder if you read what you type half the time.
            Facts and science is YOU? Mr. Sky Daddy, Evolution Denier, 6000 year old earth?

            And “magic” is me, the one who accepts evolution?

            You’re right, what WERE you thinking?

          • The Last Trump

            ?
            Hee, hee!
            Yes, bigot. I’M SCIENCE! (?) Koo, koo!
            Might wanna scroll back up and read THE ARTICLE. AGAIN.
            Probably for the first time.

            …I’M SCIENCE! ME!
            Hee, hee! This guy’s in more trouble than I thought!
            If only he could “discover” that google search bar and stay off of discriminatory hate machine websites like FSTDT dot com.
            Ah well. Knowledge isn’t for everybody! Some prefer their hate 🙁

          • MisterPine

            Smugness, willful ignorance and blatant stupidity are a bad combination, Rumpy. Are you sure you want them as your calling cards?

            No, you’re not science, you believe in talking snakes. Is that a science? I’d love to know which science it is.

            “Knowledge isn’t for everybody”

            Very good of you to finally admit it, fundie bigot. Hee, hee!

            Read uzza’s comment about a lone religious fanatic. Words to the wise.

          • The Last Trump

            “Smugness, willful ignorance and blatant stupidity are a bad combination”

            So very true. But you can change Pinester. Christianity can help.
            The first step is denial. Soon you’ll reach step two. I’ll pray for you!

            You don’t have to continue with your unsatisfying life of Christian website stalking and hate and bigotry. Jesus can set YOU free!

          • Recognizing_Truth

            Abba, the Aramaic equivalent to our word “daddy”. Check
            In the “sky”, actually Hebrew shamayim – heavens. Check
            Evolution denier. Well, that’s a given since God created. Check.
            6000 year old earth. By history and genealogy as we measure time, you bet. Check.

            Yep. The evidence is in. Your pejorative epithets are badges of truth and honor for us.

          • Andrew Diamond

            Techinically they’re counting up

        • Recognizing_Truth

          Something that doesn’t exist, namely evolution (chemical molecules to living creatures), can’t take a hit. There’s nothing there to hit.

          Evolutionism is, like all false religions, a belief in spite of the evidence. That has taken a hit.

          Let God be true (i.e. God is always true) even if every man is found to be a liar.

          • StereoMan

            “Something that doesn’t exist, namely evolution…”

            ….aaaaaand I just stopped reading.

            Evolution occurs, sir. And it’s not a religion. Stay away from the fundamentalist religion, it is brain cancer.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            You should have continued reading. Evolution – that is, the kind that claims life from non-life and change from one form of life to another; taxonomically crossing at least domain, kingdom, phylum or class – does not exist. Evolution (change) in or to species, genus or family can be seen and even brought about through selective breeding or environmental/geographical pressure.

            Brain cancer, is a physical abnormality, not a religion – fundamentalist or manmade – in any event 😉

    • bowie1

      It wasn’t a creationist that made this discovery.

      • uzza

        Jeez, can’t any of you guys read? You’re right it wasn’t, that’s why the article doesn’t say it, and I didn’t say it, and I have no idea why you would say it.
        Perhaps there’s a point somewhere in the universe that you’d like to locate and direct our attention to?

        • bowie1

          It was when you mentioned a “lone religious fanatic” it seemed to imply a creationist.

    • ironnat

      It isn’t amazing however that you disparage the author but did not in any way refute his claims. Calling names seems to be your supporting claim for defending a finding that does not seem to support evolution or the dating of these species.

      • uzza

        One cannot refute something meaningless. As are his two ignorant references to evolution.
        Scientists . . . were surprised to find not only no evidence of evolution in the specimens,
        … the invertebrates have experienced nearly no evolution./i>

        The first says that a fossil –one of the pieces of evidence for evolution–contains no evidence for evolution, it’s self-contradictory.
        The second assumes that an invertebrate can exist that hasn’t experienced evolution–which is impossible–and that the process cannot produce lack of change in an organism–which is false.

        Such erroneous, nonsensical notions are most charitably explained as ignorance. Wile, OTOH, is in fact a lone religious fanatic with a blog.

        • ironnat

          Micro evolution is possible but macro-evolution is governed by the natural law of entropy.

          • uzza

            It’ll be fun to hear how the laws of thermodynamics apply to little things but not big things.
            What about micro-macro evolution, or macro-micro evolution, do the laws apply there too?

        • Recognizing_Truth

          But fossils are not any sort of evidence for evolution. They are simply evidence that something lived and died and was buried in a manner that was both rapid and rich in mineral laden water.

    • jmichael39

      “some lone religious fanatic with a blog”

      “Dr. Jay Wile, a popular science textbook author with a Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry” – I think I’ll take the input of a Ph.D in Nuclear Chemistry over the blabbering nonsense of uzza.

    • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

      You have an amazing ability to misrepresent the facts. There must be some use to which you can put this talent.

  • Richard

    Give the research a year or so to sort out the criticisms. Media has a tendency to ‘jump the gun’ and exaggerate to make headlines.

    The fossil record has already disproven macroevolution, so no big deal.

    • MisterPine

      It has? News to me.
      Do you have a link which proves it?

      • The Last Trump

        Google search.

        • MisterPine

          LOL

          Nope.

          • The Last Trump

            Be sure to submit all of my posts now, uneducated and intolerant one! Your little hate group could sure use a dose of actual science from time to time to counter all of the mindless drivel they spout.

            Plus, I DO LOVE to shame and embarrass you magic lovers with the facts with every chance I get. WHICH IS A LOT these days, thanks to modern scientific discovery! 🙂

            Hee, hee! NOTHING! CREATED EVERYTHING!
            JUST BECAUSE!
            And you are actually SURPRISED that there is no evidence for that!? Too cute!

          • MisterPine

            “Be sure to submit all of my posts now”

            Only when they beggar belief. Which is often.

            “Your little hate group could sure use a dose of actual science from time to time”

            Evolution gets taught in science classes in schools, and Christianity gets taught in religion classes. I know you wish it was reversed, but I live in the real world. Eats you alive, doesn’t it? What were you saying about actual science?

            “Plus, I DO LOVE to shame and embarrass you magic lovers with the facts with every chance I get.”

            Yes, I can tell. Every time one of your paranoid schizophrenic rants gets posted on fstdt and they’re too painful for educated people to even read, you’re sure being shaming and embarrassing. You paragon of intelligence and wit, you. Hee, hee! Too funny, Rumpy! Keep it coming!

            “Hee, hee! NOTHING! CREATED EVERYTHING! JUST BECAUSE!”

            Do you have a name for your strawman? Does he do tricks?

          • The Last Trump

            His name is Pine! 🙂
            And no. He really doesn’t know any tricks. He’s kind of “wooden”
            Like a broken record, only knows 1 tune: “Hate! Hate! Hate!”
            Except of course for when he’s singing: “If you believe in MAGIC!….And I HOPE you do!….Evolution is, just the ticket for you!”

            Ahh, too easy, Pinemeister!
            What else you got?
            (Don’t forget to submit! 😉

          • MisterPine

            “Nothing created everything” is a strawman, fundie simpleton. Find me a lone believer in evolution who believes that statement.

            “Like a broken record, only knows 1 tune: “Hate! Hate! Hate!”

            And yet stands up for the hatred being directed at LGBT people by Christian bigots. But continue to call this “hate”. It just makes people wonder what planet you’re from.

            “Evolution is, just the ticket for you!” Ahh, too easy, Pinemeister! What else you got?”

            I think you have your hands full with just that minuscule amount, but take your time.

            Don’t worry, so much of what you say these days is submit-worthy.

          • The Last Trump

            “…And I hope you do!….da dee da, dee da da, dee da da, do!..”
            Ooops! Sorry. Can’t get your evolution song outta my head now!

            “Nothing created everything” is a strawman, fundie simpleton.”
            Ok. I’ll bite. Here’s your chance to educate all the “fundies” and dazzle us with your scientific prowess.

            Based on the clear scientific evidence that you will now provide here, please explain conclusively WHO created And HOW.

            Thanks Pinemeister! I knew you wouldn’t just be throwing around mindless drivel that you couldn’t possibly back up. Opinions and conjecture. Guesswork. Babbling on about strawmen and simpletons without any actual evidence of your own to support anything at all. That’s not YOU! 😉 So sock it to us, Einstein!

            We can’t wait! …

          • MisterPine

            I understand, Rumpy. You demand answers, even those that can’t be known, and in absence of them, you strut around claiming victory with your absurd tale of the megalomaniac, jealous, crazed God of the Bible. Well, you just go ON putting your faith in a story a zillion times more improbable than evolution.

            Speaking of which, if you’re demanding to know “conclusively WHO created and HOW”, then your enemy is not evolution at all. Do you really need to have it pointed out to you that evolution is not ABOUT creation, origins, etc? Evolution is about CHANGE. I think you’ll find that the boogeyman you are battling is, in fact, abiogenesis.

            Look it up yourself, Rumpy, I’m tired.

          • The Last Trump

            So…..nothing? Not a thing? Nada?
            I see.

            Well, there you have it folks!
            Evolution explained by one of there own.

            If THAT doesn’t convince you (?), NOTHIN’ will! (Which, as it turns out, is what they think CREATED everything! AND what they have AS evidence!)

            Hee, hee! What a bunch of nuts!
            And they have the audacity to laugh AT US!

            Well, don’t say we never gave you the opportunity to educate us Pinester. I won’t be too hard on you. Not your fault, you poor clueless loon, that your position is scientifically unsupportable.
            You might want to ponder that a while instead of defending it blindly and repeating the same nonsense you’ve been told by other “believers”. Time for you religious fanatics to look at the actual scientific evidence and discover your Creator.

          • MisterPine

            I didn’t explain evolution, Rumpy. You didn’t ask me to. You asked me to “please explain conclusively WHO created And HOW”. As I already told you, evolution isn’t about origins.

            “Hee, hee! What a bunch of nuts!”

            At least I understand the field we are discussing.

            Also, I have no religion, so I’m not a religious fanatic. That’s you guys.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh oh! Back to step 1 again!
            Denial. 🙁

          • MisterPine

            “Not your fault, you poor clueless loon, that your position is scientifically unsupportable. You might want to ponder that a while instead of defending it blindly and repeating the same nonsense you’ve been told by other “believers”. Time for you religious fanatics to look at the actual scientific evidence”

            It hasn’t twigged to you at all, has it, that this applies to yourself about 100 times more than it does to me?

          • The Last Trump

            Oh Pinester! You’re regressing!
            Denial leads to anger. Anger leads to hate.
            And hate leads to…..
            You know.
            You.
            Cut it out already. Life’s too short. Stop playing the blame game.
            Study science. Meet God. Get on with your life. Say no to hate.
            Say no to FSTDT dot com. Say yes to science! You won’t regret it!

          • MisterPine

            I’ve noticed that you’re into diversionary tactics, subject-changing and name-calling when you’re being embarrassed and having your butt handed to you. It happens over and over. Any reason why, Rumpy?

          • The Last Trump

            ?
            Now, now Pinemeister! Liar, liar!
            One would have to FIRST actually embarrass me and “hand me my butt” to notice how I might react to it!

            Still waiting for THAT to ever happen, little trollster!
            How very hard you do try though! Too cute!

            I really can’t take too much credit for all of your failures though. With you constantly showing up for a battle of wits completely unarmed and without any evidence whatsoever to back up any of your wild claims, I really haven’t had to do much of anything.
            Just letting YOU speak makes ME look like a freakin’ genius!
            Keep up the good work!! 😉

            And hey, thought you were tired? Couldn’t stick around to explain evolution to all of us, remember? Yeah. Thought so. Diversionary tactics and subject changing, eh? Listen, I’ll be up for a while and I can always check back tomorrow. So whenever you would like to present all of your irrefutable “evidence” for evolution, that would be great! Science lovers like myself would LOVE to see this conclusive, “open and shut case” evidence as soon as possible. Thanks trollster! Sleep well! 🙂

          • MisterPine

            Well Rumpy Rump Rump, there is a method to my madness. You see, in preserving your greatest hits on a website like fstdt, we have a very handy resource to go back and see exactly how full of fertilizer you really are (not to mention vastly entertaining in terms of what you actually believe). In doing so you also have the added benefit of seeing all the OTHER people of science handing your butt to you.

            Your smugness is the thing people comment on first, have you noticed that? As I pointed out before, smugness when you’re correct about something is annoying, but when you’re showing off a mentality that would make a first grader blush, it’s downright shameful.

            All my so-called “failures” are scientific claims, but of course you know better with your “REAL” science, which is…I assume Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Jack Chick? Really well-respected scientific minds there, yessirree.

            “Couldn’t stick around to explain evolution to all of us, remember?”

            You mean abiogenesis, Rumpy? Yup, this is the fun thing with you, your selective reading/hearing. I did tell you a few times already. It’s heartening that you’re so well-read and such an expert on your subject, evolution, that you STILL don’t know that it’s not about origins. It’s about CHANGE. What you are fighting against, as I’ve said a couple times now, is not evolution. It’s ABIOGENESIS.

            If you really want to change the subject to evolution, and you really want proof of it, you know that’s not going to present a problem. There is a veritable mountain of stuff. Why not start here?

            evolution dot berkeley dot edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

          • The Last Trump

            Really? Still nothing? Just a redirect?
            Disappointing.

            Well if you don’t know, you don’t know, right?
            Shame you couldn’t just paraphrase why you “believe” what you “believe”. But that would be hard if you didn’t even know!

            “Have I noticed that?”
            ?
            Oh, Pinester! Pinester, Pinester, Pinester!
            Tell me you didn’t ACTUALLY believe that I was going to go to your hate machine website of twelve year old fascists to listen to their venomous rants of hate and intolerance?!
            Did you? DID YOU! NO WAY!

            Hee, hee! Oh, MisterIntolerant! You are just too cute!
            The immaturity and naiveté of it all!
            Gee, I guess the point of your sick little website is to get under the skin of the people you target for discrimination and intolerance? Intimidate and embarrass them? Bully even?
            Guess that only works if they give a sh!t though, huh? About the hateful rants of fascist twelve year olds!! 🙂

            Hee, hee! I guess that’s why you keep reposting HERE, what you have already submitted THERE, huh? Your pathetic attempt at intimidation wasn’t working out so well, eh little buddy? Weren’t getting the “rise” you were hoping for? Awwwww! 🙁

            “Have I noticed that!” 🙂
            Just adorable!
            He actually thought people would CHECK to see what hateful bigots would have to say about them! Whoda thunk?
            Pinester, don’t ever change, you naïve and intolerant little fruit loop you! 😉

          • MisterPine

            “Really? Still nothing? Just a redirect?
            Disappointing.”

            Dance, dance, dance, evade, evade, evade. So predictable Rumpy.

            “Well if you don’t know, you don’t know, right?”

            I guess so. What are you talking about now?

            “Shame you couldn’t just paraphrase why you “believe” what you “believe”. But that would be hard if you didn’t even know!”

            There is no shame in not knowing what can’t be known. I know you have ALL the answers, Rumpy, but I’m willing to be a few of ’em are wrong. Law of averages and all that. Plus being plain old dumb-as-a-post and believing in bronze age superstition. You poor, sad, S.O.B.

            “Tell me you didn’t ACTUALLY believe that I was going to go to your hate
            machine website of twelve year old fascists to listen to their venomous
            rants of hate and intolerance?!”

            Now THAT gives me a laugh! HEE, HEE!!!! Oh Rumpy, don’t pretend for a moment that you’re not checking that site out daily to see what I’ve submitted to them and how it’s eliciting gales of laughter from people to whom uneducated fundies are the funniest thing on earth! You’re a PRIME SPECIMEN, Rumpy! Be proud! Embrace your hate, your denial of science, your anger, your rage, your poor education, your injustice! Hee, hee! Oh, you are the hugest pile of crap!

          • The Last Trump

            Careful trollster!
            Your anger and hate are showing! 🙂

            Must have struck a nerve, huh?
            It was the website, wasn’t it?

            Awww, muffin! Don’t be sad. I’m just not that into you!
            You can still hate there with your intellectually challenged and maladjusted friends silly! Just pretend I’m there with you.

            And if that doesn’t help you get your rocks off you can keep reposting your posted submissions of my posts (?) HERE in your continued and desperate attempts for attention. Ok? I don’t mind.

            All better now? Say, why don’t you go outside and kick some heterosexual Christian in the crotch and cheer up?
            That’s a good little bigot! 😉

          • MisterPine

            Keep playing the smug, too-cool-for-school games, Rumpy. You are a laughingstock now. My work is done. Another “loving” Christian bigot exposed as a KKK groupie. Another notch on my chart. Until you leave this board, posting your inanities is EXACTLY what I have in mind. Ta ta. Have a good night, and don’t overdo it on the blood pressure meds.

          • The Last Trump

            Playing?! WHO’s playing! 🙂
            Wow! Are you STILL up?
            Guess you were just “too tired” to back up your claims and defend evolution, huh?
            But not too tired to hate and to argue. Interesting.

            And yes, YOU sure showed ME! Hee, hee!
            Make sure you submit all of my posts today, trollmeister!
            Something tells me not many of them are going to find there way to your site of ridicule and shame. And for good reason.
            Particularly the one where I called you out on your “religion” and you were absolutely incapable of rising to the challenge. It was pretty shameful. Truth be told, I was a little embarrassed for you.
            Sorry to have to do that to you so publically. I just had no idea you were so poorly prepared to defend your own position!?
            Night, trollster! See you tomorrow. And every day after that!
            Hee, hee!
            TROLLS! What d’ya gonna do? 😉

          • MisterPine

            “Particularly the one where I called you out on your “religion” and you were absolutely incapable of rising to the challenge. It was pretty shameful.”

            Well that’s some BS right there, Rumpster. Firstly because I have no religion, and secondly because you’ve been told at LEAST three times now that what you are calling evolution is actually abiogenesis. Translation: you don’t know your own subject well enough to define it properly. Now THAT’s what I call shameful. Next time you want a challenge met, make it one that makes actual sense.

            You’ll know when your little atrocities get submitted, believe me! Hee, hee! Too funny, Mr. Rump!

      • uzza

        It’s the “Missing Link”.

        • The Last Trump

          I think you have that confused with evolution.
          Missing links. Missing evidence. Missing verifiable observations, testing and duplications.
          Great argument though! 😉

        • Richard

          More like missing chains.

        • woodyl1011fl

          It’s the scientists themselves who are the “missing links” they are missing a rational and logical mind. Also in evidence is the totally closed, bigoted, totalitarian worldview of our academic institutions. God has a sense of humor He lets them find historical evidence of His Creation and the Flood of judgment in Noah’s day and they refuse the evidence in front of them. Romans 1:18-22 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”

      • Richard

        Sure. Search example of evolution including all transitional intermediates.

        • MisterPine

          ??? That DISPROVES macroevolution???

          • Richard

            Your inability to find ONE example in the entire fossil record DISPROVES macroevolution.

          • MisterPine

            en dot Wikipedia dot org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            Ah! Wikipedia! The source of unbiased unwashed truth! Written by experts, edited by trolls. Hey! Where’s the Coelacanth?

          • MisterPine

            Is Wikipedia lying, or is that a list of transitional fossils?

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            Do Wikipedia’s lips move?

          • MisterPine

            Oh, look…it’s a completely factual list of transitional fossils. Thanks, Wikipedia.

    • weasel1886

      Marco and micro terms made up to try to squeeze some explanations out of young earth believers. No real biologist uses those terms

      • Richard

        “the evidence … suggests that the [Cambrian Explosion] has not been explained by any of the present theories … neither microevolutionary species selection, nor rapid macroevolutionary jumps will adequately satisfy the data.” – James Valentine, paleobiologist, Curator of Paleozoic Invertebrates at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and Chair of the Faculty at the Santa Fe Institute.

        • Paul Hiett

          Other than the fact that…”…our chromosome #2 is a result of the end-to-endfusion of two shorter chromosomes (found today in apes: chimps, gorillas, and orangutans), probably very early in our hominin line, after chimps branched off on their own line from our common ancestor. The banding patterns of those chromosomes provide a strong indication of this, and subsequent DNA sequencing further confirms it. This is very compelling, something very hard to explain either by special creation or intelligent design, but easy to explain as an event in evolution.”, you’re right!

          Well, you’re not, but I think you knew that.

      • jmichael39

        Once again, that’s a canard. I’ve already shown that the terms date back to the 60s and are very much terms constructed by evolutionists. THey like to distance themselves from it these days because they realize it leaves their theories that mechanisms that make mutations within species possible cross-species as well…deeply flawed and unproven. So they’ve tried to eradicate the distinction as much as possible so they can piggyback macroevolutionary theories onto the backs of proven microevolutionary theories. That’s their right to do so…but don’t put those terms on creationists when its simply not true.

        • weasel1886

          Science is always changing and redefining it’s terms

          • jmichael39

            yeah, I know…some evolutionists are trying to redefine “species” to prove the theories apply between species. It’s hilarious actually.

  • The Last Trump

    There goes science again!
    Raining on the parade of the followers of the fantasy of evolution.
    No worries, eh magic lovers! Little things like FACTS have never stopped you before.
    Stay strong, evidence deniers! Keep the FAITH!! 🙂

    • Paul Hiett

      I so get a kick out seeing your hypocritical statements about people believing in “magic”, yet you yourself belief in an invisible magician who can apparently create the universe with a snap of his fingers. Tell us again all about this magic…

      • MisterPine

        And yet he’ll say we are the believers in “magic” such as evolution, which he continually confuses with abiogenesis.

        • Allan Trenholme

          I’m puzzled why a couple of self declared atheist’s, Paul Hiett and MisterPine, frequent a CHRISTIAN site. LOL, what’s with that??? You both are on my prayer list now!!!
          *Anti-Christian block mode on*

          • MisterPine

            I have no problem with NORMAL Christians, just not Christian supremacist right wing bigots.

          • The Last Trump

            And of course, by NORMAL Christians he means pro abortion, pro homosexual, pro evolution “Christians”.
            Otherwise known as, “heathens”, non believers, secularists, and “non-Christians”.
            Too funny, Pine! 🙂

          • MisterPine

            Christians to whom worshiping their God peacefully without getting in the faces of people who believe differently is who I mean by real Christians. You should try it sometime.

      • The Last Trump

        Hey! I was wondering when YOU were going to get here. What took so long? Your mom wouldn’t let you on her computer?

        Tell you about Creation? No problem.

        In the beginning, God created.
        Done. Wasn’t that easy? And the universe confirms it. Overwhelming evidence of clear intelligent design with purpose in everything we see.

        I’ll elaborate. I know most of you anti God, LGBT trolls are a little slow.

        There’s just no getting around the intelligent design argument. Unless you’re a blooming id!ot. Creation itself testifies of our Creator. Just the discoveries in a strand of DNA should have ended all debate a long time ago: “DNA is an information code. The overwhelming conclusion is that information DOES NOT and CANNOT arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. INTELLIGENCE is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, NO MATTER how much time is given.” (Lane Lester, Ph.D. Genetics, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, 1989.)

        Open a medical book and see the absolute marvel that is the human body. Flip through the different systems of our bodies. And then try to “fit” evolution into what you are actually seeing. Circulatory system, nervous system, skeletal system, muscular system, digestive system, endocrine system, immune system, urinary system, reproductive system, respiratory system. Ridiculous integration and complexity in design! So many complex systems designed to work together or not at all. We are incredible “machines” that defy “magic”. The logical conclusion is intelligent design. The illogical, “magic”.

        Now lets have a look at the universe. Einstein and his contemporaries believed the universe was a constant. That it had no beginning, that it always just was. Until Hubble came along and proved with scientific measurements that it was expanding and so, indeed, had a beginning from which it expanded. The Bible for thousands of years has told us that creation began suddenly when God proclaimed, “Let there be light.” Further, the Bible repeatedly states that God has “stretched out the heavens.” Interesting choice of words as it turns out. Scientists today are confirming that our universe indeed had a beginning, a sudden explosion of light followed by rapid expansion. Einstein and the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century, WRONG. BIBLE RIGHT. Can you explain that for me? Guess those simple shepherds just guessed it right, huh? Just another COINCIDENCE in a never ending chain of coincidences where God is concerned.

        Whatever you want to believe, the Bible has already told us that this universe we live in had a beginning and science confirms it. So WHERE did IT come from? WHAT caused IT to BE? Big Bang? Obviously, SOMEBODY made IT (?) go bang!

        What you would call “magic”, I know as GOD. No matter how you cut it, everything came from somewhere, and SOMEONE or SOMETHING had to just BE, for it all to come FROM. Had to be a starting point.
        Now what is more logical?

        Magic? Or the Intelligent Design that is overwhelmingly supported by the body of evidence? Exactly.

        Paul, meet God.
        You’re welcome.

        • Disqusdmnj

          Worst. Peer review. Ever.

          • The Last Trump

            Feel. Free. To. Refute. Anytime.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Just order Cosmos from Amazon. You’d be surprised what the rest of us have learned, lo these past 1,500 years. Even Pat Robertson agrees!

        • weasel1886

          If insults and ridicule prove yourself to God, it is my sincere hope the faith dies

          • Paul Hiett

            You have to love their logic…”we’re here, so the Bible must be true!” You’d think common sense would tell them that the god of the gaps argument works for EVERY religion, not just theirs.

          • The Last Trump

            Yes, everything CREATED ITSELF is soooo much more logical!
            What were WE thinking!
            Gotta love your “science”!
            Lord how I wish I had Paul’s kind of blind faith! What a believer! An example for us all!
            Me, I like evidence. Which the Bible has and in great abundance.
            Which makes it true. All very logical like. And provable.
            But hey, love your “magic” version! Makes a great bedtime story for the kids.

          • Paul Hiett

            So it’s “magic” to look at the scientific evidence and establish hypothesis and theories, but it’s “fact” to claim an invisible being snapped his fingers and created everything.

            I don’t even know where to begin laughing…

          • The Last Trump

            The laughing usually starts for me at NOTHING creating EVERYTHING!
            And then just snowballs from there!
            Magic! IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!
            Hee, hee! THAT’s good stuff Paul!
            By all means, cite your “evidence”.
            Abracadabra! 🙂

          • The Last Trump

            Prove myself to God? Heavens no!
            The insults and ridicule are for those deserving of insults and ridicule silly! Nasty little trolls who refuse to “live and let live” while demanding others do so. Hypocritical agenda pushing deviants who show up here daily to attack and bully Christians who aren’t even bothering anybody. Only fair, right? You know, “you reap what you sow”? “What goes around comes around”?
            I knew YOU would understand, you little “Weasel” you!
            And really, who are we kidding! Regardless of anything I would ever have to say, you would STILL most assuredly hope the faith dies. Nasty little troll. 😉

          • weasel1886

            I think every one should their life as they please as long as they don’t harm or force their way of life in others

        • Paul Hiett

          Oh look, Trump’s insulting me again. Shocked, I tell ya!!!!

          • The Last Trump

            Oh look! The anti Christian LGBT troll, Paul Hiett is stalking the Christian website. Again. To tell all the Christians daily to live and let live (!?) while bashing their religion and ridiculing their God. And then calling OTHERS hypocritical and acting surprised when they respond! Shocked, I tell ya!!!!

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
    sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and
    the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so
    stories because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” — Darwinist Richard Lewontin, Harvard University

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      I’ve been trying to make this point repeatedly but I’ve never seen it stated so succinctly. Science comes up with materialist explanations because that’s it’s “a priori” assumption. Science doesn’t DISPROVE the supernatural nor can it. They are in two different domains by definition. What bothers me most as a believer is this tendency to see gaps in scientific understanding as a failure on the part of science, when such gaps are not only inevitable but essential. What so often happens is people invoke God as an explanation of some poorly understood phenomenon, then a natural explanation comes along and suddenly the “God of the gaps” looks foolish.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Precisely! And I would say it even goes deeper than that. All of true science has a philosophical underpinning – the principles of consciousness, physical causality, and ex nihilo, nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes). Science makes no sense whatsoever if our consciousness is nothing more than our brain, because then free will would disappear along with the ability to plan, design, perform, understand, and draw conclusions about scientific experiments. Likewise, the principle of physical causality is required by science, yet science cannot prove this principle. And the related final principle is premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God, which cannot be violated – at least not by us engineers. If it were repudiated, our design space would grow exponentially! These three reasons – and others, are why scientism is both self-refuting and small ball.

        Speaking of “God of the gaps,” here is another one you might like, OBOB:

        ”Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin
        originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can ever emulate? Evolution is the cause!” — Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          “Why Science Does Not Disprove God” – Amir Aczel. Good read.

          The only problem I see with the KCA is that causality itself may actually be a construct of this universe. In which case, arguing to an uncaused cause or prime mover can break down if we hold fluid the concept of causality. We know that happens in one restricted sense at the quantum level (nothing “causes” matter-antimatter pairs to “appear”). If there need not be one prime mover, then KCA breaks down. Just a thought.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thanks for the book suggestion!

            Yes, I have heard that QM argument, but I am a bit confused by it, so you may be able to help me here. This is an attack on Premise 1, obviously, but my understanding was that Lawrence Krauss had a big fail there. He tried to show that “nothing” could create “something” out of nothing, but his causative “nothing” included a QM vacuum, matter and anti-matter – all of which are not “nothings.” (He even admitted this later in his book.) In fact, here is a pretty solid critique of it from another unbeliever:

            “But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably,
            and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of
            existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.” –David Albert

            So, am I missing something here? All it takes is one counterexample. Has premise 1 been refuted?

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            No, not that easily. Clearly there is a lot more to this than we can discuss here. I’m sure that most of the people on this thread think we’re talking out of our you-know-what’s. So I’ll leave it at that. You can jump to the blog to continue this in depth.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, thank you. I just wanted to know if I should not be using KCA – if it was a clear fail or something. WLC still uses it, and it seems like, if anything, we have much more evidence in favor of Premise 2 than we did 100+ years ago, which is obviously why a-theists have shifted their attention to the 3rd rail, Premise 1.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Also, KCM is in many ways a restatement of Anselm’s ontological argument which has been refuted.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You mean KCA? Am I missing something again? I thought that KCA was an evidential, not ontological, argument? How are the two related? There might be others who are interested in this if you can respond here with a short reply. (Regardless, I will check out your blog again – thanks!) Also, hasn’t Alvin Plantinga resurrected (pun intended :-)) the ontological argument to good working order? I sincerely apologize if I am asking dumb questions.

  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    “Even at temperatures of zero degrees Celsius, the hardiest proteins are
    not expected to be detectable in organic samples that are more than
    about 3 million years old,” OK, so that means that they can’t be more than a million or so years old. That’s certainly not consistent with a “young earth” hypothesis. Was there any indication that they were only six thousand years old?

  • weasel1886

    “Furthermore, the scientists noted that the old shells had compositions “very similar” to that of modern creatures. In other words, the invertebrates have experienced nearly no evolution.”

    This makes no sense. Things adapt only because they need to, not because a lot of time passed.
    This author knows very little about evolutionary theory

  • weasel1886

    So believing this is true you must then believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years old.
    Young Earthers, you just admitted we have an old Earth

  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    I’m having trouble telling the Christians and the atheists apart. It sounds more like a kindergarten brawl than a discussion. We are supposed to be the face of Christ to the world. Is this how you want us to be seen? Do you speak to others with meekness and kindness or are you more interested in winning a pointless argument? If I were a non-believer I would not want what you have.

    As for the non-believers posting on this site, it’s pretty apparent to me that you get a lot of pleasure goading intemperate people into flaming matches. Don’t you have better things to do with your time?

    • weasel1886

      I like hust challenging beliefs. If people can’t defend those beliefs what good are they?
      I do not go out of my way to irritate people and certainly don’t insult people’s bieliefs or them personally.
      Free and open disscusion is a good thing. I can’t help it if peole can’t control themselves when asked questions

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        I don’t see you as contributing to the problem. I have no trouble defending my beliefs and I always enjoy an honest and thoughtful debate. I have a blog site where I try to do that. Look for bbcatholics on blogspot if you’re interested. Mostly I try to defend the Catholic faith against evangelical distortions but I’ll discuss anything relevant to faith, science, morals, etc.

        • weasel1886

          Very well i will check out your blog

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Thanks x 10^6

  • Elie Challita

    If these proteins were actually preserved for that long, and didn’t result from contamination, that has no bearing on the theory of evolution for the following reasons:
    1- The presence of the proteins means that there is some preservation mechanism that we are not yet aware of. That’s actually good news, we’ll be able to find out more once we figure out what that mechanism could be!
    2- The similarity of the proteins doesn’t mean that evolution didn’t happen. At their most basic levels, amino acids shouldn’t have changed much no matter the length of time involved. There is no reason why a terrestrial protein (as opposed to an alien one) shouldn’t be similar to a modern one, no matter how old it is.
    3- Species don’t need to evolve if they are well-suited to their environment: Evolution is not a goal in and of itself. If a species reaches a point where it can thrive in its environment, and that environment doesn’t introduce new pressures on it, then there is no reason for new mutations to be favored. Take the coelacanth, for example: The deep-sea niches where they remain until today have not changed in millions of years, therefore there is no reason for the fish to change either.

  • Recognizing_Truth

    I know of two that are not surprised that proteins which can only survive a relatively short span of years (thousands, max) can be found in fossils that were thought to be much older: God, the one that created them, and His children, we who believe in the God who created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. By now scientists should stop being surprised that any conclusions they come to that are clearly in opposition to the Scriptures of the Creator God will be found to be false conclusions.

  • Weary Warrior

    These evolution vs .Creation arguments are always amusing. I don’t mind waiting for the final score because I know what it will be. Creation, 1; evolution, 0.