Exciting Creation News

Exciting Creation News ~ Episode 23

It is a fabulous time to be a creation scientist, especially with the exciting Creation Science News! Join Felice Gerwitz and Dr. Jay Wile, an author and acclaimed scientist who will discuss why this is a great time to be a Creation Scientist.

Thanks to our sponsor, Media Angels, and the Truth Seekers Mystery Series

Dr. Jay Wile – Learn more about here on his website and his blog.

Dr. Jay L. Wile, who holds an earned PhD in nuclear chemistry. He is best known as the author of award-winning elementary, junior and senior high school science courses including the Science through HisStory, “Discovering Design with…”, and “Exploring Creation with…” series.

Exciting Creation News:

There’s an enormous amount of scientific work that keeps confirming creationist predictions. Some of it’s coming from the secular scientific community, but some of it is coming from the creationist community as well. And that’s probably the most exciting aspect.

Creationists used to be focused and still are focused on talking to the common person, the laypeople and letting them know, hey, look, science, that doesn’t support evolution in the way people, some people claim it does. And that’s a very important part of creationism.

And obviously I do that in my textbooks, but science moves forward when scientists do research about new things. For a long time, there just weren’t enough creationists. There wasn’t any money in creation, in research and so forth. So there wasn’t much actual research going on. But nowadays, creationists are doing experiments. Some of them are publishing in the secular literature, like Dr. John Sanford, is publishing several genetic studies in the standard secular literature.

Exciting Creation News:

The audio has details about the following:

H1N1 virus showed that natural selection doesn’t weed out the harmful mutations.
But that’s not what we see in the data. Fischer’s Theorem—which mathematically supports evolution in secular literature doesn’t work.
Nylon digesting bacteria – thought they were new genes – but it was natural genes. This is fascinating and a lot of this is confirming predictions that creationists have made for years.
Human genome project – and there’s a really famous scientist named Dr. Dan Graur. He says, if the findings are right, then evolution is wrong because there is no way evolution can maintain 80% of the human genome. (Read more about this on Dr. Wile’s blog here.) This has confirmed creation prediction and it goes way, way counter to everything evolutionists have taught us since the ‘70s when it comes to the human genome.

What Makes A Theory Scientific

What makes a theory scientific isn’t that it explains the data. It’s not that it makes sense. What makes a theory scientific is it can be used to predict data that are not known because that’s how you really decide whether a theory is useful and whether or not it’s close to reality. Because if it can make a prediction about something that is not known and then it’s investigated, it turns out that prediction is true. That gives you a lot of support for the theory

More Exciting Creation News:

Dinosaur bones tested have been found to have C14
This indicates that the maximum age is about 30,000 years old. Now, we think it is less than that because carbon 14, is very difficult to get a solid done number beyond 3000 years. But nevertheless the evolutionist says zero C14. The creationists say some and the creation is right.
The lab (the best there is) with the particle accelerator refused to allow further testing when they realized the results found were on dinosaur bones –instead they’ve decided to do is put on the blinders and say, we don’t care that there’s carbon 14 in there and we don’t care to ever explain that because that challenges our belief that they’re millions of years old. That’s not science that’s religion.

When I started researching, different data related to the age of the earth, I became skeptical about these billions of years specifically because I saw how radioactive dating is done.

Error bars: this is when the dating says plus or minus 10,000 years. This is the first thing that I (Dr. Wile) saw that was really ridiculous. These error bars are totally unrealistic. For example, several years ago now, there were diamonds from Zaire and they were dated to be 6 plus or minus point 3 billion years old. So according to that error bar, the youngest they could be is around 5.7 billion years old. Problem is the earth is supposed to be only 4.6 billion years old.
Evolution requires billions of years because it requires complete luck. Initially, there’s no life on earth according to the evolution, the naturalistic evolutionary model. Suddenly we have to create something out of just random chemical reactions. Evolution says the chance of this happening is really low, but if you got billions of years to get it done, it’ll eventually happen. So it took billions of years to get the first life form. Although even when using their own numbers, they know that’s not right now. The earliest living thing in fossil records supposed to be 3.8 billion years old, so they absolutely need, billions of years or older for that to work, and that is why it’s just taught that way because, without it, there’s no evolution possible.
Back in 2005, a paper was published by Mary Schweitzer, she found a fossilized femur dinosaur bone and found soft tissue in it. And she said, based on all of her analyses that she could do before publishing the paper, it wasn’t something that got introduced later. Nearly everyone on the planet said she’s nuts. There’s no possible way. This is true. If these bones are 65 million years old. Soft tissue doesn’t last that long. However, she kept doing some chemical tests and she found it in another dinosaur. So some people got interested.
Other people started looking and finding soft tissue. They picked seven scrappy dinosaur bones from a museum. They didn’t even know what dinosaurs they’re from only that they’re found in Cretaceous rock. And out of those seven, four of them had soft tissue in them. And with a scanning electron microscope, this soft tissue looks like it’s got red blood cells in it.
Most paleontologists, not all, now agree there is soft tissue in dinosaur bones and that’s exciting enough. Cause once again, how in the world can you expect soft tissue to hang around and still be soft 65 million years later.
But what’s really cool about this as a creationist researcher has gone to the next step. He’s been taking dinosaur bones and dissolving them in weak acid. This gets rid of all the minerals and what’s left is the soft tissue, then he isolates bone cells from it. So he’s actually got soft bone cells from dinosaurs. He’s done it with a triceratops so in the end, he’s collecting soft dinosaur cells. And of course, the cell should have DNA in them. And in fact, he has actually extracted the DNA from the cell, nobody in the evolutionary literature has ever tried to extract the dinosaur cell before. See more information Mark Armitage and the video with dinosaur cell extraction here.Theories of Evolution.

Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium model shows abrupt appearances of new organisms in the fossil record. (Creationists believe that was because of the Flood) Evolutionists see that most all of the organisms die, but a couple of them—by “happy coincidence” they have good mutations that they end up producing a new creature just in the span of a couple of generations or a few generations. They look at the fossil record and see things appear quickly because their intermediates only existed for a few generations. So those intermediate varieties existed, but they didn’t exist long enough to fossilize, to become part of the fossil record.

So in the end evolution happens too quickly to fossilize. But then if you ask an evolutionist, why don’t you see new species, or not new species, of original organisms appearing now, they’ll say because evolution happens too slowly to observe. So it happens too slowly to observe and to quickly to fossilize. And that’s, that’s where we are right now. And some people are calling that science. That’s punctuated equilibrium. And that’s the only model right now that’s at least consistent with the paleontological data. However, a lot of folks are moving beyond that even.

Evo-Devo

Single-celled organisms can swap genes from different species. Bacteria are particularly good at this, and they can actually absorb DNA from dead organisms that are not even anywhere close to them in terms of species and so forth. And if some of that DNA is useful, it gets incorporated. There’ve been a couple of cases where it’s been shown in fairly simple animals. The sea slug for example, when it eats a photosynthetic organism can actually incorporate it and has the ability to do photosynthesis. This is called horizontal gene transfer. It’s not vertical in a sense. It’s going from parent to child. It’s horizontal in a sense. It’s going from one organism to a completely different organism that’s well known in single-cell creatures known in a few animals but not many.

There are a lot of evolutionists are saying that’s the big deal. All sorts of horizontal gene transfer are occurring. And that’s why we can’t track evolution the way it happened because it’s getting blurred by all of this horizontal gene transfer. Other folks are saying that it’s all in development. We do know that there are some genes that make radical changes during embryonic development, and if those genes get changed just a little bit, the results can be radically different. So evolution during development is Evo-Devo.