Saturday, December 17, 2016

More evidence for recent fossilization of animals

Fossil Feather Proteins Confirm Recent Flood

Ever since Dr. Mary Schweitzer's 20051 discovery of preserved original dinosaur proteins and blood cells, many secular scientists have remained skeptical. How could dinosaur fossils retain original organic material after millions of years? A new ancient bird fossil reveals more unexpected original chemicals, adding fuel to the fierce debate within the scientific community.2
Following publication of her original paper,1 some of Schweitzer's critics claimed that what she actually found was contamination from lab analysis or contamination during field collection. Others claimed these proteins were really from modern bacterial activity, and they merely simulated original soft tissues.3
In response, Dr. Schweitzer and her colleagues performed more studies on the soft tissues in question.4,5They even extracted collagen from a tyrannosaur leg bone and found a protein match of about 58% with bird collagen and 51% with frog and newt collagen—evidence these samples couldn't be from contamination. In further support that these are real dinosaur organic tissues, another study examined 89 amino acids extracted from a T. rex specimen, finding perfect matches with some modern animal proteins. Schweitzer's team has essentially demonstrated the "impossible." These dinosaur soft tissues are real.
Image credit: Copyright © 2016 X. Wang. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.
*Dr. Clarey is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on December 12, 2016.

Article from;

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Grand Canyon Fun!

In October we were thrilled to take part in a rim tour and Colorado River float of the Grand Canyon with Russ Miller of Creation Ministries and Jay Seegert of The Starting Point Project. Russ stressed over and over again the significance of Red Butte, just south of Grand Canyon. ICR wrote a short article highlighting this significance. Enjoy!
Red Butte. Image used by permission of Dr. Steven A. Austin.

Red Butte: Remnant of the Flood

Sixteen miles from Grand Canyon's south rim, a cone-shaped butte rises like a lone sentinel 1,000 feet above the Coconino Plateau floor. Thousands of tourists rush past on Arizona Highway 64 without giving it another thought, yet this humble little hill testifies to a remarkable past.
Red Butte is composed of flat-lying shales of the Moenkopi Formation, overlain by Shinarump Conglomerate of the Chinle Formation. Continuous exposures of these two formations are not found for tens of miles around, yet they occur here. These strata sit on a foundation of flat-lying and resistant Kaibab Limestone, the rim rock for most of Grand Canyon and surface of the Coconino Plateau. A basalt (lava) flow tops the butte, protecting the softer layers below from erosion. Lava ordinarily flows downhill, so how did it get on top? Answer: it flowed onto a surface that was once 1,000 feet higher than the present Coconino Plateau! Strata of the Moenkopi, Chinle, and perhaps other formations were stripped away by erosion. Red Butte stands as the most prominent vestige of this once continuous layer.
* Mr. Hoesch is Research Assistant in Geology.
Cite this article: Hoesch, W. 2008. Red Butte: Remnant of the Flood. Acts & Facts. 37 (3): 14.

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Some short, fun and informative video clips

Check out our YouTube page and see some awesome videos on a variety of topics. This one is on the topic of sharp teeth:VIDEO CLIP

Monday, September 12, 2016

Dinosaur Fossils in These Rock Layers?

Cite this article: Tim Clarey, Ph.D. 2015. Dinosaur Fossils in Late-Flood RocksActs & Facts. 44 (2).

Dinosaur Fossils in Late-Flood Rocks

Evolutionary scientists view Earth’s rock layers as a chronological record of millions of years of successive sedimentary deposits. Creation scientists, on the other hand, see them as a record of the geological work accomplished during the great Flood’s year-long destruction of the Earth’s surface. If that is the case, though, why don’t we find dinosaur fossils in the earliest North American Flood sediment layers—why do we find them only in later Flood rocks? The ICR team’s recent examination of sedimentary rock layers across the United States and Canada seems to provide an answer.
Deposition of the earliest Flood sediments (the Sauk, Tippecanoe, and Kaskaskia Megasequences) was thickest in the eastern half of the U.S.—often deeper than two miles! In contrast, the early Flood deposits across much of the West are commonly less than a few hundred yards deep, and in many places there was no deposition at all (Figure 1).
* Dr. Clarey is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in geology from Western Michigan University.
Cite this article: Tim Clarey, Ph.D. 2015. Dinosaur Fossils in Late-Flood RocksActs & Facts. 44 (2).

Friday, August 5, 2016

Old Evolutionary Icon Still Being Exposed

Peppered Moth Still Not Evolving
Back in 2003, ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris explained a few ways evolutionists themselves criticized the use of the peppered moth as an example of evolutionary beliefs.1 New genetic research validates those criticisms.
The moth earned fame as a key player in a classic evolutionary story in the late 19th century. In England, a population of peppered moths supposedly shifted their coloring from mostly white to mostly black after soot from the industrial revolution darkened their tree-trunk homes. According to the tale, bird predators had a difficult time seeing the now-camouflaged dark moths, so those moths began to thrive.
That story helped rescue Darwin's conception of natural selection from a round of early 20th century criticisms, such as a lack of supporting field evidence.
However, later researchers could not replicate the peppered moth results. Other investigators discovered that most of the story's facts were essentially wrong. For example, peppered moths live mostly beneath leaves, not on tree trunks. One researcher staged photos of the moths on sooty trunks—not where moths naturally rest.
Image credit: © 2011. M. Henderson. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.
*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on August 4, 2016.

Monday, July 25, 2016

2016 fairs so far

Non-stop. That describes the activity at the Dane County Fair yesterday. Great conversations, sharing evidences, sharing Christ, answering questions, talking about the Flood, fossils, creation, God's Word. Wow, Three of us were so busy reaching out. It was a great day. I heard the booth in Waukesha was also busy, plus they received an award for their booth! Enjoy the pictures and keep praying for folks who come to the booth as well as the workers. We are only half way through fair season! To God be the glory.
Best Forum Vendor at Waukesha County Fair 2016

Ryan was such a blessing and help!

Discussion about the "Races" of mankind.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

I Love Lucy?

by William A. Hoesch, M.S.*
Lucy, to TV audiences of the 1950s and 1960s, was a spunky red-headed actress. To our more educated schoolchildren today, however, “Lucy” means somethingquite different. She is the celebrated fossil that appears in textbooks as a hairy, seminaked, upright-walking ape striding boldly across a treeless African landscape. Her jaw is set and she leaves behind her a set of trailing footprints. As the unquestioned icon of human evolution, her fame is comparable to that of the former actress. Why is it that all public school children have heard of this fossil? Let us consider Lucy and her species, Australopithicus afarensis. The human evolution story usually begins with the more primitive australopithocines (literally, “southern apes”) that transition into the genus Homo (or human), through either Homo habilis or Homo erectus, depending on who you talk to. Homo habilis is a mixed taxon of both human and ape remains, and has fallen into disrepute. As for Homo erectus, a great many suggest this category be subsumed into Homo sapiens. Thus “Lucy” and the afarensis fossils occupy a critical place in the human evolution story, squarely between that of the truly apish australopithocines and humans. Lucy’s skeleton was about 40% complete and was a remarkable discovery when unearthed by Don Johanson in 1974.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Does Science Confirm the Bible's History? You Bet!

New DNA Study Confirms Noah

Evolutionary teachings hold that all mankind arose from a population of ape-like ancestors from which chimpanzees also evolved. But Genesis, the rest of the Bible, and Jesus teach that all mankind arose from Noah's three sons and their wives. A new analysis of human mitochondrial DNA exposes two new evidences that validate the biblical beginnings of mankind.
Mitochondrial DNA comes from mothers. Mother egg cells transmit their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into the cellular mitochondria of every child born. This unique annex of DNA contains 16,569 bases—either adenine, guanine, cytosine, or thymine (A, G, C, T)—that encode vital cellular information, like an instruction manual.
Scientists have been comparing the genetic differences between every major people group around the globe. How did those differences arise?
Assuming that God placed the ideal mtDNA sequence into Eve, all those differences arose by mutations since the Genesis 3 curse, about 6,000 years ago. Other scientists measured the rate at which these copying errors occur. Though very slow—we acquire about one mutation every 6 generations—a few dozen mutations could appear after several millennia.
*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on May 16, 2016.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

2016 Summer Fairs

The What's the Evidence? booth will be at the following locations this summer:
Sauk County fair in Baraboo
July 13-17
Dane County Fair in Madison
July 20-24
Waukesha County Fair in Waukesha
July 20-24
WI State Fair in Milwaukee (West Allis)
August 4-14
Sheboygan County Fair in Plymouth
Sept. 1-5

Monday, April 25, 2016

Yes, The Earth's Population is Evidence the Bible is True

Our newest card discusses this topic. It's not too difficult to understand, even if you are not a numbers person. Enjoy...

Billions of People in Thousands of Years?

by Monty White on ; last featured January 7, 2008 
Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.


One Plus One Equals Billions

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1
After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

Impact of the Flood

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion. 

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is
This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion. 

With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, “If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?” This is a question thatevolution supporters must answer.

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Apatosaurus Display in Booth

We've dressed up our Apatosaurus femur bone display with this new banner. It explains some of the evidences for "recent" burial of dinosaurs in the flood of Noah's time, i.e. osteocytes and red blood cells in dinosaur bones, and C14 still in dinosaur bones. If dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years, the bones would be rock solid (or decayed), and could not have fresh tissue still inside them. It all points to exactly how the Bible recounts the history of both man and dinosaurs. Both were created on Day 6, both were originally plant eaters (there was no death in the prefect Garden), and both have been corrupted and cursed due to sin. What a magnificent creature the Apatosaurus must have been. And what a Great God we serve, who left their bones in the earth to remind us of his righteous judgment and the salvation he offered those in Noah's day by the Ark. Today we know Jesus is our Ark of Salvation, keeping us safe from God's judgment if we'll only trust him!

Friday, March 4, 2016

Another Creation Museum in the Works! This one in Dallas, Tx

Online Tour of the Future Museum

ICR is ready! The ICR Museum of Science and Earth History will be the culmination of decades of study and research. God has opened the door to make this a reality.
History of Science—Learn the keys of the scientific method and how following them leads to discoveries that confirm Scripture.
Origin of the Universe—Explore the wonders of the universe and learn about big problems with the Big Bang.
Garden of Eden—Feel the majesty of the stunning display of variety and created kinds in God’s “very good” creation.
DNA—Discover what cutting-edge research reveals about humans, chimps, and genomic studies. See how science reveals the flaws in evolutionary theory.
Noah’s Ark and the Flood—Step into the Ark and experience evidence for the worldwide Genesis Flood in an immersive Ark exhibit.
Grand Canyon—Peer into Grand Canyon and learn how geologists uncover the mysteries of the past. See how Mount St. Helens provides clues to the present.
Dinosaurs—Interact with dinosaur holograms. Explore the science of soft-tissue research. Discover the truth behind the behemoth and leviathan.
Fossils and Buried Clues—Become a paleontologist as you go on a fossil dig!
The Ice Age and Ice Age Theater—Experience the Flood causing a massive Ice Age. Stand between the tusks of a life-size wooly mammoth!
Interactive Exhibits and More—New research, fresh discoveries, and opportunities to explore science further will be constantly changing—a new experience on each visit.
Planetarium—Travel the stars in a 3-D planetarium. Watch how God designed order and creativity among the cosmos.
Auditorium—Expert presentations by ICR scientists with the latest research.
Museum Store—Equip yourself with resources and refuel with a light snack and drink.
Outdoor Park—Relax, eat, or play in a beautiful, picturesque park surrounded by life-size dinosaurs.

Friday, February 12, 2016

Is Evolution Based on Science?

Evolution’s Science Status

Ellis & Silk IIEvolution’s Science Status

The status of evolution as a science is verging closer to extinction following a work shop in Germany last month. The essence and definition of science was on center stage at this historical convening of the leading physicists and philosophers of science last month. The meeting convened in the Romanesque-style Ludwig Maximilian University lecture hall. Science writer Natalie Wolchover covered the story for Quanta Magazine entitled “A Fight for the Soul of Science” and later reprinted by on entitled “Physicists and Philosophers Hold Peace Talks.”
The fundamentals of physics currently face a critical problem, explained Nobel laureate David Gross to the three-day work shop attendees – a watershed moment for science. Wolchover explained, “desperate times call for desperate measures.” Specifically, at stake is whether the new concepts in emerging in physics – specifically, the string andmultiverse concepts – is true science or just a philosophy. The pivotal issue centers on whether empirical evidence is still required to establish a scientific theory. Since science standards apply across the spectrum of the natural sciences, the outcome also determines the evolution’s science status.

Source of Crisis

The crisis tip-point occurred with publication of controversial ideas advocated by Richard Dawid, (pictured to the right)  an Austrian philosopher in the 2013 book “String Theory and the ScientificDawidMethod.” The problem stems from the absence of empirical evidence to scientifically supported these new concepts. Dawid argued that the essence and definition of science should be revised to allowing for three kinds of “non-empirical” evidences. The testability and falsifiability requirements of the Scientific Method would be optional.
In response to Dawid proposal, George Ellis from the University of Cape Town, and Joe Silk of the Paris Institute of Astrophysics (the two white-haired physicists pictured above in the front row) called for a consensus work shop to assess Dawid’s proposal in an “incendiary opinion piece” in Nature (2014) entitled “Scientific Method, Defend the Integrity of Physics – attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science.


Finally, last month one hundred attendees convened to wage, in what Ellis and Silk declared, a “battle for the heart and soul of physics.”
Ellis and Silk accuse string and multiverse conceptualists of “moving the goalposts” of science and blurring the lines between physics and pseudoscience. As Wolchover explains, the new theories are of a –
“wildly speculative nature of modern physics theories… a dangerous departure from the scientific method. Many of today’s theorists — chief among them the proponents of string theory and the multiverse hypothesis — appear convinced of their ideas on the grounds that they are beautiful or logically compelling, despite the impossibility of testing them.”
The problem is, the ancients used beautiful and logical ideas – otherwise known as deductive reasoning – ended up wrong theory. Historically, deductive reasoning track record has been a disaster in discovering the secrets of nature.Aristotle (384-322 BC), one of the most famous Greek philosophers, once reasoned that the “Earth is the center of the universe.” However, when Aristotle’s idea was tested using only empirical data, Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) successfully falsified Aristotle’s reasoning – but, at great personal sacrifice.
In the opinion of Ellis and Silk (2014),
“The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable… Only then can we defend science from attack.”


Gross, a prolific string advocate, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2004, had kicked off the workshop noting that the problem lies not with physicists, but with the “fact of nature” – an excellent example of anthropomorphic arrogance.
Over three winter days, scholars struggled with the meaning of scientific theory, confirmation and truth; how science works; and whether, in this day and age, philosophy should guide research in physics or the other way around. Over the course of the work shop, any degree of consensus to move the “goal posts” of science was lost in the resulting blur of confusion.
To the question of whether testable and falsifiable is still required to validate a concept as scientific, there was no new consensus. If a theory has no predictive value, can it be scientific? There was no new consensus. What keeps theorists within the bounds of science? There was no new consensus.
Commenting on the use of non-empirical concepts in science, Dawid noted, it
“opens the floodgate to abandoning all scientific principles… Clearly the risk is there.”
Wolchover echoed Dawid’s concern.
“the trash heap of history is littered with beautiful theories… [but], theoretical beauty is not always truth.”
The work shop was an unparalleled twenty-first century watershed moment fighting for the essence and definition of scientific standards. In the end, no cohesive consensus emerged to move the science “goal post.”
With his pet string theory on the line, Gross reluctantly simply countered with –
“I will continue to work on it.”

Thursday, February 4, 2016

What about the Appendix?

Major Evolutionary Blunders: Our Useful Appendix--Evidence of Design, Not Evolution
by Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. *
Evidence for Creation

Once there was a teenage girl with a sweet personality, selfless spirit, and diverse skills. But she was so envied by her cruel stepmother and two rude stepsisters that they forced her to constantly do the nastiest jobs in almost total obscurity. The Cinderella story is so universally appealing that it has been translated into over 60 languages and made into multiple films. In these types of stories, the perpetrators’ bigotry reflects their constrained mindset. The worthy becomes worthless in their view.

Belief systems matter.

This is also true in origins research. Some belief systems liberate thinking. Others, like an evolutionary worldview, are so confining that evolutionary biologists may either observe non-existent or overlook actual biological functions based on preconceived notions of what they expect to see.1 One example of this bias is the categorization of the human appendix as a worthless organ by thought-constrained evolutionists. This assumption hindered research on a truly useful part of our digestive system and highlights a colossal evolutionary blunder.

The “Useless” Appendix Is “Evidence” for Evolution

Since Darwin’s time, the world’s sharpest evolutionary biologists have championed the human appendix as unquestionable evidence for evolution and against intelligent design. But scientific research demonstrates the folly of both assertions by showing the appendix to be a fully functional organ.

Darwin cultivated a scientifically regrettable practice that still persists today. He imagined an evolution-caused loss of function for certain biological structures and declared them to be essentially useless—without ever seeking to understand their purpose. In 1874 Darwin said,

With respect to the alimentary canal, I have met with an account of only a single rudiment, namely the vermiform appendage of the caecum….It appears as if, in consequence of changed diet or habits, the caecum had become much shortened in various animals, the vermiform appendage being left as a rudiment of the shortened part….[Regarding humans] not only is it useless, but it is sometimes the cause of death.2

In 2007, over 130 years later, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Francisco Ayala, announced, “A familiar rudimentary organ in humans is the vermiform appendix….The human vermiform appendix is a functionless vestige of a fully developed organ present in other mammals,” adding the punchline “Vestiges are instances of imperfections—like the imperfections seen in anatomical structures—they argue against creation by design but are fully understandable as a result of evolution by natural selection.”3

Finish article HERE