Creation scientists

[The Barbarian]

Good video about human chimp dan similarity.

Right off the top, the video confuses genetic relatedness with phenotypical similarity.

For example, the differences in the skulls of humans and chimps look very different.   But the genetic difference is very small.   What happens, is that chimps develop very quickly, and their skulls chance radically from those of infant chimpanzees.    Human skulls develop very slowly and retain many juvenile ape characteristics such as relatively large crania, small face and jaws, foramen magnum underneath the skull rather than at the rear of the skull and so on.   Here, D'Arcy Thompson shows how little human skulls change from infancy, and how much chimpanzee skulls change.


Lots of major changes, but due to a few genes that govern pacing of growth.   This seems to be a complete mystery to the guy who made the video.   

[Amo]

Whoever wrote that isn't very smart, or maybe he's woefully ignorant of biology and terms used therein.   Molecules aren't tissue:

Tissues are groups of cells that have a similar structure and act together to perform a specific function. The word tissue comes from a form of an old French verb meaning "to weave".
https://biologydictionary.net/tissue/

Oh, and they weren't "fat molecules."   They were cholesterol molecules, found only in animals.  Plants may tiny amounts of similar "phytosterols", but they are easy to distinguish from cholesterol. Hence, the finding of a few molecules of cholesterol indicates these Precambrian organisms were true animals.   This is not welcome news for creationists, who put all their bets on a sudden appearance of animals in the Cambrian, much later.   This is why they changed the story to "fat molecules" instead of cholesterol.

Pretty much a dead giveaway; only animals produce cholesterol.  Not "fat molecules"as they told you to hide the truth.

Cholesterol's molecular fossil identifies Earth's oldest large animals
https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/origins-of-life/Cholesterols-molecular-fossil-identifies-Earths/96/i38

Actually, it's been over a half-century since biologists and chemists showed that organic molecules could survive many millions of years under some natural conditions.   Creationists sometimes claim, without any evidence whatever, that it's impossible.   But they have only their imaginations to support the idea.   No evidence whatever, and biochemists have noted that in the presence of iron atoms and the absence of oxygen, some of these biological molecules have decay reaction rates many millions of years long.

It's already happened.   Some time ago, scientists found a small amount of heme (fragment of a hemoglobin molecule) in T. rex bone.  It turned out to be more like the heme of birds than that of other reptiles.  Which is precisely what evolutionary theory predicted.   

As scientists get better at finding more of these traces of organic molecules, look for more evidence to come.

Right.  That's compelling evidence for evolutionary theory.

There's a lot more errors in your guy's story.   I'll be back to talk about those later.

https://crev.info/author/cehadmindc/

David Coppedge, B.S. Education, B.S. Physics, founded Creation-Evolution Headlines in late 2000 as a way to share science news he was encountering at NASA. It has grown into a highly-trusted source of news and commentary critical of the pro-Darwin consensus, providing analysis of breaking news of interest to creationists and evolutionists, without the Darwin spin. He has authored almost 5,000 entries at CEH since its inception.

David worked as a system administrator at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory from 1996 to 2011, almost all of it as a member of the Cassini team. For 9 of his 14 years at JPL, he was Team Lead System Administrator, responsible for most of the ground system computers for the prestigious mission to Saturn. He worked on the Cassini operations support team from before launch through cruise, tour, prime mission, first extended mission, and into the second extended mission, getting to know many of the world's most elite planetary scientists. In addition, he led JPL tours and was a Cassini outreach speaker to civic groups and astronomy clubs.

Coppedge's career was cut short by his advocacy of intelligent design. Sharing DVD's on intelligent design occasionally with co-workers, he was accused by a coworker and reported to the Human Resources department, which accused him of 'harassment' and ethics violations. He was demoted from his Team Lead position and eventually terminated, becoming another member of the prestigious "Expelled" community. His experience led to a nationally-publicized court trial about discrimination and retaliation in the workplace, supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Discovery Institute. Unfortunately for him, almost a year after the trial, the lone judge in the case decided against him in January 2013 without explanation

Coppedge now devotes more time to Creation-Evolution Headlines and other ministries seeking to show where the scientific evidence leads.

How about that, they proved in this last century that soft tissues could last for millions and millions of years, who knew. No one. Just as no knows now. Your fairy tale science is just that. Preach to those who accept your fairy tale theory of evolution.

[The Barbarian]

David Coppedge, B.S. Education, B.S. Physics, founded Creation-Evolution Headlines in late 2000[/ quote]

Can you guess why creationist scientists rarely have any knowledge of biology?    Yep.  That's why.

How about that, they proved in this last century that soft tissues could last for millions and millions of years

Chemists knew it before that.  Reaction mechanisms in Pchem were known to have rates into millions of years.   Many of the decay reactions in humans processing chemical energy have rates that would be that slow, in the absence of enzymes to speed it up.

who knew.

Chemists, biochemists, paleontologists, microbiologists, to name a few.

Molecular palaeontology: New life for old molecules.
Curry GB1.
Abstract
It is perhaps not generally realized that rocks contain at least J0 000 times more organic material than the present day global biomass. More importantly, it has now been demonstrated that some diagnostic molecular structures survive in recognizable form for many millions of years. The development of powerful new techniques for the recovery, purification and identification of organic compounds has provided a major stimulus to the study of these molecular fossils.

....
A review of evidence for biological material in meteorites.
Urey HC1.
Abstract
The first carbonaceous chondrite fell in France in 1806, and in the years following analyses for organic matter were made which showed this material to be similar to material of biological origin. But the analyses were not conclusive. Within the last few years, additional work has been done which has proved to be very interesting and somewhat controversial. The composition of the inorganic fraction of these objects is very similar to that of other meteorites, showing that no sorting by sedimentary processes has occurred. For this reason, students of meteorites have believed that the material could not be biological. However, the soluble constituents are similar to those to be expected in a primitive ocean of the earth. Some of the assumed fossils have been shown to be contaminants but others appear to be indigenous. After mineral matters are removed from them they still show evidence of containing carbonaceous material. Micro-paleontologists have also reported material which they believe to be similar to terrestrial fossils. Fatty acids, porphyrins, and nucleic acid bases have been reported and a small optical activity as well. The immense difficulty that students of meteorites have in understanding this situation may be alleviated if it should be proved that some of our stone meteorites, including the carbonaceous ones, are coming from the moon. There seems to be some possibility that this could be true.

....
Chemical Geology
Volume 152, Issues 1–2, 26 October 1998, Pages 193-203
Variations in
ratios in recent marine sediments: evidence for a fossil organic component
...

Energy Fuels 1997, 11, 3, 515-521
Publication Date:May 20, 1997
Chemical Composition of Paleozoic and Mesozoic Fossil Invertebrate Cuticles As Revealed by Pyrolysis−Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
B. Artur StankiewiczDerek E. G. BriggsRichard P. Evershed
Abstract
The cuticles of 15 fossil invertebrates ranging in age from Silurian to Cretaceous, and including both marine and terrestrial organisms, have been analyzed using pyrolysis−gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (py−GC/MS). Modern invertebrate cuticles were analyzed in the same way as a basis for comparison. The modern cuticles yielded pyrolysis products derived from chitin and proteins, but none of these components was detected in the pyrolysates of the fossil cuticles. The fossil cuticles fall into two, chemically distinct groups:  aliphatic, yielding pairs of n-alk-1-enes and n-alkanes upon pyrolysis, and aromatic, producing pyrolysates dominated by alkylbenzenes and alkylindenes. Aliphatic pyrolysates may derive through polymerization of lipids, e.g., epicuticular waxes, during diagenesis. Alternatively the aliphatic moieties found in algae (algaenan) or in plants (e.g., cutan, suberan) may have been incorporated into the animal cuticles by unknown diagenetic processes. Alkylindenes are major pyrolysis products of the fossil cuticles that generate predominantly aromatic components. This association may resolve the enigma of the frequent occurrence of alkylindenes as minor components in the pyrolysates of most types of kerogen. The abundant thiophenes in the same pyrolysates may reflect sulfur incorporation during diagenesis of the original amino sugar (glucosamine) moieties that comprise the chitin biopolymer.

...

Science  17 Mar 1972:
Vol. 175, Issue 4027, pp. 1246-1248
Carbon Isotopic Studies of Organic Matter in Precambrian Rocks
Dorothy Z. Oehler1, J. William Schopf1, Keith A. Kvenvolden
Abstract
Reduced carbon in early Precambrian cherts of the Fig Tree and upper and middle Onverwacht groups of South Africa is isotopically similar (the average value of δ13CPDB is -28.7 per mil) to photosynthetically produced organic matter of younger geological age. Reduced carbon in lower Onverwacht cherts (Theespruit formation) is anomalously heavy (the average value of δ13CPDB is -16.5 per mil). 


Fuel
Volume 78, Issue 7, May 1999, Pages 745-752
Fuel
Molecular characterization of fossil organic matter in Glyptostrobus europaeus remains from the Orawa basin (Poland). Comparison of pyrolytic techniques
GonzaloAlmendrosaJoséDoradoaFrancisco JGonzález-VilabFranciscoMartı́nbJesúsSanzcConcepciónÁlvarez-RamisdLeonStuchlike
Abstract
Pyrolytic methods (standard Curie-point pyrolysis and pyrolysis in the presence of tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), followed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, were used to analyze the organic composition of Glyptostrobus (Taxodiaceae) remains from the Miocene deposits of Lipnica Mala (Poland), consisting of branches with their leaves. The pyrolytic analysis revealed a series of aromatic compounds with a large proportion of guaiacyl-type lignin markers (including intact C3-methoxyphenols), and small quantities of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The alkyl compounds included fatty acid series where the C14–C18 homologues dominated as well as additional amounts of alkanes and alkenes (maximum ca. C21). The results suggest that lignin as well as protective epicuticular lipid polymers (including cutin and other long chain-based polyalkyl structures) selectively show the greatest degree of molecular preservation in the Glyptostrobus remains.

Indigeneity of organic matter in fossils: a test using stable isotope analysis of amino acid enantiomers in Quaternary mollusk shells
M H Engel, G A Goodfriend, Y Qian, and S A Macko
PNAS October 25, 1994 91 (22) 10475-10478;
Abstract
Comparison of the delta 13C values of D and L enantiomers of individual amino acids was used to evaluate the presence of amino acid contaminants in Quaternary land snails. Measurements of delta 13C values of amino acid D and L enantiomers determined by combined gas chromatography, combustion, isotope-ratio mass spectrometry are reported. Conventional combustion techniques, following separation of aspartic acid and glutamic acid enantiomers by liquid chromatography, were also used to determine delta 13C as well as delta 15N values. Thoroughly cleaned samples ranging in age from 7000 to > 100,000 yr B.P. are shown to have analytically identical delta 13C values for the D and L enantiomers of each amino acid, thus confirming that the amino acids are indigenous to the shells, even in Pleistocene samples. On the other hand, partially cleaned material shows divergence of isotopic values, thus indicating the presence of amino acid contaminants and emphasizing the importance of proper cleaning procedures. This approach provides a powerful method for assessing the indigeneity of amino acids in fossils.
...

11 July 1997
Analysis of fossil organic nanostructures: terrestrial and extraterrestrial
Hans D. Pflug; Bettina Heinz
Abstract
A review is presented of the currently available evidence of life in the Precambrian, with special reference to ultrafine morphologies of the size range 0.1 - 3 micrometers . The particles are to be found under high apertures of the light microscope in thin sections of the rock and have been examined in demineralized thick sections under the transmission electron microscope (TEM). They have been chemically analyzed in microprobes and spectrophotometer microscopes. On the basis of such studies, the interaction of microorganisms with the formation of minerals can be traced back to early Archean times, 3800 million years ago. There is no evidence for or against the assumption that some kind of prebiotic evolution took place in the recorded history of the Earth. The origin of life is open to alternative explanations, including extraterrestrial phenomena. More information may be obtained from meteorites. Under high magnifications of the TEM, portions of the carbonaceous matter in the Murchison, Orgueil and Allende meteorites appear to be structured. Particles of various morphology can be distinguished. Microprobe techniques have been applied to confirm that the structures are organic and indigenous to the rock. The origin of the finds is not discussed in the present paper.
...
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 62, Issues 1–4, January 1988, Pages 343-359
Fossil pigments in paleoecology and paleolimnology
Jon E.Sanger
Abstract
For the past several decades scientists have been examining the nature of sedimentary chlorophylls and carotenoids from freshwater lakes for their value in paleoecology and paleolimnology. Unaltered chlorophyll molecules are rarely preserved for long periods, but the pheo-derivatives and chlorophyllides are common throughout lake sedimentary columns. Carotenoids tend to preserve largely unaltered from their conditions in living plant membranes, but degrade quickly to colorless derivatives when oxidized.

Just as no knows now.

See above.   That's just a few of the dozens a quick review of the literature turned up, all in the previous century.   You've trusted the wrong people again.

Preach to those who accept your fairy tale doctrine of creationism.

[Amo]

Chemists knew it before that.  Reaction mechanisms in Pchem were known to have rates into millions of years.   Many of the decay reactions in humans processing chemical energy have rates that would be that slow, in the absence of enzymes to speed it up.

Chemists, biochemists, paleontologists, microbiologists, to name a few.

Molecular palaeontology: New life for old molecules.
Curry GB1.
Abstract
It is perhaps not generally realized that rocks contain at least J0 000 times more organic material than the present day global biomass. More importantly, it has now been demonstrated that some diagnostic molecular structures survive in recognizable form for many millions of years. The development of powerful new techniques for the recovery, purification and identification of organic compounds has provided a major stimulus to the study of these molecular fossils.

....
A review of evidence for biological material in meteorites.
Urey HC1.
Abstract
The first carbonaceous chondrite fell in France in 1806, and in the years following analyses for organic matter were made which showed this material to be similar to material of biological origin. But the analyses were not conclusive. Within the last few years, additional work has been done which has proved to be very interesting and somewhat controversial. The composition of the inorganic fraction of these objects is very similar to that of other meteorites, showing that no sorting by sedimentary processes has occurred. For this reason, students of meteorites have believed that the material could not be biological. However, the soluble constituents are similar to those to be expected in a primitive ocean of the earth. Some of the assumed fossils have been shown to be contaminants but others appear to be indigenous. After mineral matters are removed from them they still show evidence of containing carbonaceous material. Micro-paleontologists have also reported material which they believe to be similar to terrestrial fossils. Fatty acids, porphyrins, and nucleic acid bases have been reported and a small optical activity as well. The immense difficulty that students of meteorites have in understanding this situation may be alleviated if it should be proved that some of our stone meteorites, including the carbonaceous ones, are coming from the moon. There seems to be some possibility that this could be true.

....
Chemical Geology
Volume 152, Issues 1–2, 26 October 1998, Pages 193-203
Variations in
ratios in recent marine sediments: evidence for a fossil organic component
...

Energy Fuels 1997, 11, 3, 515-521
Publication Date:May 20, 1997
Chemical Composition of Paleozoic and Mesozoic Fossil Invertebrate Cuticles As Revealed by Pyrolysis−Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
B. Artur StankiewiczDerek E. G. BriggsRichard P. Evershed
Abstract
The cuticles of 15 fossil invertebrates ranging in age from Silurian to Cretaceous, and including both marine and terrestrial organisms, have been analyzed using pyrolysis−gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (py−GC/MS). Modern invertebrate cuticles were analyzed in the same way as a basis for comparison. The modern cuticles yielded pyrolysis products derived from chitin and proteins, but none of these components was detected in the pyrolysates of the fossil cuticles. The fossil cuticles fall into two, chemically distinct groups:  aliphatic, yielding pairs of n-alk-1-enes and n-alkanes upon pyrolysis, and aromatic, producing pyrolysates dominated by alkylbenzenes and alkylindenes. Aliphatic pyrolysates may derive through polymerization of lipids, e.g., epicuticular waxes, during diagenesis. Alternatively the aliphatic moieties found in algae (algaenan) or in plants (e.g., cutan, suberan) may have been incorporated into the animal cuticles by unknown diagenetic processes. Alkylindenes are major pyrolysis products of the fossil cuticles that generate predominantly aromatic components. This association may resolve the enigma of the frequent occurrence of alkylindenes as minor components in the pyrolysates of most types of kerogen. The abundant thiophenes in the same pyrolysates may reflect sulfur incorporation during diagenesis of the original amino sugar (glucosamine) moieties that comprise the chitin biopolymer.

...

Science  17 Mar 1972:
Vol. 175, Issue 4027, pp. 1246-1248
Carbon Isotopic Studies of Organic Matter in Precambrian Rocks
Dorothy Z. Oehler1, J. William Schopf1, Keith A. Kvenvolden
Abstract
Reduced carbon in early Precambrian cherts of the Fig Tree and upper and middle Onverwacht groups of South Africa is isotopically similar (the average value of δ13CPDB is -28.7 per mil) to photosynthetically produced organic matter of younger geological age. Reduced carbon in lower Onverwacht cherts (Theespruit formation) is anomalously heavy (the average value of δ13CPDB is -16.5 per mil). 


Fuel
Volume 78, Issue 7, May 1999, Pages 745-752
Fuel
Molecular characterization of fossil organic matter in Glyptostrobus europaeus remains from the Orawa basin (Poland). Comparison of pyrolytic techniques
GonzaloAlmendrosaJoséDoradoaFrancisco JGonzález-VilabFranciscoMartı́nbJesúsSanzcConcepciónÁlvarez-RamisdLeonStuchlike
Abstract
Pyrolytic methods (standard Curie-point pyrolysis and pyrolysis in the presence of tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), followed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, were used to analyze the organic composition of Glyptostrobus (Taxodiaceae) remains from the Miocene deposits of Lipnica Mala (Poland), consisting of branches with their leaves. The pyrolytic analysis revealed a series of aromatic compounds with a large proportion of guaiacyl-type lignin markers (including intact C3-methoxyphenols), and small quantities of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The alkyl compounds included fatty acid series where the C14–C18 homologues dominated as well as additional amounts of alkanes and alkenes (maximum ca. C21). The results suggest that lignin as well as protective epicuticular lipid polymers (including cutin and other long chain-based polyalkyl structures) selectively show the greatest degree of molecular preservation in the Glyptostrobus remains.

Indigeneity of organic matter in fossils: a test using stable isotope analysis of amino acid enantiomers in Quaternary mollusk shells
M H Engel, G A Goodfriend, Y Qian, and S A Macko
PNAS October 25, 1994 91 (22) 10475-10478;
Abstract
Comparison of the delta 13C values of D and L enantiomers of individual amino acids was used to evaluate the presence of amino acid contaminants in Quaternary land snails. Measurements of delta 13C values of amino acid D and L enantiomers determined by combined gas chromatography, combustion, isotope-ratio mass spectrometry are reported. Conventional combustion techniques, following separation of aspartic acid and glutamic acid enantiomers by liquid chromatography, were also used to determine delta 13C as well as delta 15N values. Thoroughly cleaned samples ranging in age from 7000 to > 100,000 yr B.P. are shown to have analytically identical delta 13C values for the D and L enantiomers of each amino acid, thus confirming that the amino acids are indigenous to the shells, even in Pleistocene samples. On the other hand, partially cleaned material shows divergence of isotopic values, thus indicating the presence of amino acid contaminants and emphasizing the importance of proper cleaning procedures. This approach provides a powerful method for assessing the indigeneity of amino acids in fossils.
...

11 July 1997
Analysis of fossil organic nanostructures: terrestrial and extraterrestrial
Hans D. Pflug; Bettina Heinz
Abstract
A review is presented of the currently available evidence of life in the Precambrian, with special reference to ultrafine morphologies of the size range 0.1 - 3 micrometers . The particles are to be found under high apertures of the light microscope in thin sections of the rock and have been examined in demineralized thick sections under the transmission electron microscope (TEM). They have been chemically analyzed in microprobes and spectrophotometer microscopes. On the basis of such studies, the interaction of microorganisms with the formation of minerals can be traced back to early Archean times, 3800 million years ago. There is no evidence for or against the assumption that some kind of prebiotic evolution took place in the recorded history of the Earth. The origin of life is open to alternative explanations, including extraterrestrial phenomena. More information may be obtained from meteorites. Under high magnifications of the TEM, portions of the carbonaceous matter in the Murchison, Orgueil and Allende meteorites appear to be structured. Particles of various morphology can be distinguished. Microprobe techniques have been applied to confirm that the structures are organic and indigenous to the rock. The origin of the finds is not discussed in the present paper.
...
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 62, Issues 1–4, January 1988, Pages 343-359
Fossil pigments in paleoecology and paleolimnology
Jon E.Sanger
Abstract
For the past several decades scientists have been examining the nature of sedimentary chlorophylls and carotenoids from freshwater lakes for their value in paleoecology and paleolimnology. Unaltered chlorophyll molecules are rarely preserved for long periods, but the pheo-derivatives and chlorophyllides are common throughout lake sedimentary columns. Carotenoids tend to preserve largely unaltered from their conditions in living plant membranes, but degrade quickly to colorless derivatives when oxidized.

See above.   That's just a few of the dozens a quick review of the literature turned up, all in the previous century.   You've trusted the wrong people again.

Preach to those who accept your fairy tale doctrine of creationism.

Just so much, mumbo jumbo according to those of the deep time faith scenario.

[Amo]

https://www.sott.net/article/384234-Human-origins-are-much-more-diverse-than-previously-thought

Human origins are much more diverse than previously thought

...........................................................


In fact, if you were to travel back to the very beginnings of our species and select a random group of humans, they would look unlike anyone living today in Africa or elsewhere. What's more, they would show extraordinary physical variation - greatly exceeding that in modern human populations. Far from becoming more diverse as we have adapted to life in different parts of the planet, Homo sapiens is more homogeneous today than our ancestors were.

This is a real puzzle. It simply doesn't fit with the long-held idea that we arose from a single population in a corner of East Africa. In fact, mounting evidence from fossils, archaeological remains and genetic analysis points in a new direction. Now researchers, including myself, are trying to work out what it all means: why our African forebears were so physically different from each other, and how our species lost the huge variety it once had.........................................................

This is no doubt according to the creationist view that humanity and the world have been devolving since the fall, not evolving. There was far more diversity, complexity, and no doubt ability to change and or adapt by design in God's original creation. As the above evidence suggests, and all the fossil evidences suggest, everything was bigger, better, more, and the world was better suited to support all such. We have lost variety, information, and ability, not gained such. All the evolution mumbo jumbo attached to the above is just that. God's original plan no doubt provided or allowed for much more variety and change than we now have or can observe concerning the past or present in this world. Puny self important puffed up minds of fallen humanity have made erroneous observations after erroneous observations unto the dismal fairy tale of evolutionary theory.

Removing their gaze from the truths and God of holy scripture, and placing them upon their own radically dwarfed intellect as separated from the source of all true knowledge, their speculations lead where all self proclaimed and professed wisdom and knowledge lead, to the god of unending pain, suffering, and death. Subjecting humanity who were created in the image of God, to the god of death and destruction in that we are the product of countless millions of years of the same among countless billions or more over trillions of creatures and life forms before us. Thinking themselves wise they have become fools and bow down before the god of death and destruction in making a covenant with the same by their faith in the same. So be it. There is nothing new under the sun.

Ecc 1:1  The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. 3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? 4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. 5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. 6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. 7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. 8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Isa 28:1 Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine! 2 Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand. 3 The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet: 4 And the glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, and as the hasty fruit before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up. 5 In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people, 6 And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. 8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. 9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. 14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. 15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. 17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. 18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. 19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. 20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it. 21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. 22 Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord GOD of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth. 23 Give ye ear, and hear my voice; hearken, and hear my speech. 24 Doth the plowman plow all day to sow? doth he open and break the clods of his ground? 25 When he hath made plain the face thereof, doth he not cast abroad the fitches, and scatter the cummin, and cast in the principal wheat and the appointed barley and the rie in their place? 26 For his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him. 27 For the fitches are not threshed with a threshing instrument, neither is a cart wheel turned about upon the cummin; but the fitches are beaten out with a staff, and the cummin with a rod. 28 Bread corn is bruised; because he will not ever be threshing it, nor break it with the wheel of his cart, nor bruise it with his horsemen. 29 This also cometh forth from the LORD of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working.

Why does humanity make a covenant with death in believing the errors and lies built upon their own selfish pride?

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

The theory of evolution is built upon the vanity and pride of fallen humanity. Taking that which was cerated in the image of God to have dominion over the rest of creation, and reducing it to that which came form countless other creatures before it, and was therefore completely dependent upon them. The exact opposite of the testimony of scripture.

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

[Amo]

https://nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=244191&org=NSF

Ancient sharks likely more diverse than previously thought

Sharks have a reputation as ravenous hunters and apex predators, but new analysis of fossil records shows that some of the earliest sharks might have been filter feeders, taking in water through their mouths and catching food particles -- think less great white and more anchovy, another filter feeder.

This research, supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), pushes the date for the last common ancestor between sharks and other types of jawed vertebrates back to 440 million years ago -- more than 17 million years older than the previous estimate -- and raises new questions about what life was like during a prehistoric period long shrouded in secrecy...............................................

More diversity and further back in time, the trend just goes on and on as it should if creationists are right and deep time evolutionists are wrong. Maybe I missed something, but don't Whale Sharks that are around today filter feed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_shark

Whale shark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whale shark (Rhincodon typus) is a slow-moving, filter-feeding carpet shark and the largest known extant fish species. The largest confirmed individual had a length of 18.8 m (62 ft) [8] The whale shark holds many records for size in the animal kingdom, most notably being by far the largest living nonmammalian vertebrate. It is the sole member of the genus Rhincodon and the only extant member of the family Rhincodontidae, which belongs to the subclass Elasmobranchii in the class Chondrichthyes. Before 1984 it was classified as Rhiniodon into Rhinodontidae..................................

[The Barbarian]

Just so much, mumbo jumbo according to those of the deep time faith scenario.

Everything is confusing to those who don't understand it.   Just more evidence, showing that chemists knew organic molecules could last many millions of years, long before paleontologists found such molecules.

[Amo]

Everything is confusing to those who don't understand it.   Just more evidence, showing that chemists knew organic molecules could last many millions of years, long before paleontologists found such molecules.

And yet so many evolutionary scientists and believers expressed so much surprise and even denied the claims when such was found. I guess they just didn't even know that some of their fairy tale creating scientists already believed such could last millions of years. Or as it actually is in some cases, hundreds of millions of years. Ah yes, the never ending adaptions of the theory of evolution. No evidence is or can be contrary to evolution, to the contrary, the theory will just adapt or change to whatever new information proves the old speculations wrong. Everyone knows that is how real science is. Theory first, then twist facts or theory as necessary to maintain the same. So be it.

[Amo]

https://www.canterburymuseum.com/research/published-work/worlds-oldest-penguins-more-diverse-than-previously-thought/

World's Oldest Penguins More Diverse than Previously Thought

Thursday 23 February 2017

Mayr G, De Pietri V L, Scofield, R P (2017). A new fossil from the mid-Paleocene of New Zealand reveals an unexpected diversity of world's oldest penguins. The Science of Nature 104: 9.

The fossilised lower leg bones of a giant penguin that lived 61 million years ago in New Zealand have provided scientists with new insights into the early evolutionary history of penguins. In this study, researchers postulate that penguins had attained a high level of morphological diversity early in their evolutionary history, suggesting that their evolution began much earlier than previously thought................

Just keeps happening. More diversity earlier than previously thought. Evolution must have started earlier and progressed faster than previously thought. Change, change, change, change, and change again. As always, such is not a problem for creationists who have always believed highly complex creatures and much more variety existed from the beginning. Not to mention no doubt a greater ability to adaption and change built into creation by God from the beginning than there now is due to the fall and degradation following it.

[Amo]

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2015/november/first-ecosystems-more-complex.html

Earth's first ecosystems were more complex than previously thought, study finds

Computer simulations have allowed scientists to work out how a puzzling 555-million-year-old organism with no known modern relatives fed, revealing that some of the first large, complex organisms on Earth formed ecosystems that were much more complex than previously thought..................................

On an on it goes, where it will stop nobody knows. Creationists know the complexity was there from the beginning. No matter how many times evolutionists find that it was continually there earlier than they thought, they cannot let such give any credence to Creationism. It's not about where evidence seems to continually point, it is about defending the faith.

[Amo]

https://phys.org/news/2016-06-mammals-dinosaurs.html

Mammals almost wiped out with the dinosaurs

Over 90 per cent of mammal species were wiped out by the same asteroid that killed the dinosaurs in the Cretaceous period 66 million years ago, significantly more than previously thought.......................

Nothing new to creationists who know most of all creatures were wiped out by the flood. Evolutionists deep time scenarios and and cataclysm speculations are simply wrong. Instead of ever questioning the faulty basis of their pet theory and acknowledging its relevance to creation science, they simply change or adapt their theory to the ever changing parameters according to new information. Never mind that the new information so often lends more credence to the biblical account of the history of the world over their own speculative ever changing accounts.

[Amo]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2951268/Furry-forerunners-Jurassic-arboreal-burrowing-mammals-unearthed.html

Dinosaurs DIDN'T have it all their own way: Earliest tree and underground dwelling mammals discovered - and are far more advanced than previously thought

Finding more mammals living along side dinosaurs all the time, and more complex than they thought, which of course according to their theory requires more time for them to have evolutionarily developed. More and more and more of the same suggesting creation over evolution. Complexity and variety from the very beginning. Such indications being ignored by evolutionists of course.

[Amo]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03170-7

NEWS FEATURE  23 OCTOBER 2019

How the earliest mammals thrived alongside dinosaurs

An explosion of fossil finds reveals that ancient mammals evolved a wide variety of adaptations allowing them to exploit the skies, rivers and underground lairs.

...................................................................

The find is among a mass of discoveries in the past 10–20 years that are illuminating milestones in mammalian evolution. Although major finds are emerging all over the world, the largest number are coming out of China; together, they have overturned the now dated belief that dinosaur-era mammals were small, unremarkable insectivores, eking out a life in the shadows of the giant reptiles.................

Out of the shadows

In 1824, at the Geological Society of London, naturalist William Buckland presented bones from one of the first known dinosaurs, Megalosaurus. At the same talk, he revealed tiny mammalian jaws that had been found in the same fossil deposit. Their presence suggested that mammals had a very deep history, but as would happen repeatedly, the dinosaur discoveries completely overshadowed the mammal ones.

The slow trickle of mammal finds from around the world continued for 150 years. Then in 1997, researchers described the first ancient mammal from the fossil-rich rocks of Liaoning in northeastern China2, and the floodgates opened. Since then, 50 or more near-complete and "beautiful specimens" have been found there, according to Jin Meng, a palaeontologist at the American Museum of Natural History. Like the dinosaur fossils, they are dug up by local farmers and sold on to museums.

But the dinosaurs continued to get the vast majority of the attention, says palaeontologist Steve Brusatte at the University of Edinburgh, UK. "It's only that very recently, through the work of Luo, Meng and others, that the mammals are getting their due."..................................

How many other scientific details have been overshadowed by evolutionists enthusiasm, negligence, or prejudice over the last couple of centuries as they sought to prove their precious theory above others? Creationists have been pointing out the faults in evolutionists fossil arrangements and timing for quite some time now, but are generally ignored. Now evolutionists begin pretending to man up, but only by incorporating all such into their evolution delusion. Fossils and the fossil record simply do not support their fairy tale theory but by manipulation of and or ignoring certain facts. Such as the implications of continually finding greater complexity and variety further back in their hypothetical deep time scenario, which we are presently examining in light of the fact that such is more suggestive of creation than evolution.

[Amo]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6874-large-mammals-once-dined-on-dinosaurs/

Large mammals once dined on dinosaurs

When the dinosaurs ruled the world, the mammals hid in the shadows, daring to grow no bigger than shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night. Or so we thought.

Two stunning new fossils from China have overturned this preconception. Not only did large mammals live alongside their giant reptilian cousins, but some were big and bold enough to go dinosaur hunting.

Named Repenomamus giganticus and Repenomamus robustus, the sturdily built mammals lived in China about 130 million years ago, around 65 million years before we thought their kind inherited the Earth. At 1 metre long, R. giganticus was big enough to hunt small dinosaurs, and a newly discovered fossil of its smaller cousin, R. robustus, died with its belly full of young dinosaur.

This totally overturns the notion of dinosaur-age mammals as tiny and nocturnal, says vertebrate palaeontologist Hans-Dieter Sues of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, US. "Apparently some mammals could grow much larger than anyone had thought was possible."...............................

On and on it goes, where it will stop nobody knows.

Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so..................................
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

[Alan]

And yet so many evolutionary scientists and believers expressed so much surprise and even denied the claims when such was found. I guess they just didn't even know that some of their fairy tale creating scientists already believed such could last millions of years. Or as it actually is in some cases, hundreds of millions of years. Ah yes, the never ending adaptions of the theory of evolution. No evidence is or can be contrary to evolution, to the contrary, the theory will just adapt or change to whatever new information proves the old speculations wrong. Everyone knows that is how real science is. Theory first, then twist facts or theory as necessary to maintain the same. So be it.

No, it's not twisting facts, it's the addition of new evidence which is how science works. Try harder to keep up here.

[Amo]

No, it's not twisting facts, it's the addition of new evidence which is how science works. Try harder to keep up here.

You might try doing the same, since I have repeatedly referred to changing your theory according to new evidence and or information. Yes, such is crucial to science, including creation science. Much of the new evidence and information fits in very well with creation science and raises serious questions concerning evolutionary science. Which is the point of my posts as a creationist of course.

[Amo]

http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/giant-new-graveyard-of-dinosaurs-and-woolly-mammoths-found-by-accident-in-siberia/

Article below is from link above, emphasis in quote below is mine.

Giant new 'graveyard' of dinosaurs and woolly mammoths found 'by accident' in Siberia

By the Siberian Times reporter09 August 2017

Site identified in Krasnoyarsk region where man 'trapped and killed' mammoths, suspect paleontologists.

The necropolis of extinct beasts is potentially one of the biggest in Russia for remains of dinosaurs and woolly mammoths, it is believed.

Dr Sergey Leschinsky, of Tomsk State University, led an expedition this summer to make a detailed stratigraphic study of the opencast Bolshoy Ilek beside Chulym River.

'They did not expect to find the bones," said a university statement. 'During the study, scientists managed to find remains of large herbivorous  and carnivorous dinosaurs.

'Above them were geological horizons with the bones of mammoths, woolly rhinos and predators.' 

Dr Leschinsky said that with the woolly mammoth remains 'almost all the bones are broken.

'There are no traces of gnawing by predators, so probably it is the result of the actions of prehistoric humans.'

Previously there was little sign of dinosaur bones Mesozoic era at the site, in cliffs on the river.

'Now we have Mesozoic bones, which we can date as 120 to 100 million years ago.'

The site is seen as similar to the famous Shostakovsky yar necropolis - large dinosaur graveyard in Kemerovo region.

It is one of the largest deposit of dinosaurs and mammoths remains in Russia.

Scientists plan to continue to examine the Bolshoy Ilek site and seek evidence of man's implements and weapons proving he was behind the woolly mammoth slaughter here.

Perhaps another fine example of evolutionists seeing only that which fits their own narrative. No evidence of human activity was found, but evolutionists presume such because it is supportive of their own views. Not much detail of just how much soil in the layers mentioned separated the dinosaurs from the rest of the mammoths and mammals claimed to be above the dinosaurs. Such could of course be damaging to the theory of evolution if they were to close. No detail concerning the kinds of predators found among the mammoths mentioned either. Between the information left out, and the speculation added to the evidence presented, there is a lot of room to shape the evidence and information as favorable to evolution when it might not be at all. I suspect much like this goes on as creationists have suggested and even proved in some cases.

If in fact the dinosaurs and mammoths are separated by the millions of years evolution requires, it sure is unlikely that  their fossils would be found in the same area right on top of each other. Not to mention the many thousands of years that possibly should have transpired between wooly mammoths and some of the predators mentioned without details,
if in fact they may be considered from a later time frame according to evolutionary theory. We just don't know do we, the article is somewhat vague, perhaps better details are enumerated elsewhere.

The flood scenario is certainly more likely to have deposited these creatures in layers one on top of the other, than any deep time scenario that could be produced. The violent conditions associated with it could also easily explain broken bones with no need for human interaction as suggested by the evolutionists without any evidence of the same. No big surprise that evolutionists speculations align with the conditions necessary to their chosen faith or theory. To a creationist of course, this fossil site is just more evidence of the natural consequences of a global flood which destroyed all life on earth as the bible testifies.

[Amo]

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0434-new-mass-grave-of-woolly-mammoths-found-by-siberian-river/

Quotes below are from link above, emphasis is mine.

New mass grave of woolly mammoths found by Siberian river

By Kate Baklitskaya and Olga Gertcyk01 October 2015

...

'For years, people took the bones as souvenirs and as a result we did not find a single tusk, teeth and large bones. It is these that attracts people first of all. The great thing is that we have found the place from which the bones were washed away by the river, and now we can conduct the large-scale excavations there.'

At least four other mass graves of woolly mammoths are known in Siberia. They are at Mamontovoye (Volchya Griva, Novosibirsk region), Shestakovo (Kemerovo region), Krasnoyarskaya Kurya (Tomsk region), and Berelekh (Yakutia).

Why do they exist? One theory is that the mammoths suffered a mineral deficiency and were desperately seeking calcium at sites of so-called salt licks. The creatures suffered a crippling bone disease and perished at sites where they sought solace, as if at an ancient mammoth health spa.

Another version is that they were trapped by ancient hunters. Recently we highlighted the mass grave at a village called Mamontovoye - or Mammoth.

There are wooly mammoth graveyards all over the world, which continue to be discovered. The highlighted two paragraphs at the bottom of quote above ask the crucial question, "Why do they exist?". Evolutionists explanations of course includes speculations which can fit into their chosen faith or theory, while avoiding the obvious. These graveyards were not created by so many numerous separate accounts of the silly sort suggested by prejudiced evolutionists, they all died at relatively the same time due to the global flood the bible testifies of. Their herds struggled to survive together, and died together in that flood. As always, the latter explanation is a lot more likely than such numerous separate occasions around the world for the silly reasons evolutionists speculate. Thinking themselves wise, they have become fools.

[Amo]

https://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-fossil-wasnt-supposed-be-there/

Dinosaur Fossil 'Wasn't Supposed to Be There'

Workers with the Canadian energy company Suncor unearthed ankylosaur remains while mining oil sands near Fort McMurray in Alberta. The carcass of the four-legged land creature was not flattened, as is the case with many fossilized vertebrates. But most strangely, it was found in an area known primarily for fossilized marine creatures.

Previous vertebrate fossils found in this oil sand formation were marine reptiles, like the ichthyosaur and plesiosaur. Marine invertebrates such as clams and ammonites are the more typical fossils found in the region, so a large, land-living ankylosaur "wasn't supposed to be there."1

But finding a mixture of fossilized marine and land creatures together is not an unusual occurrence. For example, the famous dinosaur beds in the Morrison Formation at Dinosaur National Monument contain logs, clams, snails, and mammals.2

And the Institute for Creation Research's front lobby features a juvenile hadrosaur taken from the Two Medicine Formation—a sandstone formation which extends from the east side of the Rocky Mountains eastward to Edmonton, Canada—that was fossilized alongside marine clams and snails, as well as birds, mammals, and other dinosaurs.

Medical doctor Carl Werner actually used fossil-related criteria as a test for evolution.2 He reasoned that if the evolutionary story were true and that dinosaurs lived in a unique "Age of Reptiles," and if everyday natural processes were responsible for their fossilization, then no fossils of creatures from other "ages"—for example, creatures that had not yet evolved—should be mixed up with dinosaur fossils.

But Werner found that a fossil mixture of very different kinds was typical. He told Creation magazine:

Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers....But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums.3

Werner also learned that dinosaur-containing rock layers have "fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today," and that dinosaurs were mixed in with varieties of fish, amphibians, "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc."3 If museums displayed these real fossils instead of adorning dinosaur dioramas with feathers, then the evolutionary story that "dinosaurs evolved into birds" would be quickly seen as the fiction that it is.4

There are many other examples of land-dwelling dinosaur fossils mixed with sea creatures.5 This kind of evidence is to be expected if a world-destroying flood was responsible for the bulk of the world's fossils, dinosaur and otherwise, considering that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."6

[The Barbarian]

As always, and as I freely admit, my faith in scripture above human speculation guides my decision process.

Those guys in the video, also.   Instead of faking mathematical arguments, why not just say "my faith tells me this is true" and honestly present that?    By using phony math, they undercut their own beliefs.

Honest creationists like Kurt Wise and Tim Wood readlily admit the fact that there is very good evidence for evolutionary theory, but assert their understanding of Genesis instead.   One can respect that sort of faith,even if most Christians wouldn't agree with it.

[The Barbarian]

And yet so many evolutionary scientists and believers expressed so much surprise and even denied the claims when such was found.

No, that's wrong.  For example, the first known ancient biological molecules were those in Amber.  Before Darwin's time, scientists realized that these were millions of years old.

No one was surprised that it happens.    Evolutionary scientists were pleased because the heme and collagen in dinosaur fossils confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey
PNAS June 10, 1997 94 (12) 6291-6296; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.12.6291

[The Barbarian]

There are wooly mammoth graveyards all over the world, which continue to be discovered. The highlighted two paragraphs at the bottom of quote above ask the crucial question, "Why do they exist?".

For the same reason we have huge numbers of horse fossils.   They existed in massive herds, and lived where fossilization was relatively common.   

[The Barbarian]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2951268/Furry-forerunners-Jurassic-arboreal-burrowing-mammals-unearthed.html

Finding more mammals living along side dinosaurs all the time, and more complex than they thought, which of course according to their theory requires more time for them to have evolutionarily developed. More and more and more of the same suggesting creation over evolution. Complexity and variety from the very beginning. Such indications being ignored by evolutionists of course.

Actually,protomammals and their relatives dominated the Earth before the dinosaurs began.   So it's not surprising to any paleontologist.   To those unfamiliar with the fossil record, it perhaps looks odd.

But not to anyone who understands the record.

[Amo]

Those guys in the video, also.   Instead of faking mathematical arguments, why not just say "my faith tells me this is true" and honestly present that?    By using phony math, they undercut their own beliefs.

Honest creationists like Kurt Wise and Tim Wood readlily admit the fact that there is very good evidence for evolutionary theory, but assert their understanding of Genesis instead.   One can respect that sort of faith,even if most Christians wouldn't agree with it.

I'm not even sure what you are referring to above, your are responding to something I said over six months ago. I will have to go back and refresh my memory before addressing your comments. Nevertheless, since you have brought up the topic of math, observe the following article.

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/04/vindicated-by-behe-devolution-is-natural-evolution-is-not/

Vindicated by Behe: Devolution Is Natural, Evolution Is Not
Granville Sewell
April 1, 2019, 4:05 AM

I know many other mathematicians and engineers who share my low opinion of Darwinism, but most are reluctant to express their views publicly because they feel that the issue is simply outside their area of expertise and they will not be taken seriously. I also tend to defer to specialists on scientific issues outside my discipline — until those specialists try to tell me something clearly absurd, for example, that unintelligent forces alone could have reorganized the basic particles on Earth into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. Then I don't hesitate to jump into the debate. I have done so, for example, in a 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer opinion piece, "A Mathematician's View of Evolution," and in a 2017 Physics Essays article, "On 'Compensating' Entropy Decreases."

A Very Simple Principle

It is really not necessary to be a biochemist or a paleontologist to understand the main issue in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design. That is because it is a very simple principle, as I keep emphasizing: natural (unintelligent) causes do not create order (or information). They destroy it. That is the main theme of the first half of my video "Why Evolution Is Different."

While every other natural process tends to turn order into disorder, Darwinists have always believed that natural selection is the one unintelligent process in the universe that can create spectacular order out of disorder. So I feel vindicated by Michael Behe's new book, Darwin Devolves, which disputes this belief, and argues that despite all the claims about the creative powers of natural selection, it has never actually been observed to produce anything new and complex, only "devolution":

"Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counterintuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully devolutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information. Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting....Darwin's mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain."

And so we conclude that perhaps natural selection of random mutations is like every other unintelligent cause in the universe after all, and tends to create disorder out of order and not vice-versa.

Only Devolution Occurred

As another illustration that selection and mutations can only degrade, in this interview on German TV, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig recounts (minutes 24:00 to 28:00, turn on English subtitles if you don't speak German) the well-funded attempts at, among other places, his own Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, to speed up evolution in plants using radiation and advanced artificial selection techniques. Lönnig reports that only devolution occurred: the only progress observed before this effort was given up was that the genes that made some plants toxic were damaged, making these plants more useful as animal fodder.

That it seems even superficially plausible that random mutations could produce major improvements relies completely on the observed but inexplicable fact that while they are awaiting rare favorable mutations, living species are able to preserve their complex structures and pass them on to their descendants without significant degradation, generation after generation.

To appreciate how astonishing this is, imagine that it were possible (though it is far beyond our current technology) to construct a fleet of cars that contained completely automated car-building factories inside, with the ability to construct new cars — and not just normal new cars, but new cars containing automated car-building factories inside them. If we left these cars alone and let them reproduce themselves for many generations, is there any chance we would eventually see major advances arise through natural selection of the resulting duplication errors?

Of course not. We could confidently predict that the whole process would grind to a halt after a few generations without intelligent humans there to fix the mechanical problems that would inevitably arise. And we don't need to know the details of how these cars work and reproduce to predict this, because there is a simpler principle involved here: devolution is natural, evolution is not.

The Argument Could Not Be Clearer

I am very grateful that there are biologists like Michael Behe and W.E. Lönnig who doubt Darwinism, because doubts expressed by mathematicians like me would otherwise never be taken seriously. But you really do not have to study the biochemical details to understand why the accumulation of genetic accidents cannot produce human brains and human consciousness. And you do not really need to study mutations for thirty years, as Lönnig has done, to predict that bombarding plant chromosomes with radiation would not lead to major agricultural advances.

The argument against Darwinism, or any other attempt to explain what has happened on Earth without intelligent design, could not be simpler or clearer: a few fundamental, unintelligent, forces of physics alone cannot rearrange the fundamental particles of physics into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. And any attempt to explain how they can must break down somewhere, because they obviously can't.

[The Barbarian]

Actually, Behe agrees that all living things on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.    Since the fact of evolution and increasing fitness in populations by evolution has been repeatedly observed, there's no point in denying  it.   Populations tend to become more fit, not less fit.

Would you like me to show you some examples?

few fundamental, unintelligent, forces of physics alone cannot rearrange the fundamental particles of physics into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones.

Your guy had to use human artifacts, instead of natural things, because there's a fundamental difference.  Artifacts are designed.  Living things, as your guy Behe says, evolved.

Fundamental unintelligent forces of physics can't make iPhones, but they can bring forth life from the Earth as God tells us that they did.

[Amo]

No, that's wrong.  For example, the first known ancient biological molecules were those in Amber.  Before Darwin's time, scientists realized that these were millions of years old.

No one was surprised that it happens.    Evolutionary scientists were pleased because the heme and collagen in dinosaur fossils confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey
PNAS June 10, 1997 94 (12) 6291-6296; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.12.6291

Let's address your above false statement starting with Mary H. Schweitzer your first reference above.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Mary+Schweitzer+and+dino+soft+tissue&&view=detail&mid=8920D79727E7F688F7A28920D79727E7F688F7A2&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DMary%2BSchweitzer%2Band%2Bdino%2Bsoft%2Btissue%26FORM%3DHDRSC3

Her testimony in the above video completely contradicts your statement. When she told her boss about her discovery, he did not believe it and told her to test again and again. I could find this video as well, along with many other videos and articles from the scientific community contradicting your above farcical statement. You know this already as I have posted many of them over the years on these boards. Scientists were shocked, as Mary stated, her findings required a change of views and raised serious questions. She was afraid to present the results of her work because of this, and the controversies it would fuel. Which controversies included some scientists denying her findings. Evolutionists like yourself though, did what they always do, evolved their theory to incorporate and now use the  pretense that soft tissues can stick around for countless millions of years. Never mind the observable and testable science which exists that denies such, evolutionists have and continue to seek any kind of tenable explanation for anything and everything that causes problems to their precious. So be it.

[Amo]

For the same reason we have huge numbers of horse fossils.   They existed in massive herds, and lived where fossilization was relatively common.   

You are willingly ignorant of the evidence in front of your face, and in complete denial of what that evidence suggests. Fossilization is not common at all apart from catastrophic circumstances. Plants and animals that die do not become fossilized under normal natural conditions, as we can and do observe happening around us all the time. They die, are eaten and or decay, and disappear. The mass extinctions evidenced by mass fossil burial grounds all over the world has nothing to do with large herds other than the fact that they were destroyed right along with everything else during catastrophic events, and rapidly buried by them as well. As an evolutionist by faith, you choose the more unlikely of scenarios the real evidence suggests according to your faith, believing such conditions were reproduced over and over again throughout countless millions and billions of years in incidents of greater and lesser magnitude.

You claim to be Christian, but you deny the bible's account of creation and destruction by a global flood, which testimony supplies the most viable explanation of the evidence we find all over the world. There is a great difference today between many who profess to be "Christians" and those who profess to believe the bible. You are the one who chooses to believe the most unlikely mechanism and scenario of our existence, not those who believe the biblical account for what it simply says. Your fairy tale theories are intended to complicate what is simple, create confusion, and detract from the truths of God's word. They are the calculated falsehoods of the evil one, intended to undermine faith in the testimony of scripture, and many disciples who profess Jesus serve him instead in this endeavor. So be it.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

[Amo]

Actually,protomammals and their relatives dominated the Earth before the dinosaurs began.   So it's not surprising to any paleontologist.   To those unfamiliar with the fossil record, it perhaps looks odd.

But not to anyone who understands the record.

Protomammals are just another made up term for a made up category evolutionists incorporate in their never ending modifications and changes of their fairy tale theory. Only those who submit to their constant changes and adaptions also submit to the endless drool of new terms and categories created by them to redefine their positions according to increased knowledge they must address which often contradicts their previous observations. Terms through which they seek to control the parameters of scientific observations and debate in accordance with their precious.

God created this world which is now far different than its previous pre-flood state. It was probably larger, the creatures and plants He created upon it were larger and far more numerous and varied than at present, as the evidence suggests. Evolution is not the mechanism of our existence, God created His creatures with the ability to change and adapt, such is not the mechanism of our existence. Only fairy tale evolutionists with a radical and extreme faith in random chance would and do believe such nonsense. Thinking themselves wise they have become fools just as the scriptures predicted they would. Having rejected the obvious truths of God's word, they are on a continuous cycle of fairy tale theory projections, and subsequent changes to those fairy tale theories as knowledge increases and new evidence requires. Such being the case they must also continuously create new categories and terminology in association with the same, such as protomammals.

I started to look into the designation protomammal when I came upon the article quoted below form the link provided above it. After reading the fairy tale presumption quoted below from said article I figured, what is the use. There is no end to the foolery of the evolutionary theory, I will simply address their non stop changes and the categories and terms that they make up along the way to protect their precious chosen faith. The highlighted and underlined emphasis is mine which I am going to address.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/elephant-size-mammal-cousin-mingled-dinosaurs-180970886/

Smithsonian Magazine

Early Mammals Were Thought to Be Small and Unseen in the Age of Dinosaurs. An Elephant-Sized Fossil Complicates That Story

...............................................................

The beast, named Lisowicia bojani, looked something like a cross between rhinoceros and a turtle, weighing in at nine tons. The creature is a dicynodont, one of the first groups of animals to eat plants. It's also part of a broader group of creatures called synapsids, which includes the direct ancestors of mammals, making it something of a cousin to the earliest mammal ancestors, or proto-mammals. The most intriguing thing about the creature, however, is that it dates to the Late Triassic period about 201 to 240 million years ago when dinosaurs first began their reign. It was believed that by that period most other creatures had shrunk in size to hide from the giants, including dicynodonts, which maxed out at the size of a dog, but L. bojani shows that's not the case. The research appears in the journal Science.......................................

Apart from the title of the above quoted article contradicting Barbs statement, the article does something that fairy tale evolutionists are constantly guilty of, which chaps my hide. They constantly refer to evolutionary changes that are supposed to be according to random chance, as deliberate changes in animals for their own good. As though they were intelligent enough to make such changes or could simply do so because they needed too. The article above suggests that creatures shrunk in size in order to hide from giants. Such is highly suggestive of purpose and intent, which have nothing to do with random chance evolution. Evolutionists constantly deny their own theory with statements such as these, but apparently cannot see the hypocrisy of such statements since they make them over and over again. It is impossible for random chance to do anything for this or that reason, just as random chance can never produce order of the magnitude we see in creation even once, let alone countless billions of times over unto evolution. Fairy tales are they all.

[Amo]

Actually, Behe agrees that all living things on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.    Since the fact of evolution and increasing fitness in populations by evolution has been repeatedly observed, there's no point in denying  it.   Populations tend to become more fit, not less fit.

Would you like me to show you some examples?

Your guy had to use human artifacts, instead of natural things, because there's a fundamental difference.  Artifacts are designed.  Living things, as your guy Behe says, evolved.

Fundamental unintelligent forces of physics can't make iPhones, but they can bring forth life from the Earth as God tells us that they did.

You have lied about what Behe believes before. The following article suggests that you are lying again.

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/03/darwin-devolves-another-huge-advance-against-darwinism-and-for-intelligent-design/

Darwin Devolves: Another Huge Advance Against Darwinism and for Intelligent Design

Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, has been keeping committed Darwinists awake nights for years. His 1996 book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution asked a long-ignored question: If Darwin's theory explains everything so well, why hasn't anyone shown how it works at the minutest level, biochemistry? If it doesn't work there, it doesn't work anywhere.

Now Behe has released a new book, based on new science, showing once again that it doesn't work there. Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution is going to cause a lot more sleepless nights.

The new science he covers in this book shows that Darwin's theory can explain some changes, but quickly breaks down. DNA sequencing has only been available in the past decade or two. Its findings show that when organisms change, they do it almost always by breaking genes, not by making new ones. So in general, the evidence shows that when species evolve, they're really devolving. And that devolution prevents future evolution.

Evolution (Unguided) Breaks Things

Behe defines his terms carefully. Evolution, in particular, means many different things. On one level, it simply says things change over time. No controversy there. On another level, it's a theory of common descent, saying that all organisms came by something like a branching tree from one common ancestor. But classic evolutionary theory also claims that this common descent, and all the adaptations of life, happened by an unguided process: natural selection sifting random variations. This, Behe says, flatly conflicts with the evidence..................

The above does not sound like a man that believes all things evolved from a common ancestor, does it?

[Amo]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-the-rise-of-complexity/

Emphasis in quoted article below from link above is mine. My comments in blue.

Evolution: The Rise of Complexity

   By Christie Wilcox on January 16, 2012


Let's rewind time back about 3.5 billion years. Our beloved planet looks nothing like the lush home we know today - it is a turbulent place, still undergoing the process of formation. Land is a fluid concept, consisting of molten lava flows being created and destroyed by massive volcanoes. The air is thick with toxic gasses like methane and ammonia which spew from the eruptions. Over time, water vapor collects, creating our first weather events, though on this early Earth there is no such thing as a light drizzle. Boiling hot acid rain pours down on the barren land for millions of years, slowly forming bubbling oceans and seas. Yet in this unwelcoming, violent landscape, life begins.

Regardless of the detail and confidence expressed in the above statement, the people who wrote and believe the above fairy tale don't know what happened on this planet yesterday, let alone 3.5 billion years ago. They claim the biblical creation account untrue, but pass off their own supposed certain knowledge of what transpired 3.5 billion years ago as reliable truth, and countless people actually believe them.

Random chance does not bring about a processes of formation. One can choose to believe or have faith that formation accidentally happened if they wish, but random chance cannot produce anything. Things are produced and formed by intent and purpose, not random chance. Nothing that happens by random chance is any kind of production, it is simply an accident. By extension, the entire theory of evolution has nothing to do with any kind of production, but rather one random accident after another, accidentally resulting in ever increasing complex life unto a complexity humanity is nowhere near even beginning to comprehend. This is the radical and extreme faith of evolutionists of random chance undirected natural biological evolution.

Along the same lines, water vapor collecting by random chance if that were the case which it is not, cannot not, could not, and did not create anything let alone weather patterns. Random chance does not produce or create anything. Production has producers, and creation has creators, end of story. Random chance has neither. Evolutionists constantly employ language, terms, and theories highly suggestive of purpose and intent in explaining a theory built upon random chance accidents. I would say this was intentional, but I do not believe it is. It is simply the natural result of what is, being so obviously the result of purpose and design, that trying to avoid all reference or suggestion of this truth is futile.

They are trying to deny what everything they know, understand, and actually are not only came from, but consists of, and is sustained by. Which is God who created them and all they will ever see, smell, hear, taste, touch, experience, or comprehend. Try as they may, they cannot fully escape the confines of this reality within which God has temporarily limited their existence. Therefore do they unavoidably use language, terms, and postulate theories highly suggestive of purpose, intent, and even design while trying to postulate and defend random chance biological evolution. They are trying to establish and prove something which simply does not compute.

The creatures which dared to arise are called cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. They were the pioneers of photosynthesis, transforming the toxic atmosphere by producing oxygen and eventually paving the way for the plants and animals of today. But what is even more incredible is that they were the first to do something extraordinary - they were the first cells to join forces and create multicellular life.

Random chance does not dare to do anything, it pioneers nothing, produces nothing, transforms nothing, does not pave the way to anything, and it most certainly does not join forces of anything unto anything else. One suggestion of purpose and intent after another after another rattled off by one supposedly explaining random chance evolution. These blind guides cannot see their own delusional state of constant contradictory statement and inference, while attempting to explain their nonsensical processes of random chance to incomprehensible organized complexity of highly interactive and inter-relative beings and environment. Random chance means all such just happened by accident. Nothing dared to anything, or pioneered or transformed anything, nor did anythings join forces to a certain end. All just accidentally happened, that is all, and all that can be according to random chance.

The following quote regarding photosynthesis is a far more realistic observation concerning it, than the fairy tale described Christie Wilcox above.

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/154/2/434

Emphasis in the following quote is mine.

ORIGINS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS

We know very little about the earliest origins of photosynthesis. There have been numerous suggestions as to where and how the process originated, but there is no direct evidence to support any of the possible origins (Olson and Blankenship, 2004). There is suggestive evidence that photosynthetic organisms were present approximately 3.2 to 3.5 billion years ago, in the form of stromatolites, layered structures similar to forms that are produced by some modern cyanobacteria, as well as numerous microfossils that have been interpreted as arising from phototrophs (Des Marais, 2000). In all these cases, phototrophs are not certain to have been the source of the fossils, but are inferred from the morphology or geological context. There is also isotopic evidence for autotrophic carbon fixation at 3.7 to 3.8 billion years ago, although there is nothing that indicates that these organisms were photosynthetic. All of these claims for early photosynthesis are highly controversial and have engendered a great deal of spirited discussion in the literature (Buick, 2008). Evidence for the timing of the origin of oxygenic photosynthesis and the rise of oxygen in the atmosphere is discussed below. The accumulated evidence suggests that photosynthesis began early in Earth's history, but was probably not one of the earliest metabolisms and that the earliest forms of photosynthesis were anoxygenic, with oxygenic forms arising significantly later.

Not exactly the same statement of confidence as that expressed by the author of the article under examination written obviously by a staunch member of the radical evolutionary faith.

Examination of this "scientific" article will continue in later posts.

[The Barbarian]

No, that's wrong.  For example, the first known ancient biological molecules were those in Amber.  Before Darwin's time, scientists realized that these were millions of years old.

No one was surprised that it happens.    Evolutionary scientists were pleased because the heme and collagen in dinosaur fossils confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey
PNAS June 10, 1997 94 (12) 6291-6296; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.12.6291

Let's address your above false statement

As you see, it's documented research.    No point in denying the fact. 

Your undocumented anecdote, notwithstanding.

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 62, Issues 1–4, January 1988, Pages 343-359
Fossil pigments in paleoecology and paleolimnology
Jon E.Sanger
Abstract

For the past several decades scientists have been examining the nature of sedimentary chlorophylls and carotenoids from freshwater lakes for their value in paleoecology and paleolimnology. Unaltered chlorophyll molecules are rarely preserved for long periods, but the pheo-derivatives and chlorophyllides are common throughout lake sedimentary columns. Carotenoids tend to preserve largely unaltered from their conditions in living plant membranes, but degrade quickly to colorless derivatives when oxidized.

Measurements of sedimentary pigment concentrations, ratios of chlorophyll derivatives to carotenoids and diversity, especially as regards prokaryote carotenoids, are most commonly published.

Lots more where that came from.  How many would you like to see?

[The Barbarian]

 Notice that scientists have realized that organic molecules can survive for many millions of years, for decades.

You've been completely misled about that, as the reports I've shown you demonstrate.

[Amo]

No, that's wrong.  For example, the first known ancient biological molecules were those in Amber.  Before Darwin's time, scientists realized that these were millions of years old.

No one was surprised that it happens.    Evolutionary scientists were pleased because the heme and collagen in dinosaur fossils confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey
PNAS June 10, 1997 94 (12) 6291-6296; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.12.6291


As you see, it's documented research.    No point in denying the fact. 

Your undocumented anecdote, notwithstanding.

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 62, Issues 1–4, January 1988, Pages 343-359
Fossil pigments in paleoecology and paleolimnology
Jon E.Sanger
Abstract

For the past several decades scientists have been examining the nature of sedimentary chlorophylls and carotenoids from freshwater lakes for their value in paleoecology and paleolimnology. Unaltered chlorophyll molecules are rarely preserved for long periods, but the pheo-derivatives and chlorophyllides are common throughout lake sedimentary columns. Carotenoids tend to preserve largely unaltered from their conditions in living plant membranes, but degrade quickly to colorless derivatives when oxidized.

Measurements of sedimentary pigment concentrations, ratios of chlorophyll derivatives to carotenoids and diversity, especially as regards prokaryote carotenoids, are most commonly published.

Lots more where that came from.  How many would you like to see?

Comparing molecules locked in amber and or at the bottom of lakes to dinosaur bones recovered from the ground right near the surface as though they were subject to the same elements of decay, is just what I would expect from one trying to deny the truth of the matter. Poor Mary and all those other evolutionary scientists who expressed so much surprise and doubt about soft tissues in dinosaur bones, they were and apparently are all just so ignorant compared to Barb, aren't they. If they just would have consulted with you first Barb, they never would have expressed such surprise and doubt, would they?

Your scientists expressed surprise and doubt over these issues not mine. These expressions are in print and video all over the place for any and all to see if they wish. Your denial cannot change that. Your scientists are not at all in agreement either about your above dino to bird evolution nonsense either.

[Amo]

Notice that scientists have realized that organic molecules can survive for many millions of years, for decades.

You've been completely misled about that, as the reports I've shown you demonstrate.

If anyone was misled, it was by scientists of your own faith, not mine. A creation scientist would have no good reason to be as surprised by such. Even though biological soft tissues thousands of years old is no doubt somewhat rare. Nevertheless, as in all things, your scientists are not nearly enough all on the same page, for you or any other one of them to speak for them all.

[The Barbarian]

Comparing molecules locked in amber and or at the bottom of lakes to dinosaur bones recovered from the ground right near the surface

Actually, amber is recovered right near the surface.    Like dinosaur bones, it gets buried, and then over time, erosion removes most of of the sediment, and it is then found.   

as though they were subject to the same elements of decay,

They are.   Almost all dinosaur bones and amber degrade over time.   Only when they have been buried under specific circumstances do they fossilize.   The imaginative story that dinosaur bones are somehow different than other fossils, is merely an evasion.

It is just what I would expect from one trying to deny the truth of the matter.

Poor Mary and all those other evolutionary scientists who expressed so much surprise and doubt about soft tissues in dinosaur bones, they were and apparently are all just so ignorant compared to Barb, aren't they.

Actually Schweitzer and others used the data from other such fossils to support their claim that the heme and collagen molecules in some dinosaur bone were also preserved as she knew they were in other fossils.   You've been misled about that.   As you now realize, there are many such examples in the literature.   Did you suppose Schweitzer didn't know about them?   Seriously?

But Schweitzer's team pressed on. In 2009, she, Asara, and colleagues reported in Science that they had isolated protein fragments from a second dinosaur, an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur. Asara's lab identified eight collagen fragments. This time Schweitzer sent samples of fossil extract to an independent lab, which also detected three of the collagen fragments.

Collectively, the sequences showed the purported hadrosaur collagen was more closely related to T. rex and birds than to modern reptiles. "This proves the first [T. rex] study was not a one-hit wonder," Asara said at the time. Two labs also detected the proteins laminin and elastin with antibody tests, although mass spectrometry failed to turn up sequences for these proteins.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/i-don-t-care-what-they-say-about-me-paleontologist-stares-down-critics-her-hunt

The real news is that Schweitzer's data provide an entirely new confirmation that birds evolved from dinosaurs.   As you learned, it's been known for decades that organic molecules can survive in fossils for many millions of years.   Would you like me to show you more examples?