Nature Identifies Events during the "Gap" in Creation

I found this article gives me a lot of food for thought. However I would like the questions that some here have proposed to be answered. That would be helpful.


Best I can tell; the Global Flood is used to cover up all evidence of a young creation. This way YEC can say any thing they want about creation. “All evidence was washed away, you will just have to trust me on this.”

Not all but most of the dry earth has evidence of water. Many areas show many floods at vastly different times. The earth is very dynamic. The ocean floor gets pushed up and becomes dry. Whole towns sink below the sea. Some places have cycled several times. It did not all happen in the same year.

YEC stands on the back of a global flood. YEC must deny continental drift, plate tectonics, numerous ice ages, not counting all the biological evidence.

Global flood stands on the idea that God is “angry” and will kill all_you_people and spare good people like my family. The loudest YEC in the news also preach that hurricanes are caused by gay people.

I would like to know you thoughts on soft tissue being found in dinosaur fossils. Reference the numerous scientific peer reviewed articles by Mary Schweitzer et al.

I have been studying God’s work and the scientific literature for many many years. I also am an MD.

I don’t pretend to know the answers to the “old earth” vs “young earth” debate.

The wine that Jesus made from water. How old did it taste?


whether egw claimed that god revealed to her the origins of our world in a dream or vision each time she wrote or spoke about it is irrelevant…from a consideration of just Patriarchs and Prophets, easily her seminal work on origins, it is clear that divine revelation as a source of information is a legitimate inference…in the first place, the preface by uriah smith contained in the definitive 1958 edition, which focuses on spiritual gifts and, in particular, the gift of prophecy, leaves very little doubt that our pioneer church considered Patriarchs and Prophets a product of divine revelation, even if there are found in it instances of unattributed borrowing from contemporary authors…

in the second place, egw’s own introduction, contained in the 1950 edition of Great Controversy, which follows closely her final copyrighted 1911 version, also focuses on the spiritual gift of prophecy…given that Great Controversy is the final entry in the Conflict of the Ages series, of which Patriarchs and Prophets is the initial entry, it is legitimate to infer that egw also considered Patriarchs and Prophets a product of divine revelation…

but in the third, most important, place, the language used throughout Patriarchs and Prophets doesn’t nurture doubt as to whether egw is claiming eye witness credibility in her descriptions, from which it is legitimate to infer supernatural vision and dream input, for instance:

“As man came forth from the hand of his Creator, he was of lofty stature and perfect symmetry. His countenance bore the ruddy tint of health and glowed with the light of life and joy. Adam’s height was much greater than that of men who now inhabit the earth. Eve was somewhat less in stature; yet her form was noble, and full of beauty. The sinless pair wore no artificial garments; they were clothed with a covering of light and glory, such as the angels wear.” PP:45.

given the rarity and value of divine revelation, particularly subsequent to apostolic times, it is foolish to not quote ellen white on the subject of origins…she is not, as scientists do, constructing a meta narrative from an interpretation of evidence resting on necessary assumptions…clearly she’s reporting what she was shown…her account is virtually the equivalent of video footage which, had it existed, would entirely remove the subject of origins from the quagmire of conflicting and ever-evolving conjecture in which it is currently, and for the foreseeable future, situated…

in general, i have to say that i find approaches to origins that veer from the biblico-egw account quite unconvincing…this is because important unprovable assumptions that directly affect conclusions are never acknowledged…in this article, for instance, we are told to believe that zealandia completed a split from australia 65 million yrs ago - other references tell us that zealandia and australia completed a split from antarctica 85 million yrs ago - on the basis of a reference to reconstructions of the cenozoic history of the australia-new zealand-south pacific sector of antarctica by steven cande and joann stock…but does anyone for even one moment believe that these scientists aren’t assuming that the observable tectonics and sedimentation rates of today can be legitimately used to come up with definitive time frames of the past…it goes without saying that if today’s plate tectonics rate, for instance, of between 2 and 18 cm per yr reflects an invariable standard, that the ocean floors and mountain ranges we now observe would have taken 100 million yrs, and more, to form…but what if that rate doesn’t reflect what existed in the past…what if a much greater rate was the reality during an earth-altering flood, during which egw informs us that earth’s topography, including plains and mountain ranges, was existentially transformed in proportion to the evil of local human inhabitants, PP:108…

in fact creation scientists have proposed just such a scenario, which they dub “catastrophic plate tectonics”…an example is Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History, by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D., John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D., Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D., Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., and Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D…it is hardly necessary to think that deep time is required to explain empirical evidence, or that nature identifies events during a so-called 4.5 billion yr gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2…nature is identifying nothing…it is scientists who are identifying a history that either takes into account the biblical narrative or not…here is the entire substance of the difference between evolutionists and creation scientists…


There is no end to how far people will go to continue to believe that red blood cells can last 65 million years… 65 million years…

The Pharisees and teachers of the Law demanded of Jesus a sign. Christ knowing their hearts said they would receive no miracle except the sign of the prophet Jonah. The raising of Lazarus from the dead proved that no amount of miracles would change their minds. In fact, it would probably make them more hostile to any further evidence - anything that would go directly against their presuppositions. And here we have the same thing. No amount of evidence - even a dinosaur bone brought back from the “dead,” will be enough. ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’"

“No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.”

No they wont; and Christ knew it. And it’s no different today.

Dr Mary Schweitzer: “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”

Yes I was aware of this. And have mentioned this same find a couple years ago or so on Spectrum. I just happen to reject the conclusion which is all too often speculation.


Strange that I found a recent article on the subject of Mary Schweitzer’s discovery that even uses the same depictions that you posted, Tony, yet draws a contrary conclusion to the one that you purport.

These remarks pertain mainly to thigh bones from two dinosaur specimens, a T. rex (approx. 68 million years old) and a duckbill hadrosaur (approx. 80 million years old). In both cases, the fossils had been buried in sandstone (which may help wick away destructive enzymes from the corpse) and the fossils were analyzed within a relatively short time after excavation, which minimized degradation from sudden exposure to a new set of environmental conditions.

After dissolving away the mineral portion of the bone with weak acid, various types of flexible structures were recovered. They conform to the microscopic pores of the bone in which they had resided, so they are mainly viewed under a microscope. These structures include transparent, branching hollow vessels corresponding to the blood vessels found in modern animals (e.g. ostriches), and also what look like modern osteocyte (bone) cells. Various biochemical tests have indicated that these structures are composed of animal protein, showing that they derive from the original dinosaur tissue, as opposed to being merely biofilms produced by microbes which invaded the bone pores.

The proteins which have been identified include collagen, actin, and tubulin. These are known to have structures which are resistant to degradation, especially when they are crosslinked. Tests indicate that these proteins from the dinosaur bones are indeed highly crosslinked, which appears to be a key aspect of their longevity.

Iron from blood hemoglobin can be highly effective in promoting this crosslinking and in general passivating the reactive groups on the proteins. Schweitzer’s group performed a dramatic experiment to demonstrate this effect, using modern ostrich blood vessels: the blood vessels which were incubated in a solution of hemoglobin (extracted from the red blood cells of chicken and ostrich) showed no signs of degradation for more than two years. In contrast, the ostrich vessels in plain water showed significant degradation within three days, which is more than 240 times faster degradation than with the hemoglobin. The osteocyte cell remnants from dinosaur fossils are essentially coated with iron-rich nanoparticles.

Beside the effect of iron, being in contact with the mineral walls of the pores, and being sealed in tiny pores, away from the enzymes and other body chemicals, can act to preserve remnants of the original proteins. Also, if soft tissue is initially dried out before it decays, it undergoes changes that make it more stable even if it is later rehydrated. Thus, several plausible mechanisms are known to help explain the preservation of these flexible tissues, and there are likely other factors yet to be discovered.