Revealing the Divine Significance of Dino Proteins and Blood Vessels

Dino Proteins and Blood Vessels: Are They a Big Deal?

The discovery of dinosaur soft tissue and proteins has sparked much debate and discussion within both the creationist and evolutionary communities. Many creationists see this as evidence that fossils are younger than conventional claims of millions of years. However, some skeptics argue that the Flood would have caused significant degradation of biomolecules, making their preservation unlikely. In this article, we will address eight key questions related to the significance of dino proteins and blood vessels from a conservative biblical perspective.

1. How do creationists interpret the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue and proteins?

Creationists view the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue and proteins as confirmation of a young earth as described in the Bible. While collagen, a tough biomolecule, has been found in some extraordinary cases, it is still considered very unusual. Creationist geologists do not propose that all fossils floated for a year before being buried during the Flood. Instead, they suggest that rapid burial occurred through various sedimentary activities, consistent with the observations of well-preserved fossils such as fossil fish.

The presence of collagen fibers on marine carcasses that have decomposed on beaches for months further supports the idea that organic material can survive in water for extended periods. This observation aligns with the rapid burial hypothesis during the Flood. Therefore, creationists interpret the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue and proteins as evidence that challenges the conventional notion of millions of years and supports a young earth viewpoint.

2. Why do some skeptics argue that biomolecules should not be preserved in fossils?

Skeptics who argue against the preservation of biomolecules in fossils often cite factors such as water, oxygen, and bacterial action as major sources of degradation. They claim that anything that died during the Flood and floated in water for a year would not have significant preservation of biomolecules remaining. These skeptics believe that both the conventional model and the Flood model predict minimal preservation of organic material.

However, it is important to note that the degradation of biomolecules in water is not as straightforward as skeptics suggest. The preservation of biomolecules, such as collagen, can still occur even if exposed to water for extended periods. Collagen is a resilient protein that can withstand decomposition in certain conditions. Skeptics often fail to consider the complex interplay of factors involved in decomposition and preservation, which leads them to underestimate the possibility of biomolecule preservation in fossils.

3. How do creationists respond to the argument that the Flood would cause degradation of biomolecules?

Creationists counter the argument that the Flood would cause significant degradation of biomolecules by highlighting two key points: rapid burial and the role of water activity. During the Flood, catastrophic events like turbidity currents (submarine landslides) would have rapidly buried creatures, including dinosaurs, before significant decomposition could occur. This rapid burial would have protected their organic constituents from degradation by oxygen, bacterial action, or water.

Additionally, creationists emphasize that water activity does not significantly affect equilibria in aqueous solutions. The excess water during the Flood would drive reactions to completion rather than hinder preservation. The concentration of water is so high compared to other solutes that its activity is treated as constant when it comes to equilibria. Therefore, any aqueous solution, including floodwaters, would have sufficient excess water for reactions to proceed towards completion.

4. How does thermodynamics impact the preservation of biomolecules?

Thermodynamics plays a crucial role in understanding the preservation of biomolecules in fossils. Even under optimal conditions, collagen is not expected to survive for millions of years at freezing temperatures or tens of thousands of years at moderate temperatures. Thermodynamic considerations alone suggest that fragile molecules like collagen would fall apart over long periods.

The significant difference between creationist and evolutionary predictions regarding the preservation of biomolecules lies in the timescales involved. Even the most optimistic estimates indicate that collagen would not survive more than a few million years at freezing point or moderate temperatures. Dinosaurs, believed to have lived in a warm climate, further support the idea that collagen preservation over millions of years is highly unlikely. Thus, from a conservative biblical perspective, the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue and proteins challenges the notion of deep time.

Kinetics, specifically reaction speed, also plays a critical role in understanding the preservation of biomolecules. The rate at which reactions occur depends on the free energy differences between starting materials and transitional states or reaction intermediates. Some skeptics argue that hydrolysis, the breakdown of proteins, occurs slowly and would be completed within tens of millions of years.

However, research has shown that protein hydrolysis would be completed well under 70 million years. The presence of neutral-buffered waters, which are often encountered in groundwater and geothermal systems, can actually retard acidic or alkaline hydrolysis. Groundwaters act as buffer solutions, resisting pH changes and reducing the rate of hydrolysis. This observation further supports the possibility of biomolecule preservation in fossils within a conservative biblical framework.

6. How do pH levels impact the preservation of biomolecules?

pH levels play a crucial role in the preservation of biomolecules, particularly through their impact on hydrolysis reactions. Hydrolysis occurs more rapidly when catalyzed by acid or alkali. However, neutral pH (~7) is less conducive to hydrolysis compared to either acidic (pH < 7) or alkaline (pH > 7) conditions. Groundwaters and geothermal waters, which are often encountered during fossilization processes, tend to be neutral buffer solutions that resist changes in pH.

The presence of neutral-buffered waters can help preserve biomolecules by retarding the rate of hydrolysis. This observation aligns with the conservative biblical perspective that organic material can be preserved in fossils, even over extended periods, due to favorable conditions during rapid burial and subsequent geological processes.

7. How does creationist interpretation differ from the evolutionary perspective?

The interpretation of dinosaur soft tissue and proteins significantly differs between creationists and evolutionists. Creationists see the discovery as evidence that challenges the conventional view of millions of years and supports a young earth perspective. They argue that the preservation of biomolecules is consistent with the rapid burial hypothesis during the Flood. From this viewpoint, the extraordinary preservation of organic material in fossils is expected, rather than an anomaly.

In contrast, evolutionists often view the preservation of biomolecules as a problem to be explained within their framework. Many have expressed disbelief that these structures could have survived for millions of years, leading to theories like biofilms as desperate attempts to explain away the evidence. The differences in predictions regarding the preservation of biomolecules highlight the contrasting assumptions and interpretations between creationism and evolution.

8. What implications does this discovery have for conservative Christians?

The discovery of dinosaur soft tissue and proteins has significant implications for conservative Christians. It challenges the prevailing secular narrative of deep time and supports a biblical understanding of a young earth. This discovery affirms the reliability of Scripture, as it aligns with the account of a global Flood described in Genesis.

From a practical standpoint, this discovery reminds conservative Christians of the importance of critically examining scientific claims in light of Scripture. It serves as a reminder that scientific interpretations are not infallible and should be evaluated through a biblical lens. Additionally, it reinforces the notion that scientific discoveries can provide evidence consistent with a conservative Christian worldview.

In conclusion, the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue and proteins is indeed a big deal from a conservative biblical perspective. It challenges long-held notions of deep time and provides evidence that supports a young earth created by God. The preservation of biomolecules in fossils can be explained within the framework of the global Flood described in the Bible. As conservative Christians, it is vital to critically evaluate scientific claims and recognize the compatibility of scientific discoveries with a biblical worldview.