Christian PhDs: 5 New Discoveries That Have Atheists SCRAMBLING

Summary

---

The Creation Podcast (ICR):

Episode: Christian PhDs: 5 New Discoveries That Have Atheists SCRAMBLING
Date: March 26, 2026
Host: Mary Claire (The Institute for Creation Research)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Creation Podcast counts down the five most significant scientific discoveries of 2025 that, according to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), challenge conventional long-age evolutionary views and align with the biblical account of origins. Four ICR PhD scientists—Dr. Jake Hebert, Dr. Jeff Tompkins, Dr. Tim Clary, and Dr. Brian Thomas—discuss research in astrophysics, paleontology, genetics, geology, and paleobiochemistry, each presenting evidence they argue supports a young Earth and the global flood framework described in Genesis.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Mature Galaxies and the James Webb Space Telescope

Guest: Dr. Jake Hebert, Physicist
Segment Start: [02:13]

• Discovery: The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is detecting "mature" galaxies at extreme distances, i.e., very soon after the Big Bang by secular chronology.

  • Quote (Dr. Hebert, [02:55]):
    "What appear to be very mature galaxies at extreme distances, and they were not expecting that... they believe it takes hundreds of millions of years for these galaxies to form.”
  • Specifically, a confirmed galaxy is placed just 280 million years after the Big Bang, pressing the limits of the existing model.
  • Attempts to resolve this include proposals to "double the age of the universe" ([04:13]), revealing the fragility of model assumptions.

• Implications: Such findings challenge the slow, gradual processes of the Big Bang model and suggest that if timelines can be arbitrarily extended, the current scientific confidence in those timelines is questionable.

  • Quote (Dr. Hebert, [04:13]):
    "If you can just snap your fingers and double the age of the universe, how seriously should we be taking these ages?"

• Biblical Context: Dr. Hebert argues that these discoveries don’t contradict the biblical account and that Christians should notice when data is troubling to evolutionary cosmologists.

  • Quote (Dr. Hebert, [05:22]):
    "The scientists were so bothered by this... there was one astronomer who said that he was lying awake at night wondering if everything he had believed up to that point was wrong."

---

2. Revised Growth Rates in Dinosaurs—T. Rex and Sauropods

Guest: Dr. Jake Hebert
Segment Start: [05:41]

• Discovery: New analysis suggests Tyrannosaurus rex may have matured over 40 years (up from the previously believed 25 years). Sauropods like Apatosaurus could have taken up to 100 years.

  • Method: By aligning partial growth curves from multiple specimens, researchers created a "super growth curve" ([06:20–08:10]).
  • Quote (Dr. Hebert, [09:58]):
    "A delayed or prolonged maturation interval is strongly associated with greater longevity... animals were living a long time."

• Biological Significance: Large animals typically mature slowly and live longer. This fits a pre-flood world as described in Genesis, where longevity was common.

  • Quote (Dr. Hebert, [10:08]):
    "Unless you want to say that longevity was supernatural... there just seems to have been something about the pre-flood world that normally allowed people to live longer."
  • Dr. Hebert connects this to Genesis, arguing that if humans lived longer, so did animals, including dinosaurs.
  • Emphasizes that soft tissues in dinosaur fossils—chemically unstable over millions of years—add to the case against deep-time evolutionary scenarios ([11:35–12:06]).

---

3. Human–Chimp DNA Similarity: A Reassessment

Guest: Dr. Jeff Tompkins, Molecular Biologist
Segment Start: [12:17]

• Discovery: Contrary to the oft-quoted 98-99% DNA similarity, end-to-end genome comparisons in recent studies show only 84–85% similarity between humans and chimps.

  • Early estimates relied on cherry-picked, protein-coding fragments and used methodologies that biased the numbers upward.
  • Advances in long-read sequencing and removal of human DNA contamination from chimp datasets provide more accurate, lower similarity figures.
  • Quote (Dr. Tompkins, [19:30]):
    "It was 84 to 85% similar... it validated my research that I had completed seven years before."

• Broader Relevance: The lower similarity is problematic for the standard evolutionary models, which require ~99% similarity for their timelines and mechanisms to work.

  • Quote (Dr. Tompkins, [22:33]):
    "When you throw in numbers like 84%, it totally wrecks the whole paradigm... throws evolution out the door."
  • Tompkins emphasizes the theological implications—if humans are not biologically close relatives to chimps, the biblical teaching on the uniqueness of humanity stands reinforced.

---

4. Sedimentary Rock Forms Rapidly, Not in Millions of Years

Guest: Dr. Tim Clary, Geologist
Segment Start: [24:37]

• Discovery: A 2025 study documented the full cycle of sedimentary rock formation—from source material to cemented rock—occurring in just 35 years, as verified by historical artifacts embedded in the rock.

  • Natural case study: Industrial slag from the England-Scotland border formed sedimentary rock layers with modern objects (1934 coin, post-1989 can tab) trapped within them ([27:47–29:51]).
  • Quote (Dr. Clary, [27:01]):
    "They can make sedimentary rock in a matter of decades... all within 35 years or less."

• Significance for Flood Geology: The event shows a modern analogue for rapid sedimentation and lithification—processes proposed for the global Flood—but previously dismissed by conventional geologists as requiring immense timescales.

  • Quote (Dr. Clary, [31:19]):
    "Day in and day out, we're finding evidence of rapid sedimentation, rapid erosion, rapid transport, and now rapid sedimentary rock formation, all within a matter of just decades."
  • Dr. Clary argues this vindicates the biblical Flood narrative and the young-earth geological models.

---

5. Original Proteins Found in Dinosaur Fossils

Guest: Dr. Brian Thomas, Paleontologist/Biochemist
Segment Start: [32:15]

• Discovery: Publication of collagen protein sequences from an Edmontosaurus fossil in the high-impact journal Analytical Chemistry. Five analytical techniques confirmed the presence of these proteins, with measured quantities of hydroxyproline.

  • Quote (Dr. Thomas, [34:46]):
    "We described collagen protein sequence from an Edmontosaurus fossil... five different analytical techniques... Each one says the same message: This is really collagen."

• Challenge to Long-Age Timelines: Collagen and other proteins have well-established decay rates (hundreds of thousands of years maximum, even under best conditions). Their existence in purportedly multimillion-year-old fossils directly contradicts deep-time models.

  • Quote (Dr. Thomas, [38:32]):
    "It can last thousands of years, but it can't last a million."

• Mainstream Response: Many secular scientists dismiss such findings out-of-hand or simply avoid engagement with the data.

  • Quote (Dr. Thomas, [40:31]):
    "'Oh, that's all bad science.'... What a silly thing to say. But it reveals... 'I don't want to know because that's too threatening to what I believe.'"

• Faith Integration: Dr. Thomas emphasizes, as do other guests, that these scientific discoveries should embolden Christians to trust the biblical narrative, including the global Flood and special creation.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Dr. Hebert on Astronomers’ Reactions:
  "There was one astronomer who said that he was lying awake at night wondering if everything that he had believed up to that point was wrong." ([05:22])

• Dr. Tompkins on the DNA Data Shift:
  "It validated my research that I had completed seven years before..." ([19:30])
  "When you throw in numbers like 84%, it totally wrecks the whole paradigm." ([22:33])

• Dr. Clary on Geology Education:
  "Day in and day out, we're finding evidence of rapid sedimentation, rapid erosion, rapid transport, and now rapid sedimentary rock formation, all within a matter of just decades." ([31:19])

• Dr. Thomas on Peer Review:
  "We tick all the boxes, we get the peer review, and then we finally get it into print. Then we can talk about it." ([36:33])

• Dr. Thomas on the Broader Scientific Resistance:
  "If you take the time out of that geologic column... there's no time for evolution. So there's a lot of beliefs that are at stake." ([41:09])

---

Key Timestamps

• [02:13] – Dr. Jake Hebert on galaxy maturity and JWST
• [06:20] – Dr. Hebert on dinosaur maturation findings
• [12:17] – Dr. Jeff Tompkins on human-chimp DNA similarity
• [19:29] – 84–85% similarity number revealed in Nature's supplemental material
• [24:37] – Dr. Tim Clary on rapid sedimentary rock formation
• [27:01] – Study showing entire sedimentary rock process within 35 years
• [32:15] – Dr. Brian Thomas on dinosaur proteins published in Analytical Chemistry
• [38:32] – Collagen decay rate: can’t last millions of years
• [41:09] – “No time for evolution”
• [43:06] – Why these discoveries matter for Christian faith

---

Final Takeaways

• Consistent Theme: Across diverse fields—cosmology, paleontology, genetics, geology, and biochemistry—recent discoveries are presented as being more compatible with a biblical worldview than with secular evolutionary timelines.
• Science & Scripture: The recurring assertion is that the conflict is not between science and the Bible, but between data and the philosophical assumptions imposed on them.
• Encouragement: Listeners are encouraged to trust Scripture where it speaks on origins, as the hosts argue that mounting scientific evidence continues to align with and affirm the biblical narrative.

---

For Listeners

If you haven’t heard this episode, this summary captures the major arguments and scientific developments discussed, the reasons why ICR scientists believe these are “game-changing” for their perspective, and provides direct insight and quotes from the PhDs themselves—helpful for those exploring the science–faith conversation from a creationist standpoint.

Transcript

[A]

If you've paid attention to science headlines lately, you may have noticed something interesting. Across astronomy, genetics, geology and paleontology, researchers are publishing discoveries that don't fit neatly within long age expectations. From James Webb's images of unexpectedly mature galaxies to dinosaur research and genetic studies challenging familiar origin stories, these aren't fringe ideas or spec. They're peer reviewed discoveries that made waves in 2025. And when you step back and look at them together, they tell a surprisingly consistent story, one that aligns remarkably well with a biblical worldview. Today's episode is different from anything we've ever done before. Instead of one topic with one scientist, we're highlighting five major discoveries from four ICR scientists working across multiple fields. Welcome to the Creation Podcast, where we explore how science confirmed scripture. I'm your host, Mary Claire. And today we're counting down the top five scientific discoveries of 2025 that confirm a biblical worldview. We'll hear from Dr. Jake Hebert on two major discoveries, what the James Webb Space Telescope is revealing about the age of the universe, and a new study suggesting Tyrannosaurus rex may have taken up to 40 years to mature. Dr. Jeff Tompkins will walk us through genetic research that confirmed and vindicated his work on the chimp genome. Dr. Tim Clary will explain why sedimentary rock does in fact, form rapidly. And finally, Dr. Brian Thomas will discuss his recent publication in a mainstream journal on original dinosaur proteins preserved in fossils. We're starting with one of the most talked about scientific instruments of our time, the James Webb Space Telescop. Since its launch, Webb has delivered breathtaking images, but also some unexpected problems for mainstream cosmology. Joining US first is Dr. Jake Hebert, physicist and ICR researcher. I am so excited to discuss these fascinating topics with you today, Dr. Hebert.

[B]

Well, thank you. Thank you, Mary Claire, for having me.

[A]

Of course. So, in about one sentence, what is your role here at ICR and how does the James Webb Space Telescope fit within your wheelhouse?

[B]

Well, I'm a research scientist here at icr. My background's in physics, and so I try to keep my pulse on things that are cosmology related, astrophysics related, because that comes up a lot when you're having these discussions about creation versus evolution.

[A]

Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. So when the James Webb Space Telescope, when it launched, many scientists expected it to confirm what they already believed about the early universe, but it seems to actually be doing the complete opposite. So what are astronomers actually see?

[B]

What appear to be very mature galaxies at extreme distances, and they were not Expecting that, because they think that when you look deep, deep, deep into space, you are looking back to a time very shortly after the Big Bang. And they believe it takes hundreds of millions of years for these galaxies to form. And so for them to see galaxies mature, looking galaxies at such early times after the Big Bang, by their reckoning. And of course, we don't accept that timeline, but it's a surprise to them. And you know, it wasn't that long ago that the mainstream scientists said that the first stars were not formed until about 400 million years after the Big Bang. Now, they don't all agree, but most of them would say that the stars came first and then galaxies. Well, they've got a galaxy whose distance has been confirmed given the standard assumptions that they think by their reckoning, it existed 280 million years after the Big Bang. So that's putting a lot of stress on their model.

[A]

Yeah, that really proves to be like a really big issue for that standard Big Bang timeline. Just like you said, some people might hear that and think, like scientists, they'll just tweak the model. Why is that such a huge issue?

[B]

Well, you can only tweak it so much. Remember, they believe that you have these slow, gradual processes to explain how things came about. And, and it's, you know, the question is, do they have enough time? Even now, it just puts more stress on them. In fact, it's so bad that one physicist said, well, we could get rid of this problem by just doubling the age of the universe. And it's like, okay, well if you can do that, if you can just snap your fingers and double the age of the universe, how seriously should we be taking these ages? Probably not too serious.

[A]

Yeah, probably not at all.

[C]

You're right.

[A]

So from a biblical worldview, why should believers pay attention to discoveries like this instead of just like brushing them off or.

[B]

Well, you know, we're being told that science disproves the Bible, and so we need to be paying attention. When it is apparent that there are problems in the mainstream model. And often, just even reading the popular science literature, if you're paying attention, you can often read between the lines and tell when something is bothering the evolutionist.

[A]

Yeah, you really can.

[B]

The scientists were so bothered by this. There was one astronomer who said that he was lying awake at night wondering if everything that he had believed up to that point was wrong. And now they're sort of acting like, oh, it wasn't that big a deal. But you could tell when those results were first coming out, they were really Troubled by them.

[A]

Yeah, this is making really big waves in the world of cosmology right now. So what's fascinating is that challenges to long ages aren't limited to deep space. When we zoom in one way in, even dinosaurs are telling a story that doesn't quite fit evolutionary expectations. And that brings us to our second discovery, also researched by Dr. Hebert. A recent study suggested that Tyrannosaurus rex may have taken up to 40 years to reach full maturity. That's considerably longer than the earlier estimate of just 25 years. What new evidence led researchers to revise how fast T. Rex actually grew?

[B]

Okay, well, it's not so much that there was new evidence. They just found a better way to analyze the evidence they had. You see, there are growth rings in long bones like the tibia or femur, that you can count. And that's one way they can try to assign an age to a dinosaur bone. The problem is those long bones have a spongy center. And that spongy center gets bigger as the animal grows, and some of those growth bands get erased. And so it's always been a guessing game to what number do I assign to that first visible band? And so a lot of times they would just use one data point from a fossil, but you really had more data points. Like you might have seven or eight rings that you can see. And so you've got a part of a growth curve. Okay. You just don't know what number to assign to the first ring. Well, what they realized was, is that, you know, we've got all of these. You've got, you know, they had about a dozen of these partial growth curves, and that they realized very cleverly that they could slide those partial growth curves relative to one another so that the trajectory of one growth curve matches the trajectory of the other growth curve. And you can extend them end to end to get a super growth curve. Okay, so it's not. It's not perfect. You're still having to make some assumptions, but you're being able to use a lot more data. And so when they did that, they got an age of about 40 years. And they were very rigorous. They tried it different ways. Not all the bands are immediately. Some were only visible under what you call cross polarized light. And so they tried it four different ways. And it turns out they got the best overall results when they counted every single band. And that led to that age of 40 years.

[A]

I gotcha. So from a biological standpoint, why would extremely rapid growth in a massive animal like a T. Rex, like, why Would that actually be surprising?

[B]

Well, it would be surprising. It's more surprising for the sauropod dinosaurs. The evolutionists were claiming that the long necked, long tailed, humongous sauropod dinosaurs like Apatosaurus. There was one paper that was published in nature in 2001 that said it reached maturity in 15 years. Now that's just hard to believe. For an animal that big to reach it that quickly is just hard to believe. So, you know, bigger animals, you generally expect them, you would think they might take longer to mature, especially a sauropod dinosaur.

[A]

Okay, so if dinosaurs matured slowly, what does that imply about how long they lived and what kind of world they lived in?

[B]

All right. Well, there have been studies done of longevity in living animals, and those studies consistently, repeatedly show that animals that take a long time to mature tend to live longer. So a delayed or prolonged maturation interval is strongly associated with greater longevity. So what that means is that these animals were living a long time. And it's especially obvious with the sauropod dinosaurs. The people who did this study also got growth curves for the sauropod dinosaurs like Apatosaurus. And whereas other scientists were saying they matured in 15 years, they said, no, this is more like 100 years. 100 years for Apatosaurus to reach maturity. So that is a very long stretched out growth interval. And you would expect an animal that takes that long to mature would have a very, very long lifespan.

[A]

You definitely would. So to bring it all back, how does research fit naturally within a biblical framework of creation and these early Earth conditions?

[B]

Well, the Bible tells us that in the pre flawed world, people were routinely living to be 8 or 900 years old. And if you think about it, unless you want to say that longevity was supernatural, and I don't think there's any reason to do that, I don't think most creationists would say that. There just seems to have been something about the pre flood world that normally allowed people to live longer. Well, if you think about it, pretty much any mechanism that you can imagine to explain the greater longevity for humans would also apply to the animals. So some people think maybe it was genetic. Adam and Eve, when God made them, there were no mistakes in their DNA. So, you know, so that maybe that had something to do with it. Well, the same was true for the animals. Maybe it was environmental. Well, the animals were living in the same environment that Adam and Eve are and their descendants were. So you're pretty much forced to conclude that if people were living longer, the animals were too. And this also ties into Genesis chapter 5. Because in Genesis chapter 5, the earliest age at which a patriarch is listed as having a son is 65 years. Now, I just don't think people were hitting puberty at 12 or 13 like today and everybody was just waiting 40 to 50 years to get married. I just don't think so. So this is, this is, this makes perfect sense biblically. Now of course people will say, oh, you silly creationists, dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. No, they didn't. Okay, they are. Those fossils are found in sedimentary rocks which are almost always, even the evolutions would admit they're almost always water deposited. Those are from the flood. And we've got soft tissue in the dinosaur bones that we know based on well understood chemistry can't last even a million years. So those dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago. They were living in that pre flood world. And these long lifespans make perfect sense in light of what the Bible says.

[A]

Yeah, it really does. Well, Dr. Huber, you've given us a lot to chew on and just revealed some fascinating concepts to really think about. So thank you so much for your time.

[B]

Thanks for having me. Yes.

[A]

So whether we're looking at galaxies or dinosaurs, we keep seeing the same pattern. The data doesn't always cooperate with long age assumptions. And nowhere is that more measurable or more more precise than in genetics. Joining us now is Dr. Jeff Tompkins, molecular biologist at ICR. The next discovery we will discuss with Dr. Tompkins involves one of the most frequently cited claims in human evolution, the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. Dr. Tompkins, thank you so much for being back on the show today.

[C]

It's great to be back.

[A]

Amazing. So you've spent years working directly with genomic data. In a nutshell, what kind of research do you personally work on at ICR now?

[C]

Well, I first came to ICR and began working on the human chimp DNA similarity issue. And I actually worked on that for over 10 years. And right now I'm still working in genetics and I'm working with continuous environmental tracking as a theory of biological design and living systems. And we're actually working with the blind cave fish, the Mexicans tetra.

[A]

Sounds like it keeps you very busy here.

[C]

Yes.

[A]

So for decades we've heard that humans and chimps are about 98 to 99% genetically identical. So where did that number come from and how does your research differ from that?

[C]

Well, you know, that number originally came from just comparing protein coding genes that are very similar between humans and chimps and actually between humans and any mammal, the basic genes that encode proteins that perform metabolism and basic cellular function are going to be similar because it's common code from a common designer doing a common thing. So a lot of these early similarities were done before the days where we could sequence genomes literally from end to end and do it quite thoroughly and completely, which really, people might be surprised to know. This has only been done just recently, I would say, the past five years or so, where we've had the technology where we can literally sequence from end to end and get through the regions of the genomes that have been very difficult to sequence before. But now that we have that technology, it's becoming very enlightening looking at humans and their complete genome sequence and then comparing that to the complete genome of say, chimpanzees or gorillas or orangutans.

[A]

Right. So what are those numbers that you have discovered?

[C]

Well, when I first began investigating the issue, I actually, the first thing I did was download a lot of the top evolutionary papers comparing humans and chimps. And the first thing I noticed is that the scientists were, these conventional scientists were cherry picking the data. They were only comparing the regions that were very similar between humans and chimps. They were throwing out a lot of data that was highly dissimilar. At that point I said, I'm going to have to work with my own data. I began downloading DNA sequence from public databases, chimpanzee and human DNA sequence, and I began comparing the genomes. And it was kind of a long haul.

[A]

Yeah, I can imagine.

[C]

So to speak. There's a lot of hurdles that I had to jump through. One of them was the fact that in the early days of genome sequencing there was a lot of human DNA contamination in public databases. And I actually showed in one study that at the beginning of the chimpanzee genome project that there was a lot of human DNA contamination in the, in those early data sets, which made the genomes more similar than they should have been. Plus they were assembling the chimpanzee genome based on the human genome. So in the chimpanzee genome, they would just produce snippets of DNA in what we called a shotgun approach, where they wouldn't do it methodically section by section like they did the human genome, because they didn't have as much money as they did for the Human Genome Project. So they began just hanging these snippets of chimp DNA onto the human genome as a scaffold. And of course, that humanizes the chimp genome even more. And when you factor in the human DNA contamination, it makes it that much worse. So the early days of trying to compare human and chimp DNA sequence was kind of a challenge because of all these issues that were going on based on the technology that they had at the time. But despite all that, my data was showing the human and chimp genomes were about 84 to 85% similar. Now that the technology has gotten really good, we can now sequence genomes in very large chunks. They call it long read DNA sequencing technology. And there's a couple of different chemistries that are out there for that. But now this whole issue of human DNA contamination is not as much of a factor. And plus they can sequence through the genomes more readily anyways. And so I actually used some of this new data and a couple years ago published a paper in 2018. And I guess that's more than a couple years.

[A]

Yeah, I know at this point time

[C]

comes, time is really. Yeah, time really. So I published a paper in 2018 using this new DNA sequencing data that was available for chimpanzee and human. And I came up with a number of 84% similar chimpanzee compared to human. And interestingly, there's a geneticist in England named Richard Buggs. He was a conventional scientist and an expert in, in evolution and DNA sequencing and he actually came up with the same number, 84% similar chimp compared to human. So anyways, fast forward to last spring in 2025, they resequenced the chimpanzee genome as well as the gorilla and orangutan genomes. And they use this new technology and they literally sequenced the chimpanzee genome from end to end with a very high degree level of accuracy. And they said not really in the paper they published because they kind of avoided the whole issue in the main paper, which was about 17 pages long. And it was in a very top tier prestigious journal called Nature. But they said if you want to know more, go to the supplemental material. And so I went to, to that link and that was 171 pages long, like a book. And so kind of buried in there were the actual numbers for chimpanzee compared to human. And it was 84 to 85% similar.

[D]

Wow.

[C]

And why they did not put that in the main paper is kind of beyond me. But anyways, it validated my research that I had completed seven years before. And of course that Richard Buggs himself had also shown seven years before that. So it's pretty well settled now that the Genomes are no more than 84% similar. And you know, that doesn't include. So when you're comparing chimp to human, you've got regions in chimpanzee that are present in chimpanzee, missing in human, and vice versa. So that doesn't account for that kind of dissimilar similarity as well. So if we were able to somehow factor that in and develop new algorithms or whatever that could do that, it would be actually much less than 84% similar.

[A]

That is crazy for something that came out as being so controversial. Now all of a sudden all of these mainstream scientists are saying the exact same thing that you are. That is crazy and very enlightening and it gives you a little bit of hope about what's to come in the future too.

[C]

Yeah, well, anyways, I used to get a lot of flack, you know, from evolutionists over my data. What's interesting was they would never harass Richard Buggs in England, you know, but I was kind of the chief target. But, you know, I was at the point where, like, I really can't do it much more until, until the, these conventional scientists finally come up with a project where we can really look at the entire genome in very accurate detail. And sure enough, it happened. It took seven years, you know, from my last paper, and, you know, my numbers were dead on.

[A]

And that is incredible.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So why does genetic similarity matter so much for how people think about human uniqueness and biblical creation in particular?

[C]

Well, you have to remember that human evolution is highly theoretical. And so especially when you're comparing humans to chimpanzees, and so they have these theoretical statistical models and they're based on what's called the neutral theory of evolution. So they're assuming that there's large sections of the human genome that aren't doing anything. It's just junk DNA. It can randomly evolve and spit out new genes and all this nonsense. So anyways, based on these theoretical models, they need literally close to a 99% DNA similarity for these hypothetical theoretical models to even work. And so they claim that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor about 8 million years ago. 6 to 8 million years ago. I've seen some papers where they claim up to 15 million years ago because

[E]

it's all over the board.

[C]

Yeah, it's not really an exact science at all. It's all purely speculation and very theoretical. But when you throw in numbers like 84%, it totally wrecks the whole paradigm.

[A]

It does.

[C]

It doesn't allow these statistical models to even work. It totally throws evolution out the door.

[A]

Definitely does. Well, thank you so much, Dr. Tompkins. You've given us a lot to think about.

[C]

Thank you.

[A]

Is there any sort of key takeaways, way that you really want our listeners to hear and to know about the human DNA versus chimp DNA?

[C]

Yeah, absolutely. You know, the Bible is true. The Bible says that humans were created in the image of God. God did not evolve humans from apes. He created them on the sixth day of creation in his image. And so, you know, that's a big deal. And so why is human evolution such a big deal? Because, you know, it's a target where people think they can discredit, you know, the book of Genesis and the Bible. And, of course, humans are the pinnacle of God's creation. Exactly right. And so, and when you factor in that Genesis is literal, there really was a literal Adam. And Adam and Eve really did fall into sin, and they plunged, you know, creation and humanity into death and corruption. And that's how you explain evil in the world. That's how you explain why humans have a sin problem and why, you know, there's total depravity in the human nature and why we need a savior, why Jesus Christ, the son of God, had to come and die for our sins. So this all ties in to a literal genesis and the fact that humans were created in God's image. Adam and Eve were those first. Those first humans that plunged, you know, like I said, creation and humanity into sin and corruption. So, you know, for the whole Bible to even make sense, including why Jesus Christ had to come and die for our sins, you know, it really all goes back to that Creation Week event on the sixth day of creation, when God made humanity.

[A]

It really does. Genetics tells us about origins at the microscopic level, but geology tells the story at a massive scale. And in 2025, one geological process in particular gained renewed attention. Sedimentary rock layers are often presented as proof of a world that's millions of years old. But what if those layers don't require long ages at all? Joining us now is Dr. Tim Clary, geologist and director of research at ICR. Dr. Clary is going to discuss how sedimentary rock really does form fast, contrary to some popular belief. Thank you so much for being here, Dr. Clary.

[E]

Oh, it's my pleasure to be here.

[A]

Amazing. So, Dr. Clary, you've studied rock layers on a global scale. What makes sedimentary rock such a key, key issue in the origins debate?

[E]

Well, a lot of people think sedimentary rock takes a long time to form, as you mentioned, and you're taught this in School, every geology student is taught that sedimentary rock takes a long process and it's more complicated than some rocks. Igneous rocks just cool from a melt, and metamorphic rocks get either squeezed or cooked to a higher temperature and they change. But sedimentary rocks have to go through a process of, first of all, you have to have this sediment that forms from the weathering process. You have to have like pieces of rock that break off. And those rocks have to be transported usually by water of some sort. And then in the process, they often become rounded. Those pebbles become from angular chunks to more rounded pieces or sub rounded, different terms we use. And then eventually those have to be deposited somewhere else. So they can transport from a hill, for example, down a river, out to the ocean, into like a delta. Well, even then, the final step is cementing those materials together. So each little sand grain has to be unlike loose sand, it has to be kind of held together with some sort of a chemical cement. And so it's a long process. And so we've always been taught, every geology student gets taught the same thing. These take tens of thousands of years for this whole process to happen, or if not millions, sometimes. And the transport distance has to be a great distance. And so what's interesting is, is we're finding that's not true.

[A]

I see. So what kind of real world observations show that sedimentary rock can actually form quickly? Even though, like you said, there's a lot of people who think that it is going to take millions of years.

[E]

There was a groundbreaking study last year, just 20, 25, that showed that they can make sedimentary rock in a matter of decades. The whole process, from the raw material all the way to transportation of it, rounding of it, and the cementing of it, all within 35 years or less. How do you argue with that? They have actually really good data to support that in the process, which we can talk about here in a minute. But to show that, and that's to most geology students, that just blows their mind because it's like they're taught long deep periods of time for everything to happen, that whole process from beginning to end, yet this is all happening in less than 35 years.

[A]

Wow. So how does this rapid sedimentation that you're talking about, how does that make sense within the global flood framework?

[E]

Well, we would expect that the rapid sedimentation, you know, what happened during the year of the flood, most of the sedimentary rocks that we see and what I've studied globally, every continent, showing the same sort of order of rocks, the same pattern of rocks across all seven continents, now, and we're seeing that same general pattern in many places. You're looking at tens of thousands of feet of sediment, all deposited very, very quickly, and then, of course, becoming sedimentary rock after the flood, or maybe towards the end of the flood. Again, another very, very quick process that we have been, I guess, criticized for by the evolutionary community, by the conventional geologists, you know, oh, you can't make that much rock that fast. That's just crazy. But yet here we're seeing this. And one of the proofs that they found is this material was originally was an iron processing slag that went on from, I believe is the year, say from the 1856 all the way through the 1950s. So almost 100 years of debris. They built up a big cliff that was 100 foot high along the coast of Scotland and England, right above the boundary between the two. And they found out in the rock itself that this material was transported from this rough slag. This angular slag became rounded within probably just a few hundred meters distance at the most, and became laid out in layers and was actually cemented. They can prove it because they have a coin, King George V coin, they said, from 1934, stuck in their sediment, stuck in there, stuck in the rock. And even more than that, they found an aluminum can tab on top of a can tab that was not manufactured prior to 1989.

[A]

So when those mainstream scientists see things like that, what do they say about that? Like, how do they counter that idea?

[E]

Well, they kind of struggle with it. And they say this just, they said, this is just outstanding. Amazing that the sedimentary rock can form this fast. And it's the whole process, it's the transportation from the raw material, the rounding of the material, and the cementing of that material all within less than 35 years. Because that pop that can top aluminum can top shows that this had to be at the most, 35 years old.

[A]

That's amazing. So why is it that Christians should pay attention when they see things like this and these new stories coming out and these new evidence? Why is it important for Christians to care about that?

[E]

Well, this verifies a lot of what we've been saying all along as creation geologists and as Christians, when we believe there was a flood that happened about 4,500 years ago, and we believe all the sediments that we see, pretty much most of the sedimentary rock we see across all these continents, all was deposited in that one year of the flood. And that made most of our sedimentary rocks. All of this can happen very quickly. And this is the proof that this can happen very quickly. We've been saying it. We've been seeing the sediments being deposited at Mount St. Helens, for example. We know there's layers deposited in a matter of hours. Now we're seeing that the whole process, the whole rock cycle, so to speak, from the raw material can be rounded, transported, deposited and cemented, all within a very, very short time frame, 35 years or less, probably even less than that. So those of us that are creation geologists that believe in a global flood, this really vindicates what we've been saying all along, really verifies the whole process that this all can happen quickly. So this was a big, to me, is a big story. So as soon as you're out can happen in just a matter of a couple of decades. And I believe it probably was even faster than that during the flood year.

[A]

Yeah, I believe this is just an incredible story for us to talk about and to really, really dive into. So, Dr. Cleary, before we wrap things up, is there any sort of, like, key takeaway or anything that you want our viewers to come away with from watching this segment of the Creation podcast?

[E]

Well, I think we need to be careful when you're studying geology or hear about geologists talking about these rocks took millions of years to find form, or tens of thousands of years to form. Because day in and day out, we're finding evidence of rapid sedimentation, rapid erosion, rapid transport, and now rapid sedimentary rock formation, all within a matter of just decades. And so there really is evidence that the Earth is young. The flood was only 4,500 years ago or so, and that most of these sedimentary rocks can be explained by a global flood with all these rapid processes taking place. So even today, without the flood, the water of the flood and all that water that's moving around to help cement the rocks together, we're still seeing this is happening on the coast of England and Scotland today. So to me, it's amazing. And this will definitely be in my next book.

[A]

Oh, that's very exciting. I'm very excited to read your book and to just learn more about this topic as a whole. So thank you so much for your time here. We really appreciate it.

[E]

Oh, you're welcome.

[A]

Our final discovery that we'll discuss today takes us into the fossil record and into mainstream scientific literature with ICR paleontologists. Dr. Brian Thomas. I'm excited to round out this episode with you today. Dr. Thomas.

[D]

Me as well.

[A]

For years, claims of soft tissue and proteins in dinosaur fossils were dismissed or explained away. But in 2025, that changed in a significant way. So, Dr. Thomas, you've done quite a bit of work here at icr, particularly concerning proteins found in dino fossils. So can you give a brief overview of your background and this research that we're about to dive into?

[D]

My background is a master's degree in biochemistry. And well, after I started working at ICR in 2008, I began compiling original biomaterial discoveries. So in 2013, I published my first paper, which is a summary of 40 such discoveries. And since then, we've got a lot more. It's 130 such discoveries. And one of the most recent of those is one that I actually participated in. So these are mainstream science journals, peer reviewed science journals. So what I found over these years and I brought this research into my PhD program since working here at ICR. One of the trends that we found is that you might find original biomaterial in a fossil that's way down at the bottom of the geologic column, in the middle of it, anywhere. You might find some of this because it's already been found in any continent, and you might find it in any kind of what we call taxa, any of the taxa. So that means any creature kind. So it might be a vertebrate invertebrate, you know, all kinds of it might be inside of a shell, proteins in shell, proteins in bone, or sometimes it's proteins from feathers and claws. The proteins are still there, remnants of them. Now, they don't look pristine or anything, but they should be long, long gone if these fossils are anywhere close to the age assignments that I grew up being told about them.

[A]

Yeah, exactly. This is just such a fascinating and just complex topic. I'm so excited about it. So this year, what exactly was published inside that mainstream journal and why is it so significant?

[D]

Well, we were privileged and thrilled to finally get our research in a pretty high impact journal called Analytical Chemistry. And so in collaboration with other scientists, we were able to describe collagen protein sequence. So sequence means the string, if you will, of amino acids that is unique to each protein. So we know we're familiar with that sequence from all kinds of modern animals. So then we can compare the modern animal collagen protein sequence that are recorded in databases with the collagen protein sequence that we're pulling out of an Edmontosaurus fossil. So we did all the work acquiring the fossil, cataloging the fossil, making sure it's all above board and recorded, and then sending portions of this fossil to different labs for different analyses. So we have five different analytical techniques that we Brought to bear on this one fossil. Each one says the same message. This is really collagen. This is really collagen. This is really collagen. And for the first time in the history of this particular discipline of proteins in fossils, we quantified, which means we counted how much hydroxyproline, which is one of the amino acids that makes up collagen, how much is in there. So that was an exciting first step.

[A]

That's amazing. And all of this research is now published in a mainstream journal.

[D]

Yeah, Analytical chemistry. But that's the thing. Who subscribes to the. Is that like the average person's bedtime reading?

[A]

Probably not, but it's still fascinating and interesting.

[D]

Probably not. Well, that's why I love doing this podcast and getting the word out to folks who don't necessarily subscribe to that journal or read it. But that's what you have to do. These are the steps we take to do good science. We tick all the boxes, we get the peer review, and then we finally get it into print. Then we can talk about it.

[A]

Exactly. Which is what we're gonna do right now.

[D]

What we're doing now. Yes.

[A]

So why is the presence of this original proteins that you talked about, why is it such a problem for long age Earth timelines?

[D]

Well, the problem is clear if you know the decay rate or if you know about the decay rate of this protein. It is not a type of material that can last indefinitely. It has a shelf life.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

And in fact, we have characterized the decay rate of collagen many different ways, many different times. Both secular studies as well as

[B]

our.

[D]

We've redone the decay rate studies as well, but it doesn't matter. You could believe the moon is made of cheese and just do the experiment. So your belief doesn't really come into these empirical lab bench decay rate studies. You just measure the protein over time and watch and plot the results and see how it decays. So it does decay, and it gives us a strong understanding of. Of how fast it decays. And that gives us a strong understanding of how long it can possibly last. It has a shelf life.

[A]

There we go.

[D]

And the shelf life is under ideal conditions and cool temperatures with no bacteria, no radiation. You're gonna get. You might get this to last on the order of several hundred thousand years in theory. So it can last thousands of years, but it can't last a million.

[A]

Yeah, exactly.

[D]

Based on the science of. Well, it's really based on the second law of thermodynamics, which describes how systems that start off highly Organized, they lose organization, they randomize. So if you have hot coffee in your mug, the heat is concentrated in that mug, but over time it randomizes. That heat goes from high concentrations to low concentration. That's the second law. Similarly, you have a high concentration of organization with this protein and these amino acids in this particular order, will they randomize over time? And so that randomization process, that deorderliness that's happening, quite the word right there, that gives us a, I mean, it's the second law of thermodynamics. It's the, you know, it's the second most consistent law in all of science, most ubiquitous and widely known and everything. And so that's what you're up against if you want to make these proteins last for millions of years. You're up against the most studied and well known law of one of those laws of science.

[A]

Right, exactly.

[D]

Take that.

[A]

So that raises the question, what are secular scientists? How are they responding to this kind of evidence that you're talking about?

[D]

You know, there's lots of different responses sometimes. So I met a researcher, secular last year. I was visiting a dig site and I got to be introduced and appreciate all their dig work and everything and just asked the question, have you heard about blood vessels and other biomaterials that are in fossils? And as a fellow paleontologist, you ought to know, you know, so I thought maybe you're curious about that and immediately, oh, that's all bad science. Just like that. So in other words, it's just dismissal.

[A]

Just shut it down, basically.

[D]

Shut it down, don't want to know. Plugging my eyes, plugging my ears. It's just bad science. And I wanted to follow up and say, well, what has convinced you of that? Like what's bad about it? Because we have 130 papers. Exactly how do you have 130 bad science papers that describe these biomaterials in all kinds of animals all over the world? You're just going to say it's bad science. Well, what makes it bad science? Do we use worth the 36 techniques that we've used so far in this business, none of those are worth anything,

[A]

I guess not if that's their only answer.

[D]

What a silly thing to say. But it reveals something, doesn't it? I don't want to know because that's too threatening to what I believe. And there's a club. And if I want to stay in the club of scientists who believe, hey, these rock layers were deposited over eons and they show a record of our evolution from Worms, which came from germs to us, you know, that whole construction dies. Because if you take the time out of that geologic column, which is what these tissues do, because you've got. It looks young up here, it looks young down here, and it looks young at the bottom. So you flatten that whole timeline. And there's no time for evolution. So there's a lot of beliefs that are at stake. And so it takes a brave person to challenge those fundamental beliefs. But I think that's what these data do. If you let them, if you do.

[A]

I know you say brave person. Honestly, you're kind of one of those brave people. Because at one point in time you did believe what these secular scientists were saying, didn't you?

[D]

I did. I had to face up to the facts, but I didn't want. That was my reaction to evidence for creation years ago now. And my first reaction was, it's just bad science.

[A]

Exactly.

[D]

But fortunately, I had a friend who kept challenging me. And so we had that friendship, that was an open door. And he kept saying, what science, what experiments have they run to show these things? And I was like, I don't know if they've done any good experiments. That's a good question. And I would like to have asked this paleontologist that I mentioned, follow up questions, but we didn't have the rapport built and I could tell she just was shutting the door. It takes two to talk. So if one doesn't want to talk, then that's, that's how that goes.

[A]

I just can't do it right now, basically. So to bring it all back home, why should Christians pay attention when discoveries like this make it into those mainstream journals?

[D]

Okay, well, we live in a world that attacks the Bible, attacks Genesis, attacks Jesus. And that's what our sins lead us to do. And so if you're going to live for yourself and live for the flesh and live a sinful life as we do before, before we come to faith in Christ, then you're gonna have. So there's this big worldview, this big worldview conflict. The world says this, you came from worms over eons. And a Christian can't go with that. If you're going to, if you're going to give God's word the respect that he says that we should give, Thy word is truth. Well, if it's truth, then we need to believe it.

[A]

Yeah, we do.

[D]

You know, and so what we see with this evidence, in this discipline, these blood vessels and tissues and protein sequences, is evidence that really fits the concept that these Rock layers and the fossils that are in them were deposited only thousands of years ago in Noah's flood. How do we learn about Noah's Flood?

[B]

The Bible, sort of.

[D]

The Bible, yeah. And so if the Bible is right about the flood, it's right about this, it's right about its history. And so the Bible's history. We now have more confidence as Christians, right, to go back to that Bible and go, ah, sorry, God, I wasn't believing you. Because I hear this, you know, onslaught of stories about the past written by secular scientists who weren't there to know whether or not these things happened according to the way they say it did. And now we have this evidence that fits this history that you're giving. And so as Christians, it's important so that we can stand firm on the word of God. Take God at His word. Because if we don't take him at his word over here in this part of the Bible, then we don't feel as confident taking him at his word in any other parts of the Bible, and we shouldn't. So with this evidence and so much other creation research, we can go back and say, oh, I can take you at your word here and here and here and all the way to the parts where it says, I am a sinner in need of a Savior. Like, that's. We need to take him at that word, too. It's the gospel truth, and it all stands together and it stands stronger now because of this evidence.

[A]

Just one more piece of evidence that shows how science confirms Scripture. And that is why we're here today. That's why we continue to put out episodes, and it's the message that we want to give to everybody who's listening. So thank you so much, Dr. Thomas, just for being here today and for sharing all of this incredible information and just really explaining how science confirms Scripture. It doesn't go against it. So thank you so much.

[D]

I appreciate it.

[A]

When you look at all five of these discoveries together, a clear theme emerges. The conflict isn't between science and Scripture. It's between the data and the assumptions often placed on it. In 2025, discoveries across multiple scientific fields didn't undermine the Bible, they reinforced it, showing once again that God's word provides a trustworthy framework for understanding the world around us. If today's episode helped you see science through a clearer lens, please, like, subscribe and share this episode, especially with someone who's been told that faith and science aren't compatible. If you'd like to support the work we do here at icr, consider joining our members and patrons community whose names are scrolling on the screen right now. Thank you so much for watching and we'll see you next time time on the Creation Podcast.