Discovery of Fossilized Brain Matter Floors Scientists, Challenges Evolution

Norwegian Dig Site 2STOKKE, Norway – Archaeologists working in Norway were recently stunned when they discovered what appears to be remains of a fossilized brain—a find that could prove to be a significant challenge to the evolutionary timescale.

A team of about a dozen scientists affiliated with the University of Oslo in Norway has been digging for the past two months in a fjordside area near Oslo. The researchers believe the location was once the site of a Stone Age civilization, where—according to secular models—humans supposedly lived 8,000 years ago.

As reported by Norwegian Broadcasting, the team of archaeologists has unearthed several noteworthy specimens, including ancient bone remnants and other biological material.

“The fact that we’re uncovering a whole lot of things that are exceptional on a national basis, makes this very special,” said Gaute Reitan, the leader of the excavations.

However, one find in particular completely surprised the scientists and may directly contradict the evolutionary timeframe. The shocking discovery came when the archaeologists noticed softer gray material inside a skull remnant.

“It’s not easy to see, you need to have some training and have an open mind,” Reitan told reporters. “But we saw something brown, with a bit darker surface.”

The scientists believe they have found brain matter, somehow preserved after all these years.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Inside [the skull] is something rather grey and clay-like,” Reitan explained. “You can just think for yourself what that may be.”

Right now, the scientists are unsure whether the bone fragments belonged to people or animals. Regardless, their dating methods indicate that the specimens from the dig site, including the apparent brain matter, are nearly 8,000 years old.

Can brain matter survive for eight millennia without disintegrating entirely? Brian Thomas, science writer for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), says that is highly unlikely.

“The biblical idea of post-Flood mega-storms supplies a framework for rapid and catastrophic inundations—those unique conditions required to mineralize soft organs before the tissues disintegrate,” Thomas wrote in a recent ICR article. “Plus, the idea of a recent creation supplies a timeframe for ancient soft tissues to fit within their expected shelf-lives.”

Thomas says this Norwegian find is similar to a 2010 discovery, when potential brain remnants were found on an African ape fossil that was allegedly 1.9 million years old. These discoveries, Thomas argues, do not comport with the evolutionary timeframe.

“In a biblical framework,” Thomas wrote, “the remains from both the African and Norwegian fossil sites were buried after the Flood, and would thus be fewer than 4,500 years old. Since brains disintegrate with time like all soft tissue, older age assignments for fossil brains seem less credible.”

However, the biblical model may provide a better explanation for these recent discoveries. In fact, in a 2009 article, Thomas predicted that scientists would likely unearth brain matter and soft tissues in fossil remains.

“Given the catastrophic formation indicated by most of earth’s geologic structures and the massive extermination of life represented in the fossil record … the biblical Flood is a valid and relevant interpretive key to earth’s past,” he wrote at the time. “It can be expected that more soft tissue fossils, including brains and perhaps visceral organs, will be found.”

As previously reported, a scientist at California State University was recently fired for discovering soft tissue on a Triceratops fossil. In a similar situation, a team of Canadian researchers were surprised to find well-preserved dinosaur remains on a fossil that was purportedly 60 million years old.

Photo: Norwegian Broadcasting

A special message from the publisher...


Print Friendly
  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Jacob, not sure if you read down here, but I just want you to know that, yes, it is fully consistent with a YEC view. I used to be an OEC (and before that, sadly, a Darwinist a-theist, I mean anti-Christian), but switched to YEC on the scientific and Biblical evidence. While I respect OEC, but not Darwinism, which is a complete fairy tale, I think that there are plenty of soft tissue and other evidences for YEC.

    There are, of course, issues for both OEC and YEC, but nothing even remotely as problematic as for Darwinism. I suggest you check out the ICR website, if you haven’t already, and follow the evidence where it leads you. Frankly, my background as an engineer tells me that even rocks do not have the necessary internal compressive strength to withstand billions of years.

  • Jim

    Michael, it appears you are well read and bring a thoughtful position in this discussion. You are quick with your facts and conclusions. but I must say that I respectfully disagree with almost every premise you tout as scientific fact.
    If your arguments are correct, which I again most strongly do not believe, then what have I lost if I choose not to believe them? ….nothing! I am living a full and satisfying life. But, on the other hand, if I and others like me who believe in the God of the Bible, the God of all creation, the God of salvation through Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God…if we are right, then what have you lost? The answer is all of eternity separated from God. The God that you are trying so hard to disprove will be the one you will stand before in judgement.
    I’m sure that this point you are chuckling, but what IF I am right and what IF you are wrong? God said in His Word that he would confound the wise with the simple things of this world….like creation and the simple fact that God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever would believe in him would not perish, but have everlasting life.

  • natan

    It is very saddening to see such a non-sensical, misleading and purely ideological piece of writing both try to pass as “informative” and an example of “critical thinking” to its readers when there isn’t a shred of it present. And all under the auspice of “Christian News” (as if hating on science has any relation to our faith)

  • Greg Robertson

    A hugely biased article. Only the Young Earther Cult are consulted on how this allegedly “contradicts the evolution timeframe.” Terrible bias reporting.

    • Spectrum

      Ha ! A case of shoot the messenger because you don’t like the message ? Methinks so.

      A question for you evotards ; how did scientific laws and principles come to exist ?

      • Bluesman1950

        A magic fairy made them?

        • Spectrum

          Would you care to answer my question ?

          • Bluesman1950

            These are the properties we observe in the Universe. They exist. Do you seriously need some form of supernatural draughtsman or engineer to have constructed them? If there was such a being, the question of how he, she, or it came to exist would also be relevant.

            I don’t know ‘why’ there is gravity, or any other phenomenon in the universe and neither do you. I, however, do not feel the need to invent any form of magician to explain what we don’t yet know.

          • David Cromie

            As I replied to the question on another thread;

            “You believe in a sky fairy, and that is merely an imagined something from nothing, unless you have a non circular argument to the contrary. If you do have such an argument, reveal it. If you don’t, then be honest and say so.

            On the subject of things scientific, you obviously do not have a clue. Scientifically speaking, at the moment there is no better theory available for the beginning of the universe than the Big Bang Theory.

            Why complicate things, unnecessarily, with superstition, and supposed supernatural creator entities, when these are not an explanation, nor do they add anything to the science? They are just another way of saying ‘I don’t know’! to the question ‘Where did we come from’.

            In these more scientifically enlightened times, recourse to the supernatural is nothing more than an admission of culpable ignorance, and of a failure to think logically”.

            Thus creationism is blatantly anti-intellectual, and pro Mediaeval superstition and scientific ignorance.

          • Bluesman1950

            Unfortunately I have been blocked by WND for trying to suggest that jailing the bigoted Kentucky court clerk was not as bad as the Nazi holocaust, as was being suggested. but I will respond here to your assertion there that UKIP got more votes than the Conservatives at the last general election.

            Nonsense! UKIP got 13% of the votes, the Tories got 38%!

            Sorry to contradict your opinions with facts.

          • Spectrum

            My error. However,they still did well, and could have done better if the system had been more reflective of voters intentions.

            Quotes from the “Guardian” newspaper –

            “….in terms of the share of the vote, Ukip was the third largest party behind Labour and the Conservatives. Overall, Ukip secured 12.6% of the vote, an increase of 9.5 percentage points from the 2010 election, the largest of any major party and more than three times the size of the SNP’s improvement.



            So if the voting system was reformed, as it should have been by now, Farage’s UKIP would have been just behind the major parties. That’s some achievement !

          • Bluesman1950

            I agree that they did well and that the system is unrepresentative of widely distributed minority opinion, but that is not the point. You clearly failed to check your facts before posting completely false nonsense alleging something wildly untrue.

            If you want to attack those who prefer evolution to magic as “evotards”, you might want to try thinking a little before demonstrating your own colossal ignorance in at least one other field.

  • David Cromie

    Do these cretins believe that the earth is only 8,000 years old? If so, when did the ‘Flood’ at Stokke, which they talk about as a framework for dating, take place? 4,500 years ago? What planet are these creationists living on? But wait, how silly of me, I had forgotten that the monkeys from the “…Institute for Creation Research (ICR)…”, which is a world renowned centre of excellence in these matters, really do know their stuff.