Soft Tissue Found in Dinosaur Bone? Uh-Oh!

If dinosaur remains were found which were obviously not millions of years old, what would that discovery do to Darwinian evolutionary theory and the incredibly long time span that evolutionists claim was necessary to their beliefs?

Most evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became extinct at least 65 million years ago, right? That proposition is often stated as fact in museums, zoos, textbooks, websites, and even movies (such as Jurassic Park, 1993, and its sequels). In most cases debate is not allowed. Those who question this unproven theory are sometimes regarded as religious quacks or extremists with their heads in the sand, oblivious to the “truth” of evolution evident all around them. The Genesis account of creation is dismissed as mythical and unbelievable.

Recent discoveries, however, have raised serious doubts about the entire evolutionary timetable. Would you believe that scientists have found apparently young biologic materials in dinosaur bones? It’s a fact. Archaeologists have uncovered soft tissue and blood vessels, that scientists had said previously could not be more than several thousand years old, inside dinosaur remains. That amazing find, which is beyond dispute, gravely threatens the “millions-of-years” scenario so widely accepted and so confidently proclaimed.

In 2005 a Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton was discovered in a remote area in Montana. Because the thigh bone was too large to fit in a helicopter, it was cut in half at the site before being removed. Mary Schweitzer, Ph. D., a paleontologist with Montana State University, examined part of the bone under a microscope when she saw what evolutionists had previously considered impossible.

The dinosaur bone contained soft tissue, blood vessels, and possibly red blood cells.

Photo source: http://creationstudies.org/Education/T_Rex_dinosaur.html

Scientists agree, whatever their view of life’s origins or the age of the Earth, that these biologic elements were found inside that dinosaur bone. They agree further that these materials were original to that dinosaur, not from another source. They have also long known that such elements could not survive more than several thousand years.

No wonder Discover Magazine called it, “Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery,” in the April, 2006, issue. Note the following excerpt in bold:

Two years ago, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana.

For the full article, see http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna.

For additional material, check these sites:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1422

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

http://creationstudies.org/Education/T_Rex_dinosaur.html.

Search online for “dinosaur soft tissue,” and you will find numerous resources.

Of course this poses a great dilemma for most evolutionists. They either have to accept the fact that the dinosaur bone is not millions of years old, or they have to declare that the soft tissue is millions of years old. Perhaps a third alternative would be to say, "Uh oh! We had not expected this! We'll do further study on this before we keep insisting that the millions-of-years claim is correct. After all, it is just a theory."

What about Dr. Schweitzer, the paleontologist who made the discovery? I contacted her by email to ask about her conclusions. She was most kind to respond quickly and to dialogue with me. However, she continued to insist that somehow the dinosaur bone and even the soft tissue must be 65-80 million years old. In other words, she rejected virtually universal previous scientific conclusions that such a life span for soft tissue was not possible. She did admit, however, that she and other paleontologists do not fully understand how fossilization has occurred. That was quite an admission. However, that is just about the only other answer that can be given. It sounds very weak, in contrast with the dogmatic assertions that many evolutionists have made.

I am not a scientist, and I respect those who are. I certainly do not have all the answers. However, I just do not see how the soft tissue in that bone can be millions of years old! This discovery, as well as numerous other matters of scientific fact, contradict and disprove the whole evolutionary system. They further confirm to me that what God has told us in Genesis 1-2 is true.

Cory Collins