DINOSAURS LIVED 65 MILLION-YEARS AGO…OR, DID THEY?

“Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State University’s Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of “Tyrransaurus rex” bone…when she noticed a series of peculiar structures. Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. ‘I got goose bumps’ recalls 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 so long?’
--JAMES J. S. JOHNSON, J.D., JEFFREY TOMKINS, Ph. D., and BRIAN THOMAS, M.S., ACTS & FACTS: VOL.38 NO. 10

In recent decades, soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones. They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were buried only a few thousand years ago.

Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State University’s Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone…when she noticed a series of peculiar structures, threaded through the bone-like red blood cells in blood vessels.

Paleontologists, in 2005, hailed the research that apparently showed that soft, pliable tissues [soft tissue] had been recovered from dissolved dinosaur bones.

What in the cock-a-doodle-do has that got to do with anything, you may ask? Well, I wondered the same thing. The answer is as follows: red blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. What, you may further inquire--unless you’re sitting in your recliner, in your underwear, finishing off your second six-pack of beer, watching a football game, and have no interest in anything of a biological nature--is so confounded important about that, that you interrupt me sitting in my recliner, in my underwear, finishing off my second six-pack of beer, watching a football game, when I have no interest in anything of a biological nature?

Simply stated, the answer is: The existence of 65 million-year-old DNA is biochemically inconceivable. Connective tissue decomposes and deconstructs over time, such that DNA should not survive at all, even if the creature was in existence only 50,000 years ago. Creationists, thrilled by recent soft tissue discoveries, as late as 2009, in dinosaur bone, claim these findings represent "proof" that the earth is indeed younger than evolutionists claim; and dinosaurs existed just a few thousand years ago. If the soft tissue is real and not bacterial biofilm--slime-- as some scientists claim, the findings turn the old-earth, evolutionary theory on its ear. This may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are generally not broadcast through popular media channels.

Since many people think of a fossil as having had the original bone material replaced by minerals, the presence of actual bone--let alone pliable blood vessels, red blood cells, and proteins inside the bone--is quite extraordinary. These discoveries also present a dilemma. Given the fact that organic materials like blood vessels and blood cells rot, and the rates at which certain proteins decay, how could these soft tissues have been preserved for ten thousand, let alone 65 million, or more, years?

These soft tissues have met with hard resistance from mainstream science, and some scientists have even discounted or ignored them. But recent studies continue to uncover fresh tissue, making the issue difficult to dismiss. That leaves us with two possibilities: (1) Either the vast evolutionary ages assigned to these skeletal discoveries are dramatically erroneous, or (2) "we really don't understand decay" rates of soft tissue and proteins.

Paleontologists who have analyzed the tissues, visible through their microscopes and squeezable with their tweezers, insist that there is something fundamentally wrong with laboratory data on biochemical decay rates. In turn, biochemists are confident that their repeated experiments show that soft tissues should not be present in dinosaur bone after 65,000,000 years have come to pass.

In a failed attempt to skirt the hard facts of soft tissues, some scientists have even proposed that the blood vessels and red blood cells in question were bacterial slime. This was thoroughly refuted, however, by research showing that the dinosaur tissue contains a collagen protein that bacteria do not produce. Nevertheless, the debate between the science of biochemistry and the science of “old earth” and evolution continues.

In addition to the tissues from the T. rex reported by paleontologist Mary Schweitzer in 1997, 2005, and 2007, new soft tissue finds keep surfacing. Schweitzer published a report on another sample in Science in 2009, this time from a hadrosaur, in which the precise characteristics of dinosaur biochemicals were verified by a third party. This was necessary to confirm the reality of the soft tissues to an incredulous scientific community. (Similarly, Schweitzer's 2007 results have also been verified.)

Yet another hadrosaur has been described by UK scientists as "absolutely gobsmacking” (English: astounding). Its tissues were "extremely well preserved" and contained "soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds."

If the theory that the earth is 65 million-years old, or more, is debunked, then scientists will have mud on their collective face; and they will be embarrassed for having arrogantly asserted the veracity of the theory of evolution. The government, too, would be forced to recognize creationism as a viable entity and reinstate prayer, not only in our schools, but everywhere, if for no other reason than to make amends for its years of promoting a false theory and for being so arrogantly critical of creationists.

For most scientists, to have their old-earth, evolutionary theories debunked, would be disastrous. Why? Because science, for most scientists, is a religion. So zealous and protective are they to preserve that religion, they actively suppress discoveries, such as the ones concerning soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Media are complicit in the cover-up as well.

Biblical data provide the time frame for the death of these dinosaurs in Flood deposits a few thousand years ago, but also a mode of deposition, in agreement with observable data, that their demise occurred when they "fell into a watery grave."

Don’t forget to say your prayers.

I’ll see you in the by and by.


Copyright © 2009 By ALLEN BALL ENTERPRISES