Unfossilized T-Rex with soft tissue discovered

[Ed. note: In late 2005, a report in TJ provided an update on the scientific appraisal of some of the bones discussed in this article. See John H. Whitmore, ‘Unfossilized’ Alaskan dinosaur bones? TJ 19(3):60.]

Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous—to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.

It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousand years old.

answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp to read the rest.

youtube.com/watch?v=YC6WNDSL6uw

Creationism contradicts itself on numerous grounds, most especially as it is willing to use science when it proves it’s points but not when the reverse is true. That alone is enough to condemn it for me.

The same can be said for evolution.

Why haven’t lobed-finned fish like the Coelocanth changed in the last 65 million years?

Why are there cave drawings of dinosaurs done by early man? (Thousands of years before dinosaurs were discovered, thus before their skin and musculature could be guessed)

Why is it that evolutionists claim that animal X evolved from animal Y when animals X and Y lived at the same time!?!

Evolution is a theory, and it has more holes in it than Creationism.

Quite frankly, God could do whatever the heck He wanted!

If God made Creationism obvious, then when we believe in Him, it wouldn’t be FAITH!
We’d KNOW.

Just because one species evolves in one area does NOT necessarily mean that the old species dies out. If an animal is widespread, and an environmental factor causes a mutation in only one small region of the world, the animal would evolve locally, and everywhere else, the old species would continue. There’s the famous example of the moths that changed color in England, for example, when local industrialization turned birch trees black from coal soot. Everywhere else, white moths could camoflage against the white bark, and a few rare black moths would stand out and get eaten. However, when the bark turned black in this town, the black ones survived and the white ones died. This DOESN’T mean that ALL white moths died, but just the ones near the town. The same thing figures with other animals. If nothing ever forces an adaptation, they will stay identical. That is why MANY precursor species, like Ginkgo trees, ferns, Coelocanths, sharks, and so on and survive.

Why are there cave drawings of dinosaurs done by early man? (Thousands of years before dinosaurs were discovered, thus before their skin and musculature could be guessed)

There aren’t any, to my knowledge, and I’ve studied this pretty thoroughly, including for some historical documentaries. Do you have a reference for this?

All I can say as an archaeologist/historian is…BS…this nonsense has been tried many times before and they have all been discredited.

Faith is great…Bishop Usher…a heretic from whence this ridiculous notion derived, thought so. Beyond that I’ll say nothing more in respect for the forum.

John

Either way it’s probably no good to eat now.

:smiley: …maybe you could use it to make some dinosaur soup stock.

Why haven’t lobed-finned fish like the Coelocanth changed in the last 65 million years?

In the last 65 million years, they went from minnow-sized freshwater insectivores to very large deep ocean carnivores. Neither of the living species of coelacanth exists in the fossil record, and there is no fossil coelacanth anything like the size of the ones living today. They had to evolve greatly to survive as their former niche was taken over by more robust and capable species.

Why are there cave drawings of dinosaurs done by early man?

None are identifiable as dinosaurs, but there were 22-foot monitor lizards living in various parts of the world when early man was about. They probably looked pretty much like what most people think of as dinosaurs.

Why is it that evolutionists claim that animal X evolved from animal Y when animals X and Y lived at the same time!?!

For the same reason that you and your uncle can be alive at the same time.

Evolution is a theory, and it has more holes in it than Creationism.

Now you’ve learned some of those “holes” are bogus. Learn more and you’ll find that God’s creation is much greater and more wonderful than any creationist will admit.

Quite frankly, God could do whatever the heck He wanted!

Then let Him. Accept that He did it the way He did it, and rejoice in His wisdom and power.

Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex?

Afraid not.

**Soft, organic material discovered inside a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil that scientists believed was 70-million-year-old dinosaur tissue may have been nothing more than ordinary slime, scientists said in a study published Wednesday.

Researchers reported in the online journal PLoS ONE that bacterial colonies infiltrating tiny cavities in the bones long after the dinosaurs died may have naturally molded into shapes resembling the tissues they replaced.

Carbon dating performed on one sample showed that the tissue-like material was modern, circa 1960.

After further examination with light and electron microscopy, researchers concluded that the substances were most likely remnants of biofilms, or layers of bacterial cells and the sticky molecules they secrete.**
latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-dino31-2008jul31,0,4166666.story

With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)?

No hemoglobin, either, but they did find some heme, fragments of hemoglobin molecules. Because it has antigenic properties, the heme was used to in an interesting way to test a prediction of evolutionary theory.

A rabbit in to which the heme was injected produced antibodies against it. These antibodies were then tested with heme from various animals. It reacted most strongly to that of a bird, rather than other reptiles.

Which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts; birds evolved from dinosaurs, and should be most similar in biochemistry to them.

It sounds preposterous—to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.

Now you know better.

Ok, playing scientist here, I know for a fact that an organism requires somthing to consume in order to survive. Some require only sunlight, but akll require moisture, there is no moisture in a fossle, how and why would some organism opt to imbedd itself within something that has nothing inherent to support life of any kind?

Guys, this is not the first time this has happened discovery wise, I now see how these get covered up, only this time, it’s not going to be so neat, for it has gained too much exposure already and the scientist that made the discovery is not a creationist to boot.

If you want to ignore the physical evidence in regards to the red blood cells, of which were proven to be just that with their initial trials using rat’s, of which I’m not going to get into nitty gritty details wise, at least know that the part that was tested was not fossilized, it was bone itself. How can bone itself survive 65-70 million years?

This discovery breaks down the very core of how we understand fossilization, we are in error in regards to that one alone. This discovery also breaks down the very core of how current science is handling these discoveries, luckily we are headed towards being able to clone animals, and in this case, eventually they will be able to use the left over matter to create a t-rex itself. It’s only a matter of time folks, we are already very close to this level of sophistication.

I do find it interesting that no research was given as to how it could have survived this long, this would be the approach taken for those that want to debunk this discovery, yet they missed the opportunity and gave us the lame excuse that it was from the 60’s, even though it was clear from the beginning that carbon dating was not going to be any good, that is why they did the rat testing initially.

Bottom line, the evidence for creation and a young earth is piling up, how much needs to be on the table before people realize that the bible was right and that our modern understandings of which contradict it is wrong? When do we get objective researchers in the mainstream scientific community? Why on earth do we stand by and let others with a clear aganda not to rock the boat regardless of the evidence, find ways of wording things to go in line with the current trends?

I used to believe in evolution, believe me, I am a very hard sale in regards to my core beliefs, I am I’m highly skeptical, seeing this and other evidence only reinforces what I have determined as being fact, that the bible clearly illustrates history in regards to the dinasaurs. Read Job sometime guys, it was written to end these kind of debates, nothing in the bible is there out of chance, or out of literary fluff, every single word has a clear purpose and it is to educate us.

Ok, playing scientist here, I know for a fact that an organism requires somthing to consume in order to survive. Some require only sunlight, but akll require moisture, there is no moisture in a fossle,

Often, there is a great deal of mosture in fossil, both by percolation, and also tied up chemically in water of hydration. Both are accesible to microorganisms.

Guys, this is not the first time this has happened discovery wise, I now see how these get covered up, only this time, it’s not going to be so neat, for it has gained too much exposure already and the scientist that made the discovery is not a creationist to boot.

No one wants to cover it up. It’s one of the best and unexpected supports for evolutionary theory there could be. A bit of preserved dino heme shows that birds did indeed evolve from dinosaurs. Why would scientists want to cover up that?

If you want to ignore the physical evidence in regards to the red blood cells, of which were proven to be just that with their initial trials using rat’s, of which I’m not going to get into nitty gritty details wise,

They aren’t cells. There’s not even hemoglobin left. But there are chemical subunits of hemoglobin.

at least know that the part that was tested was not fossilized, it was bone itself. How can bone itself survive 65-70 million years?

Anaeobic conditions can greatly retard breakdown. Scientists splitting mudstone often find green leaves therein (which quickly turn black and disintegrate in the air)

This discovery breaks down the very core of how we understand fossilization,

Actually soft fossils are not that uncommon. A number of invertebrates have them, and soft tissue can be recovered from insects in Amber.

It’s just rare for big animals.

luckily we are headed towards being able to clone animals, and in this case, eventually they will be able to use the left over matter to create a t-rex itself. It’s only a matter of time folks, we are already very close to this level of sophistication.

No. It’s not magic, and the genome of a T-rex cannot be recovered from bones like this.

Bottom line, the evidence for creation and a young earth is piling up, how much needs to be on the table before people realize that the bible was right and that our modern understandings of which contradict it is wrong?

The Bible is right; creationists are wrong. YE creationism is directly contradicted by Genesis.

I used to believe in evolution, believe me,

Hard to believe in a science. Scientists don’t. They accept or reject it on evidence. Probably, if you knew the evidence, your faith wouldn’t have been so easy to shake.

Barbarian, you and I keep going toe to toe on this one, it’s obvious no amount of evidence shown to you will suffice outside of placing you into a time machine and showing you what was going on 6k years ago. I wonder if you are even christian, are you??? I can look at both sides objectively, not just looking tunnel vision wise and take both sides of this debate to extreem levels. There are no missing links, not a single chain of species has been discovered to show some evolutionary process, not one single account from one single species, the laws of averages dictated that there will always be exceptions to every rule, yet we have not one. Your faith is within man not God, I prefer the latter over the former, it’s just now that the physical evidence is being brought to the surface for those that have no faith in God at all. This world is not the same now as it was before, the application, the processes, everything that was in the beginning are not the same as it is now, the rules do that apply to today did not before, and I’m happy to see the evolutiionists being proven wrong within my lifetime.

Dude, if you want to be an athiest, that is your decision to make, don’t pretend to have the same faith as the rest of us here, you absolutely do not on any level. Go back to your labrotory of disception elsewhere, I absolutely do not want to keep company with the likes of you, I have no room in my life to even dialog with athiests, especially ones that hide under a skin of diception posing as a christian. There are plenty of athiests boards for the likes of you, why don’t you just go there and leave the rest of us alone, we don’t want to hear your trash…

That said, to clear up a couple of your lies here, I have yet to ever find moisture hidden withing a rock, that lie you spoke of is bunk. Leaves that are found still green…hmm… that would require that they were instantly buried within the strata, kind of like some catastophy, perhaps a FLOOD of some kind quickly buried them. There is more I want to comment on, but I’m utterly discusted with even dialogging with yet another athiest, they tend to think their lies are all truths when in reality, they not only lie and decieve others, they lie to themselves so it’s impossible to get through to them.

reasons.org/resources/apologetics/dinosaur_blood.shtml

From a Christian website called Reasons to Believe:

Were actual red blood cells found in the T. rex bone as young-earth creationists claim? The data says “no.” The objects may be the remnants of blood cells–residual products resulting from cellular breakdown–but they clearly lack cell walls and other structures to claim they are red blood cells. Interestingly, Wieland seems to admit as much in his 2002 exchange with Jack DeBaun where he states:

The immunological reaction was the factor that, coupled with the histological appearance, made it more reasonable to claim these were actual red blood cells (i.e., their remains) [emphasis added].21

What is significant about this statement is, for the first time, Wieland seems to clarify that what he and other young-earth creationists are calling red blood cells are, in fact, cell remains. The problem is, regardless of the spin one puts on it, cell remains are not “real blood” and “morphologically intact red blood cells.”

Young earth creationists continue to cite the Earth article and ignore the other data, including the statements from Horner that no blood cells were found. They claim scientists have simply back-peddled from the original findings because admitting the objects were blood cells undermines the evolutionary dating scheme. However, the discovery of intact dinosaur blood cells would be an amazing find. What researcher would want to keep it quiet? At the same time, what researcher would be able to keep it quiet? To suggest a broad conspiracy among researchers to hide such an earth-shattering discovery is simply ludicrous.

As Christians, we have a responsibility to pursue truth in all matters. When we are wrong, we need to admit it. If we are unwilling to admit our errors in matters of science, why should anyone believe our statements about matters of theology? Intentional or not, young-earth creationists have fostered the idea that actual dinosaur blood–intact red blood cells with hemoglobin–was found by Schweitzer and her colleagues. Rather than digging in their heels, they should at the very least, provide full disclosure of the facts surrounding this discovery.

John

SCIENTIST FIGHT!!! :thumbsup: :smiley:

All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

I like the passage above (admittedly pulled from context) concerning then Cardinal Ratzinger’s reflections on Genesis. Like Chesterton pointed out in The Everlasting Man, “We come back once more to the simple truth; that at sometime too early for these critics to trace, a transition had occurred to which bones and stones cannot in their nature bear witness; and man became a living soul.”

I don’t care too much if creation took place 8,000 years ago or 200 million years ago, and I also happen to see no fundamental conflict with creationism and evolutionism. Evolution deals with the what followed after, while creationism explains how God brought everything into existence from absolute nothingness. The Bible explains the creation in the best way it could be communicated to people of such hugely-varying backgrounds and understandings of the world. While God may have used evolution as a tool of creation, the important thing is that we not let discussions like this turn our attention from the Creator Himself, and that we hold fast to this truth–no matter what may become of the theory of evolution in coming years.

Let me clarify something here for those that think they are all knowing, and I’ll place it within the context of big business.

Software and oil are nice prime examples to show. MS has dominated the scene due to it’s vast resources and it’s corporate gains in teh mainstream market. This has kept apple down, it has kept open source OS’s down, Linux for example, of which I’m currently running all of my computers from was an absolute no brainer to set up, Windows on the other hand is a total nightmare. MS packages their stuff to make you “think” it’s user friendly, yet it’s clearly not, it’s just packaged better. If you knew how easy it is to use a Linux box, you would never buy another windows OS again, heck, the new computer at work has Vista on it, it is slated to be wiped out and replaced with Linux because nobody wants to learn how to use Vista, even corporate America is clearly saying no to it and are opting to either use an old OS or a non MS alternative with Linux and Mac OS leading the way there.

Oil is also big business, everybody want’s an alternative to hit the market, yet the alternatives that exist for some reason simply cannot get into the mainstream market, now why is that??? It’s becasue the oil companies control the market, they have a monopoly just like MS and will stop at nothing to keep a competitor down.

Once evolution is accepted as being debunked, the researchers are now out of a job, the schools are now laying off people that teach that trash, the people that write the study material are out of work, there are so many fascets that are affected, of course they are going to keep any discoveries to themselves. They had 3 years to try to debunk it, this pitiful excuse for the recent rebuttle is the best they can do? It’s time our researchers stop doing their work out of personal agenda and look at everything objectively, I’m simply not buying it and I’lll be the first one on board to give the lot of them their walking papers.

I like the passage above (admittedly pulled from context) concerning then Cardinal Ratzinger’s reflections on Genesis. Like Chesterton pointed out in The Everlasting Man, “We come back once more to the simple truth; that at sometime too early for these critics to trace, a transition had occurred to which bones and stones cannot in their nature bear witness; and man became a living soul.”

That’s the part that science can’t talk about. It’s what the Church is for.

While God may have used evolution as a tool of creation, the important thing is that we not let discussions like this turn our attention from the Creator Himself, and that we hold fast to this truth–no matter what may become of the theory of evolution in coming years.

The major problem is that many atheists lost their faith when they learned that they YE creationism they were taught could not possibly be true. That is what matters the most in the issue.

Creationism is an effective atheist-maker.

Once evolution is accepted as being debunked, the researchers are now out of a job, the schools are now laying off people that teach that trash, the people that write the study material are out of work, there are so many fascets that are affected, of course they are going to keep any discoveries to themselves. They had 3 years to try to debunk it, this pitiful excuse for the recent rebuttle is the best they can do? It’s time our researchers stop doing their work out of personal agenda and look at everything objectively, I’m simply not buying it and I’lll be the first one on board to give the lot of them their walking papers.

I’m getting a hint that this isn’t really about science or religion at all for you, is it?

THE EVIDENCE

The evidence that hemoglobin has indeed survived in this dinosaur bone (which casts immense doubt upon the ‘millions of years’ idea) is, to date, as follows:

  • The tissue was colored reddish brown, the color of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
  • Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.
  • Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modern heme compounds.
  • To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.

Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.


To claim that bone could remain intact for millions of years without being fossilized (mineralized) stretches credibility. The report here of red blood cells in an unfossilized section of dinosaur bone is NOT the first time such bone has been found.

Biologist Dr. Margaret Helder alerted readers of Creation magazine to documented finds of ‘fresh’, unfossilized dinosaur bone as far back as 1992.3

More recently, based on these reports, a team associated with Buddy Davis, a staff member at Answers in Genesis, in Northern Kentucky, has retrieved similarly unfossilized dinosaur bone from Alaska.4

Taken from: christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c026.html

Evolution, young earth, who cares? Isn’t anyone else worried about rogue cloners?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.