Menu

Just How Old is Dinosaur Soft Tissue?

 

Associated Press/Science 2012

Imagine watching an interview on television and hearing a bald, blind, deaf, wrinkled, hunched-back, bedridden man claim that he is 130 years old. Although you might doubt such a claim, if ever there was a man in modern times to live 130 years on Earth, he likely would have looked as worn out as this man appeared. Imagine, however, if a quick-witted, muscular, marathon runner with fair skin, thick, dark hair, low blood pressure, and a good memory, claimed to be 130 years old. What reasonable person would believe such a claim? Everyone would doubt the statement, especially the doctors, who had found the man’s overall health to be comparable to that of a 20-year-old.

Now take a step into the world of evolutionary science. According to evolution’s geologic timetable, since dinosaurs supposedly became extinct 65 million years ago, any dinosaur fossil found in the ground must be at least 65 million years old. But what if the fossils don’t “appear” to be that old? What if, when inspected by scientists, various dinosaur bones around the world are discovered with “highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and elastic bone tissue that “when stretched, returns to its original shape”? What if fibrous proteins such as collagen were found, along with “cell-like structures resembling blood and bone cells”? Would evolutionists come to a similar conclusion as most everyone would about a marathon-running, 130-year-old? Apparently not.

In the last few years, scientists have found a variety of dinosaur bones from around the world that are not completely fossilized. They actually contain intact protein fragments, including ones known as collagen and elastin. Amazingly, once the minerals are chemically stripped away from the soft tissue, the researchers were even able to squeeze round, dark red, microscopic structures from what was thought to be dinosaur blood vessels. However, since, according to evolutionists, “proteins in tissue normally degrade quickly after an animal dies,” this research has remained “controversial.”

Since Dr. Mary Schweitzer published her findings in 2005 and 2007 about “68-million-year-old”T. rex soft tissue, a much more thorough study has been done on a so-called “80-million-year-old fossil from a duck-billed dinosaur.” What did researchers find? This time they found “an even larger number of protein fragments.” After using “chemicals to dissolve away the minerals,” scientists have seen what appears to be “a network of soft, transparent vessels” and cells.

Any strong, marathon-running, dark-haired, fair-skinned, wrinkle-free, 20-year-old-looking, modern man who claims to be 130 years old would be discredited immediately. Science and common sense would demand that the 130-year date be rejected. But what about the dates evolutionists give us for this “young looking” dinosaur tissue—tissue that evolutionists have called “miraculously preserved”? Now that the once “controversial” dinosaur proteins have been confirmed, are evolutionists reconsidering the age of dinosaur fossils? Are evolutionists considering the possibility that dinosaurs may have lived hundreds or thousands of years ago rather than 65+ million years ago? Apparently not—at least not in their writings.

Evolutionists are virtually silent about this blatant contradiction: how can dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be 80 million years (or 29 billion 200 million days) old contain non-fossilized, fibrous proteins like collagen, as well as “cell-like structures resembling blood and bone cells”? The problem is not with the dinosaur bones: repeated studies over the last several years have proven the presence of fibrous proteins. The problem is with the wrong assumptions that are used in evolutionary dating methods…. Hello! The bones are not 65 or 80 million years old!


Published

A copied sheet of paper

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Reproduction Stipulations→