T. Rex Debate Over Soft Tissue Revisited

One of the most damaging pieces of evidence against evolution which has been attacked countless times is now verified…In 2005, Mary Schweitzer’s made an incredible discovery. Blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells were recovered from the dinosaur’s bone.

Kaye from the Burke Museum of Natural History in Seattle with two colleagues concluded in their observation of the dinosaur bone from seeing turtle and ammonite fossils was bacterial biofilm that grew in the hollow spaces inside the fossils rather than soft tissue.

In May 2009, Robert F. Service stated in science…

“A controversial finding that protein fragments can be recovered from dinosaur fossils has been replicated for the first time.  Two years ago, Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues stunned the paleontology community when they reported discovering intact protein fragments in a fossil from a Tyrannosaurus rex that died 68 million years ago.  The claim has remained contentious, because proteins in tissue normally degrade quickly after an animal dies.”

This is a tremendous blow to evolution but great news for Christians as it verifies creationism.  How can soft tissue last that long? It can’t!  The story is now being created to explain evolution being falsified but rest assured, there’s no way this blood protein could be 68 million years old!

The data has been revisited and will be published in full detain on September fourth, here is a preview from Journal of Proteome Research

“In the study, Marshall Bern, Brett S. Phinney and David Goldberg point out that the first analysis in 2007 of a well-preserved, fossilized T. rex bone identified traces of seven distinct protein fragments, or peptides, from collagen. That material is one of the primary components of bone, tendons and other connective tissue. However, later studies disputed that finding, suggesting that it was a statistical fluke or the result of contamination from another laboratory sample.

“The scientists describe reanalysis of the T. rex data and also report finding evidence of substances found in collagen. “In summary, we find nothing obviously wrong with the Tyrannosaurus rex [analysis from 2007],” the report states.”

“The identified peptides seem consistent with a sample containing old, quite possibly very ancient, bird-like bone, contaminated with only fairly explicable proteins. Hemoglobin and collagen are plausible proteins to find in fossil bone, because they are two of the most abundant proteins in bone and bone marrow.”

So evolutionists have created a gap for themselves. Dino’s tissue is not showing the age of being 68 million years but rather much younger. The problem is, they are following a false timescale in a frame work that has failed countless times.

9 thoughts on “T. Rex Debate Over Soft Tissue Revisited

  1. Michael, you ever get the sense that a living T-Rex could be found in Brazil and the evolutionists would scream “WOW! A living fossil!!”

    Young T-Rex bones will not change their belief in evolution because the Coelacanth did not, they even came up with a term for it called “Lazarus taxon” (and yes they named it after a biblical figure, check Wikipedia).

    They learn enough Latin to come up with new terms to cover up the faults in their beliefs but not enough to understand the New Testament.

  2. mcoville: They learn enough Latin to come up with new terms to cover up the faults in their beliefs but not enough to understand the New Testament.”

    Mirabile dictu![1] I always thought that genesis was in the OLD Testament.

    [1] That’s a Latin phrase to cover up a fault in belief.

  3. mcoville,

    Even if they found a real life T-Rex in Brazil, they would dispute as a “gap” that will be answered sometime in the future…lol…The jargon is meant to confuse the common folks similar to that of religious secret societies. However, no matter how many Latin terms they can come with, or how emotional they are, or how they try to fit the data into their hypothesis, the evidence says otherwise.

  4. Olorin: The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament of Jesus Christ was originally written in Latin (along with a couple of other languages) but it is all contained in the Latin Vulgate.

    And look, I explained it all without using words that are too big for you to understand.

  5. mcoville: “Olorin: The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament of Jesus Christ was originally written in Latin (along with a couple of other languages)”

    Mcoville, you have just demonstrated astounding ignorance of your own subject. The New testament was written entirely in Greek—koine Greek, to get down to tthe actual dialect.

    Charis kai eirene, ol’ buddy.

  6. Mcoville, here’s an exra-credit question: What language did Jesus (normally speak)?

  7. Olorin,

    You need to brush up on your history. First of all, it’s not a clear cut question to answer. Palestine was a multi-lingual land where several different languages were spoken. The local languages that was understood by the vast majority of the people was Hebrew and Aramaic. Greek and Latin (international languages) were spoken too. Second of all, we know in Luke 4: 16-30 which helps us understand that the Hebrew language was familiar to Jesus. Aramaic dialect of Galilee Jesus spoke that language as well. Some believe He primarily spoke in Aramaic but there is not a clear cut answer. While it’s true the Bible is written in Greek, yet it doesn’t mean that was the only language Jesus spoke! So we know this, Jesus spoke in more than one language, Hebrew and Aramaic for sure.

  8. Michael, you answered only the extra-credit question,[1] which was intended as a way for mcoville to redeem himself from his prima facie incredible ignorance of elementary New Testament history. Bravo for coming to his defense, but your knowledge is irrelevant here.[2]

    But hey. I’m into science, not history. What do I know? I get used to creationists’ ignorance of scientific facts, theories, and how research is conducted. But it still seems amazing that creationists are so ignorant as to religion as well. I’m beginning to think ignorance is a way of life.[3].

    [1] Hebrew at that time was archaic, and understood as a language by educated people (including Jesus, who may well have been educated by Pharisees). But only Aramaic was au courant among the hoi polloi, and they understood Hebrew about the sdame as European Catholics understood Latin before Vatican II. Many Palestinians understood koine Greek, because there were many Greek settlers there (e.g., the Decapolis). Latin, however, was uncommon. Although Jesus encountered a couple of Roman soldiers, the Romans kept a low profile inside Palestine, and many of them knew some of the local linguae. As with their other “peaceful” territories, the legions were stationed almost entirely at the borders of the province, not within it, to keep out foreign invaders. There is another reason that Latin was uncommon—higher-class Romans of that period rarely spoke Latin at all. They spoke Greek in daily conversation, just as pre-revolutionary Russian nobility spoke French rather than Russian. So the governors and other officials in Jerusalem probably never spoke Latin, either among themselves or to others. Paul, although a Roman citizen, probably spoke little Latin.

    [2] Your extra credit is to translate the closing of my previous comment. (Hint: you will find it many places in Acts.)

    [3] Would you believe that the best summary of very early Christian history (30-70CE) that I have read was a three-part series in Free Inquiry, an atheist magazine. Go thou and learn a little about the other side.

  9. Michael (August 11, 2009 at 1:55 am): “The jargon is meant to confuse the common folks similar to that of religious secret societies. However, no matter how many Latin terms they can come with,…”

    The “Latin terms” were invented by Carl von Linne (Linnaeus), for the purpose of organizing living things in order to demonstrate the logic of God’s creation. See, e.g., Greene, “The Death od Adam: Evolution and Its Impact on Western Thought,” 1959, at page 131.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s