t-bone t-rex steaks?

Question

Does the recent discovery of blood cells and tissue on the bone of a t-rex by scientist from the hall creek institute at montana proove to everyone that the t-rex isn't millions of years old

i mean yes it could be very old

but come on, blood cells and tissue on a bone thats over 70 million years old,

i think this just gies to show even when the evidence is staring at people in the face, they still want to hold onto a theory that the evdience does not support

i mean if you found blood cells and tissue onb a dinosaur bone, the most logical thing to conclude is that its not even up to a million years old

blood cells last that long do they?

we are all educated people, we all studied evolution, and this um somewhat contradicts it

Your thoguhts please:

Dude they say its 65 million years old, or over

65 million, ashow me anything that is close tro a million with red blood cells still intact

use your head and THINK

if they found tissue and blood it is not 65 million years old

it shatters the theory of evolution, just admit it, chill out, and look forward to a reward in christ....gee

65 miullion years and still bits of tissue as it was found in ash, they dont have ash deposits in montana, there are no volcanoes in montana
use your head

they said cereationist can't be prooved, but they have just prooved it themselves by offering you a 65 million year old bone with flesh still attached...dude?

I studied evolution at school, but it's findings like this that take the piss, it's 65 million years old and still has tissue?

you reckon those scientist are laughing at us now for beleiving them, they are in hysterics,

TIMEPONDERER: ignorance is bliss if you choose to beleive everythingthe government tells you,

let me guess you also beleive saddam had wmd, and that wtc 7 fell because of fire

builidings falling down because of fire, and mitochondria, flesh,plasma on something thats 65 million years old

What would A simple forensic sicentist say?

it's not rare, it's incredible it's too good to be true

But you choooose to defend EVOLUTION even evidence like this dosen't cause you to wonder or think

you going to let every governemnt scientist do your thinking for you

I@m sorry didn't they ok smoking 40 years ago

You think they didn't know of the effects

why do you think only 4 people have responded to this wuestion

An evolution debate pulls in 30 respnses at least

They know, they feel the worry, and ytet remian to be willlfully ignorant

evo is showing itself to be wrong

by it's own hand

I Guess this is onedinosaur that definetly did not turn into a bird....oh i'm sorry does that scare you too?

Answer 1

No. They did not find red blood cells. They found some structures that might represent altered blood remains in an exceptionally well preserved specimen where the inside of the bone had been cocooned. No blood. No blood cells. No DNA. No "steaks". Some biomolecules. Big news precisely for the fact that it is so rare.

But let me guess, you'll just ignore the inconvenient reality.


Schweitzer, M. H. and Horner, J. R. 1999. Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex. Annales de Paléontologie 85; 3: 179-192.

Schweitzer, M. H., Johnson, C., Zocco, T. G., Horner, J. H. and Starkey, J. R. 1997. Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17; 2: 349-359.

Answer 2

There are other things too (these are easy to look up).

In 1981, scientists identified unfossilized dinosaur bones which had been found in Alaska 20 years earlier. Dr. Philip Currie (an evolutionist) wrote about this and some similar finds, “An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.”

As Dr. Margaret Helder has said, “How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived.”

In 1990 a sample of various dinosaur bones were sent to the University of Arizona for a “blind” Carbon-14 dating procedure. “Blind” in the sense that they didn’t tell them what the bones were. The oldest date they got was 16 thousand years. Now I don’t think they are even that old, but that’s a far cry from the millions of years evolutionists suggest. If dinosaurs became extinct more than 65 million years ago, there should be no carbon-14 left in their bones. Evolutionist of course say the samples must have been contaminated.

In 1990, Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized and even found what appeared to be blood cells in them. Dr. Mary Schweitzer said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” How indeed?

And then in 2005, they found an even greater discovery (I believe this is the one you are talking about). Science Daily website said (March 25, 2005): “Dr. Mary Schweitzer . . . has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.”

As Dr. David Menton said, “It certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.” Wouldn’t that be a hit for the meat industry if we could figure out how to preserve meat for so long?

Answer 3

I haven't reviewed this data or read the report, but it does seem extremely odd that traces of perishable cellular and tissue evidence could possibly survive 70 million years short of preservation in ice or permafrost. Particularly when one considers how a dead human body decomposes rapidly to bones. Thus, your notion of a more “recent” age to the dinosaur scenario seems very plausible.

I am not a proponent of the Evolution/Uniformitarian Model with its titanic ages; I did not base my conclusions on “faith” as critics may erroneously accuse, but based off of “independent critical thinking” without the influence of any predetermined “world view”. Once when one examines these issues of origins with a fresh and unbiased slate (without any consideration to accepted norms), then one realizes that another scientific reality exists that the current 140-year old Scientific Dark Age has kept silent. I am not a Creationists either, I have concluded flaws in that system as well, particularly the under-exaggeration of the age of our earth and solar system; where as the Evolutionary/Uniformitarian Model have over-exaggerated the ages.

The major problem with the mindset of the Evolutionists is that when they are confronted with evidence that actually points to the possibility of reducing the age of species and the Geological Column, instead of considering this notion, they instead create counter-theory to sustain the current ages despite the evidence, knowing very well that incremental erosion of these ridiculously gargantuan ages threatens the maintenance of their skewed paradigm.

My analysis puts the age of the earth between 10 to 24 million years old (not billions), which is in alignment with astrophysicist Dr. Paul Davies assessment that the Local Universe is 10+ million years old (not billions), based off his analysis of experiments conducted by the Hubble Space Telescope. Additionally, it appears all life on earth (including what is called “homo sapiens”) emerged within the first 8 to 9 million years (perhaps even sooner) of the earth’s existence. This appears to have occurred in unison, a polybiological explosion of life, where all life was originally contemporaneous with all of its variety and species diversity. The original ecosystem of the earth was a “geocrucible” and this process can be termed “Spontaneous Polybiological Mass-Profusionism” (SPMP). The Geological Column has been severely misinterpreted, and was laid down as a result of periodic cosmocataclysms causing periodic extinction level events whittling away in incremental precentages the original genetic species pool of life. This periodic extinction process can be termed “Mass Polybiolysis”.

Answer 4

Scientific understanding constantly evolves as new evidence is acquired. Finding something unexpected doesn't necessarily negate all previous observations, it just adds to the knowledge that should be considered.
What I find interesting is that people will latch onto any little thing that doesn't fit their understanding of evolution to claim that ALL other evidence is false.

Answer 5

In a volcanic ash deposit?
(Which tends to sterilize, dessicate, and seal.)
Why not?

Another 'anti-evolution bible pounder` eh?
Look! You believe in the unprovable by
your own choice.
It is unprovable. You only demean your choice,
(which is what you people call faith),
by trying to 'prove` it with silly sophistries.