T-Rex bones still with soft-tissue

An Update on the Amazing T. Rex Bone Discovery Announced a Year ago This Month
March 6, 2006
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/03/06/scrambling-continues

A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a T. rex uncovered in Montana.

As summarized by Dr. Menton last year:

The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of "estuarine" origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists-see "Genesis and catastrophe").

Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).

In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.

When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. . . .

The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.

Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible.

To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track), she showed two photographs and stated: "One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?"

Her inferred answer was no.

Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?

As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):

The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noah's time, about 4,300 years ago.)

The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system. . . . Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.

Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she 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?" Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.

Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an "accepted" phenomenon that even "stretchy" soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years . . . and "stretching" beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.

Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.