SHOCKING DISCOVERIES! Red Blood Cells/Soft Tissue in DINOSAURS - More Proof the Atheists are WRONG!

In the early nineties, researchers from Montana State University made a startling discovery. Inspecting a piece of T. rex bone under a microscope, they could hardly believe their eyes—they could see dinosaur red blood cells!
This discovery prompted lead scientist, Dr Mary Schweitzer, to say:
'It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: "The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?"'
In a Discover magazine article, Dr Schweitzer explained further her surprise,
'If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?'
Such a response is understandable, considering that she thinks dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. But surely such data suggest it wasn't that long ago?



Related Articles:
Dinosaur tissue: still soft and stretchy (http://creation.com/still-soft-and-st...)
Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! (http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tis...)
DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone (http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells)
A fossil is a fossil is a fossil. Right? (http://creation.com/a-fossil-is-a-fos...)
Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really? (http://creation.com/dinosaur-bonesjus...)

Related Products:
Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries (http://creation.com/store_redirect.ph...)
Untold Secrets of Planet Earth: Dire Dragons (http://creation.com/store_redirect.ph...)




Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her research assistants were working on a T-rex dinosaur fossil and saw medullary tissue (showing that the T-rex had been pregnant). Because no one had ever found this tissue in a dinosaur fossil before, she told her assistant to soak it in acid to be able to study the structures better. When they tried this new approach, they were stunned to find blood vessels, bone matrix and elastic tissues in the fossil, all soft tissues found somewhere they shouldn't be according to evolution. Schweitzer et al. also found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. 

She eventually published a number of papers (references and links below) which right from the first challenged the basic principles of fossilization by stating, 
"Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia."

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, states, "When you think about it, the laws of chemistry, biology and and everything else we know, say it should be gone, it should be degraded completely." 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhN_ZX... (~6:30)

Derrick Briggs, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the Peabody Museum at Yale University agrees saying, "Nobody was imaging that dinosaurs might have had preserved soft tissues... this was totally improbable....We have this clear understanding that part of all biological cycles involves decay. Nature's set up to break down that material and recycle it. So, it's just improbable that those kinds of very delicate structures would survive, particularly for millions of years." 

He's also agreeing that nothing we can verify with science would allow soft tissue to last for millions of years. The obvious conclusion is that they are not millions of years as Creationists have said for long. Remember that evidence from your critics is one of the highest levels evidence you can get. Creationists have that in MANY areas. Evolutionists don't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCn...

Leading evolution experts agree that nothing in science would make it possible for soft tissue to last more than ~100,000 years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2kMlm... ~8:30)

Why don't we know of more soft tissues in fossils? 
1) As. Dr. Schweitzer said, she used a new technique with acid to remove bones that almost no one had used before. If more used that method, we'd find more soft tissue in fossils. Dr. Kaye tried to replicate Dr. Schweitzer and found a very large amount of soft tissue with her technique just like she did.
2) There actually are quite a number of other soft tissue finds. 
A) Soft tissue in fossilized salamandar.
http://creation.com/muscle-and-blood-... 
http://www.physorg.com/news176660912.... 

B) DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
http://creation.com/article/419

C) http://creation.com/a-165-million-yea...
and others.

3) Even evolutionists say that only a very few of biological forms that die become fossils and most of those are marine animals or were buried in water (things that make you go hmmm...when considering the flood story). 

RESEARCH PAPERS BY SCHWEITZER
***Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...
***Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307...
**Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 274:183-187; 2. Schweitzer MH, Suo Z, Avci R, Asara JM, Allen MA, Teran Arce F, Horner JR. 2007.


****More detailed interview with the researchers & info in notes here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCn...