Ian's Epic Evolution Pwnage contest #1

*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ALzj-ysB8g&fb_source=message

Help the cause of creation, help Ian Juby (the best creation speaker not currently in prison), and win cool prizes!

NEW SOFT TISSUE

*

http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-proteineven-more-confirmation

Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation!

Mary Schweitzer announces even stronger evidence, this time from a duckbilled dino fossil, of even more proteins—and the same amazingly preserved vessel and cell structures as before.

CLOSE UP PHOTOS

*

Here are some closer-up photos of the blood vessels in the Schweitzer T-Rex.

Do these look like slime biofilm? Maybe an unknown "Chameleon Transformer Bioflim" that can conform itself to look like blood vessels and blood cells?

Don't repeat that, or the evolulus will use it.

SLIMEY SCIENCE

*

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5931

http://www.physorg.com/news136613903.html

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002808

By now we're all familiar with the fresh, unfossilized parts of dino bones that have been discovered recently, and highlighted on this blog.

Since the discovery, creationists have been wondering why the evolulus have been so hesitant to carbon date the bones.

They finally did, and we see just why they have been so afraid. The results came back that the dinos lived less than 100 years ago. Of course we dispute the accuracy of the evolutionary dating methods, but even this shows the dinos didn't live 70 million years ago.

So now they are saying the material was biofilm "slime". Of course that is obviously false from simply looking at the vessels and blood cells (with hemoglobin), coupled with the fact the alleged "slime" was spread uniformly, and not dripping toward the bottom as gravity would cause if it was slime.

The evolulus sure are desperate. They will resort to any slimey excuse they can to explain away the obvious and support their religious dogma.

TAYLOR PHOTOS

Collagen filaments found in another T-rex bone.

Do we believe it is 65 million years old?

In 1995, the museum in New Castle Wyoming gave Joe Taylor a small piece of bone from the hip of a T-rex. This T-rex was found in about 1916. Taylor sent a piece of the bone to California to be electron scanned by professor Mark Armitage at Azusa Pacific College.

Joe just wanted to see if it was bone or muscle. "I held part of the hip girdle of this rex in my lap to examine it. It appeared to have skin on the sacral vertebrae."

After scanning the bone fragment, Armitage reported to Taylor that it was in fact bone...but, there were collagen filaments inside it! He went on to say that, "It can't be but a few thousand years old."

Soft tissue in bone that is supposed to be 65 million years old should present a real problem for standard evolution beliefs.This T-rex was found a few miles from the famous hadrosaur excavated by the Sternbergs in the late 1800s on the ranch now owned by the Zerbst. Recently the Larsen brothers at the Black Hills Institute in South Dakota have excavated a triceratops from the Zerbst ranch and it has part of its skin preserved. (See our photo of it.)

In 1995, Taylor led a dig with FACT on the Glenn Hanson ranch, which is a few miles from the other three animals with skin on them. A short distance from the FACT site Dr. Kraig Derstler excavated a partial hadrosaur mummy. The FACT crew, specifically Otis Kline and Bob Helfenstine, started excavating a hadrosaur. Taylor feels strongly that it too had skin preserved. In all these finds, there is the potential for preservation of soft tissue.

The recent story, which has been all over the web about the T-rex with soft tissue in its femur, has really caused some excitement. This may be the same T-rex that Jack Horner excavated a few years ago that was reported to have red blood cells in it. Taylor noticed it had a Museum Of The Rockies number, suggesting that it was one of a half dozen T-rexes found in Montana.

I'm sure that most die-hard evolutionists will just conclude that this only proves that dinosaur soft tissue can last for 65 million years. We don't believe it here at Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum.

OTHER PHOTOS

These are photos from other sources.

The three-panel photo is from www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683 and the caption reads:

Tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are shown at left, when it is flexible and resilient and when stretched (arrow) returns to its original shape. The middle photo shows the bone after it is air dried. The photo at right shows regions of bone showing fibrous character, not normally seen in fossil bone.

The two-panel photo of the vein and blood is from M. H. Schweitzer , and posted at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp AIG's caption read:

Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. rex bone were justifiably identified as “blood vessels”. Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were 65 million years old.
Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to “look like cells” as the researchers said. So once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, “How could these cells last for 65 million years?”

CLOSE UP of T-REX FEMUR with SOFT TISSUE

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

Full coverage of this amazing find in the URL above. Soft, unfossilized tissues, blood vessels, and blood cells were found inside the leg bone of a T-Rex.

It's difficult to make a case that these tissues could have survived the 4,500 years since the Genesis flood, much less the supposed 70 MILLION years since dinosaurs went extinct, according to evolutionists.

This is solid evidence (even though it's soft!) that dinosaurs lived until modern times. They were referred to as dragons in accounts before the word dinosaur was coind in the 1840's.

MUSEUM DISPLAY of FEMUR

Here is the display of the soft-tissued femur from the Museum of the Rockies, taken by Cecil Allen.

Of course the museum adheres to the religion of evolutionism, even in the face of contrary evidence. Thus they believe this soft tissue somehow lasted for over 70 million years.

This certainly repudiates some major evolutionary beliefs, either way. Even if there is some way it could've been preserved for tens of millions of years, that refutes the longstanding evolutionary belief that such tissue would not last so long. If they could be wrong about that, why should we believe they are right that man, apes, skunks, rats, weeds, and tomatoes all have a common ancestor?

T-REX SKULL

Here is the skull of the dinosaur from which the soft tissue was found.

The false view of evolutionists that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago kept them from looking for evidence that dinosaurs lived recently, along with man. In this case the evidence found them.

T-REX SOFT TISSUE!

Early in 2005, Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist working under the legendary "Dinosaur Jack" Horner, discovered UNFOSSILIZED soft tissue, blood vessels, and blood cells in the femur (leg bone) of a T-Rex, when the bone had to be cut in half for shipping.

This kind of tissue would hardly survive for thousands of years, much less 70 MILLION.

You can read all about the amazing find at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp