TRICERATOPS HORN SOFT TISSUE

*

http://www.icr.org/article/7382/

Triceratops Horn Soft Tissue Foils 'Biofilm' Explanation 

 

"The first hurdle for the bacterial biofilm story to face is that no known biofilm looks just like bone cells, complete with their thin "filipodia" extensions. Second, wouldn't the supposed bacteria deposit their biofilms on the bone's outer surface even more readily than deep inside the bone? Yet the study authors found no biofilm there. And they described yet a third hurdle when they wrote, "What is also not clear is how such biofilm structures could themselves survive the ravages of time."

SOFT TISSUE IN DINOSAURS

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

T-Rex, Hadrosaur (duckbill), archaeopteryx (bird), triceratops, etc. They are finding SOFT tissue in all kinds of creatures claimed to be millions of years old.

SOFT TISSUE IN ARCHAEOPTERYX

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18882-soft-tissue-remnants-discovered-in-%20archaeopteryx-fossil.html

Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx fossil 

"There is soft-tissue chemistry preserved in places that people didn't expect it," says Wogelius.

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.