[GodGunsGuts]

Soft tissue, blood vessels, and blood cells from original T. rex find:

[GodGunsGuts]

65-80 million year old soft tissue found in multiple dino specimens. Which theory predicts this find, creation or evolution??? Ping!

[mikelets456]

Oh no, how will they explain this to the the kids at the “progressive left wing radical institutions”....errrr...ummmm, I mean the public school system?

Shhhh, don’t tell anyone! I hope that crappy “right wing” Fox News does not find this story!

[tumblindice]

Achtung! English persons—and not listening to Michael Savage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=19IqwU3itFk

[Hacklehead]

How soon can they clone that sumbiatch?

[RegulatorCountry]

Granted that soft tissue remains present, I’d think that use of the term “fossil” is thrown into question.

[steve-b]

[staytrue]

Young Earth idiot alert.

[hurly]

More misinformation and cherry picking from an old article.

From one of your own xtian sites.http://www.answersincreation.org/trex_soft_tissue.htm

” Even more interesting is what Answers in Genesis omits from the original article, as they “pick and choose,” as is their style, only those portions that supports their position....

Carl Wieland of AiG calls this a “stunning rebuttal of millions of years.” Nothing could be further from the truth.....
Even more interesting is what Answers in Genesis omits from the original article, as they “pick and choose,” as is their style, only those portions that supports their position.....

Carl Wieland of AiG calls this a “stunning rebuttal of millions of years.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
The find of T-Rex soft tissue in no way supports a young earth. In fact, when you consider the fact that we should find much more soft tissue in all large dinosaur bones, it actually supports an old earth even better!”

[DTogo]

Uh, isn't this the third or fourth time you've posted this very same story??

This is becoming like an info-mercial or OxyClean commercial...

[CottShop]

per usual, NOONE discusses the actual evidences discussed in the article- apparently because al lthey have to defend agaisnt it is “We ‘should be seeing’ soft tissue” Lol- Yep- everyone knows soft tissue remains in bones for millions of years- lol Sorry- but ‘We ‘should see’ soft tissue’ isn’t a scientific arguement supporting long ages- I remember reading the macroevolutionists ‘scientific explanations’ for hte soft tissue, and they were equally as lame, claiming AFTER the fact (once again- but apparently noone minds ‘scientists’ being armchair hidnsighters) ‘we predicted this’- Bull! They gave absolutely NO explanation for how soft tissue could have survived for millions of years- all they gave were improbable just so stories DEVOID of actual fact and evidence to support their fairytails

[Red Badger]

Isaiah 45:18 (New International Version)

18 For this is what the LORD says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
“I am the LORD,
and there is no other.

[RetiredArmy]

Huh? What?? You mean, that this means, that the earth is not like 65 billion years old as we are told??????

[steve-b]

Fossil Backs Theory Linking Dinosaurs To Birds

[DocRock]

Bookmark to read after work

[Glenn]

Fools.

[WondrousCreation]

I find it funny that it finally occurred to evo "scientists" to cut open a dinosaur bone, and that (of course) they found the raw chunks of dinosaur meat that creation scientists have predicted all along.

Of course, you'll never find even a tacit admission of that in the "peer reviewed" journals, when what they should really be doing is crafting a written apology to Jesus Christ for their grievous errors resulting from decades of ignoring the Truth.

[DoctorMichael]

Warning!
This is a Meta-article that contains
no site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever
and is produced by a member of an obscure, unrecognized, non-scientific
internet group attempting to pass off his agenda as scholarly.
They are not constituted to provide proof of Creationism but instead
merely to snipe snidely and spam the internet with their Trollisms.
Buyer Beware!

[DocRock]

There is a still active link to a video at the bottom of this 2005 article in which North Carolina State University’s Mary Schweitzer discusses the find of the T-Rex soft tissue.

Here are some excerpts which I timed to the video:

1:25 It flies in the face of everything that we understand about how tissues and cells degrade. It’s not something that anyone of us could ever predict or hope for.

2:49 It is the first appearance of t-rex so therefore its... geologically its the oldest t-rex on record.

4:45 Like I said, a lot of our science doesn't allow for this. All of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we've done don't allow for this. So if this material turns out to be actual remnants of the dinosaur then yes, I think we will have to do some, umm, certainly re-thinking of some of the basics of the model of fossilization.

5:16 It just doesn't seem possible. But yes, you can actually take the vessels and they do have internal components and so you can take a probe and kind of squeeze those things out into solution and the vessels are fine. It’s just... I can't explain it to be honest. I just can't.

I would like to add that at 1:55 she discusses/dismisses the claim of vessels being similar to Ostriches.

And here is a LINK to her published, peer reviewed findings:

Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex
Schweitzer et al. Science 25 March 2005:
1952-1955 DOI: 10.1126/science.1108397
Note: Only an excerpt is available at this link.

Science, Vol 307, Issue 5717, 1952-1955 , 25 March 2005

Remember... this is all regarding the 2005 T-Rex, not the latest find.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Is this headline from The Onion?

[humblegunner]

The Earth is many millions of years old.

Deal with it.