A- A A+
Free Email News
The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

US $15.00
View Item
World Winding Down
by Carl Wieland

US $10.00
View Item
Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries
by Michael Oard

US $19.00
View Item
Radioactive Dating & A Young Earth DVD
by Dr Jim Mason

US $13.00
View Item
Dinosaurs! DVD
by Dr Don Batten

US $13.00
View Item

Dinosaur soft tissue

In seeming desperation, evolutionists turn to iron to preserve the idea of millions of years.

M. Schweitzer


Bone cells discovered by Schweitzer, showing classic appearances including nuclei and connecting fibrils—from a Brachylophosaurus allegedly 80 million years old!

by 1

Published: 28 January 2014 (GMT+10)

Dinosaur soft tissue in fossil bones!? Nearly every CMI speaker has watched incredulous looks on people’s faces as pictures from a 2005 Science magazine article flash on-screen. These show transparent, branching flexible blood vessels and red blood cells alongside soft and stretchy ligaments from a supposedly 68 million-year-old T.rex bone. The remarkable discoveries by palaeontologist Dr Mary Schweitzer have rocked the scientific world.

Time and time again

Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty.2 They now have to explain how extremely delicate structures could have been preserved over incredibly vast time periods.

Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty.

It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin,3,4 actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.

Not only that, but in many cases, there are fine details of the bone matrix, with microscopically intact-looking bone cells (osteocytes) showing incredible detail. And Schweitzer has even recovered fragments of the even more fragile and complex molecule, DNA. This has been extracted from the bone cells with markers indicating its source such that it is extremely likely to be dinosaur DNA.5

Others have reported the fast-decaying carbon-14 from dino bones—not a single atom should be left after 1 million years.6

Moreover, more recent discoveries show dinosaur soft tissue in samples that are (by their own assumptions) many millions of years older than those in Dr Schweitzer’s original 2005 discovery. As one article states:

“The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago…”7

A huge problem for the evolutionary paradigm

Believing proteins could last for tens of millions of years takes enormous faith. According to a report in the science journal The Biochemist, even if collagen were stored at 0°C, it would not be expected to last even three million years.8 But such is the power of the evolutionary paradigm that many choose to believe the seemingly impossible rather than accept the obvious implication, that the samples are not as old as they say.

M. H. Schweitzer

T-Rex soft tissue

These photos are from a later (2005) paper by Schweitzer which reported on the discovery of soft tissue, in addition to strengthening the red blood cell identification—see Still Soft and Stretchy
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?”

National Geographic’s article titled, “Many dino fossils could have soft tissue inside”9 reveals that the scientific community is expecting many more examples of dinosaur soft tissue in the future. These facts have been a thorn in their side for several years now as they are incredibly difficult to explain within an evolutionary (millions of years) timeframe. Needless to say, they fit beautifully within a biblical (young earth) timescale; these are almost certainly the remains of creatures that were buried during the Genesis Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.

While this information wasn’t hidden, it certainly wasn’t promoted widely in museums or popular science programs either—and definitely not in the general press. Indeed, the majority of lay people are totally unaware of the presence of dinosaur soft tissue. This is hardly surprising: if the rocks and fossils are not millions of years old, evolutionary theory is finished. Predictably, some evolutionists lost no time in seeking to discredit the data. Dr Schweitzer (an evolutionist herself, although a fideistic theistic version10) remarked,

“I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible … . I wrote back and said, ‘Well what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”11 (Not exactly a scientific comment on the reviewer’s part.)

How to answer?

‘Bio-film! It’s bio-film!’ Desperate for an answer to this damning evidence some evolutionists claimed that the blood vessels that Dr Schweitzer had found were simply bio-film (a product of more recent bacterial action).12 This was sometimes shouted out during CMI presentations by skeptics, and anticreationist blog sites and chat rooms would give this as the ‘go-to’ answer when creationists raised the topic.

But, even if the blood vessels had been bio-film, this could hardly have explained the presence of proteins and DNA.13 In any case, though, ‘bio-film’ only rarely gets trotted out in more recent years, as Schweitzer herself has been able to present a powerful case for the blood vessels not being bio-films.14

A new way out?

Recently there has been a spate of popular level articles claiming that Dr Schweitzer may have found the answer. She had proposed this solution earlier, namely that iron might help preserve dinosaur soft tissue, both by helping to cross-link and stabilize the proteins, as well as by acting as an anti-oxidant.15 Now she has ostensibly tested this idea. Here are two excerpts from one such article that help summarize this new hypothesis:

— “New research from North Carolina State University shows that iron may play a role in preserving ancient tissues within dinosaur fossils, but also may hide them from detection.”
— “Mary Schweitzer’s latest research shows that the presence of hemoglobin—the iron-containing molecule that transports oxygen in red blood cells—may be the key to both preserving and concealing original ancient proteins within fossils.”16

And these comments from another article explain further:

“The free radicals17 cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,” Schweitzer said. “They basically act like formaldehyde.”
“Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.”18

In her technical paper, Schweitzer claimed:

Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25°C [77°F]).19

Public impression

The power in this argument is its seeming simplicity. The ‘average Joe’ might think; “Oh I get it, iron acts as a preserving agent like formaldehyde, the stuff scientists use to embalm things. It’s like those animals preserved in jars I’ve seen in laboratories. So the iron in the dinosaur’s blood must have preserved the organic material. And scientists know what they are talking about much better than I do so dinosaur soft tissue makes sense to me …”

It’s actually very strategic. By announcing this as ‘the answer’, evolutionists may catch creationists off-balance, lessening the impact of the argument. From now on ‘Joe’ will likely not be surprised if he is presented with the facts of dinosaur soft tissue found in fossils, thinking evolutionary scientists have already explained this. The creationists are crazy to think dinosaurs died out recently!


However, even under moderate scrutiny, Schweitzer’s explanation quickly falls to pieces. In her new paper she discusses experiments that appear totally unrepresentative of the conditions under which these dinosaur remains were actually preserved. Instead, she describes what boils down to a ‘best and worse case scenario’ for soft tissue preservation.

“They soaked one group of (ostrich) blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.”20

Reading the supplementary material in her article it appears that pure hemoglobin was used, not lysed cells or materials that could be expected to mimic what would be present in an animal carcass. (Blood vessels soaked in laboratory-prepared hemoglobin is hardly representative of decomposing bones).

One might also ask how realistic a concentrated hemoglobin extract is, compared to the real world. While unrealistically concentrated hemoglobin might preserve for a time, it doesn’t follow that natural, dilute hemoglobin will act the same way. Indeed, tissues rich in blood vessels, such as lungs and gills, often decay very quickly. One infamous example is the gills of dead basking sharks that rot and slough off to form the pseudo-plesiosaur shape.21

And the suggestion that blood vessels remaining ‘recognizable’ for two years somehow demonstrates that these could last thirty five million times as long requires a phenomenal cognitive leap.

Further, it is not plausible that iron could be as good a preservative as formaldehyde, which directly forms covalent cross-links between protein chains, something iron can’t do. But even if we grant that it had the same preservative power (just for the sake of the discussion), what reason is there for anyone to expect that formaldehyde could preserve soft tissues, and fine cellular details, for tens of millions of years? Embalmers of human bodies widely acknowledge that their use of formaldehyde is to slow down, not prevent, the relentless process of decomposition. The embalmed body of Lenin has been widely suspected of being faked or touched up due to it looking ‘too good’ after only some 90 years on public display. Even then, more recent photos show it looking distinctly ‘ragged’ compared to earlier shots.

It’s quite possible that the hemoglobin in Schweitzer’s experiment ‘pickled’ the blood vessels so that neither bacteria nor enzymes could degrade them. This requires a concentrated solution of the pickling agent (usually salt and acidic conditions). If this is the real explanation, then a dilute solution, as normally found in tissues, would not work anyway.

Even a concentrated solution, while it could keep it for the two years observed, would not suffice over great time spans. Because over millions of years, even the lack of enzymatic and bacterial degradation makes no difference. DNA and proteins will eventually succumb to ordinary chemistry, especially reactions with water. Evolutionists have likewise recognized this:

After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation. Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should, in theory, degrade at a set rate.22

A watertight argument?

Another problem for Dr Schweitzer is the burial environment. One article stated;

“If the hemoglobin were contained in a bone in a sandstone environment, keeping it dry and insulated from microbes, preservation becomes more likely.”23

Reinforcing this, another said:

“They’re also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.”24

However, the very same porosity proposed to ‘wick away’ things would also more readily expose it to penetration by water over those millions of years, thus hastening decomposition. But in any case, even supposing that there was no exposure to water, radiation, bacteria or enzymatic attack, measurements of DNA decay rates in bone show that DNA could not have survived the alleged 65 million years since dinosaur extinction. Even frozen at –5°C (23°F), the DNA should have completely disintegrated into its individual building blocks in under 7 million years:

“However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone.”25

A thought experiment

Another way to highlight the problem for long-agers, even if their ‘wicking’ arguments could solve the water problem, and even if iron were as good as formaldehyde, is the following thought experiment (it has to be just in thought, because of the practical barrier that even several human lifetimes would not be enough to do the experiment in practice).

Illustrated by Caitlin Smartt


Take a laboratory-prepared specimen, place it in a jar full of formaldehyde (even assuming the complete integrity of the jar/seal etc), then stick it in the ground encased in rock—and just for good measure, keep the surroundings permanently frozen at 0oC. It would still be subject to the thermodynamic breakdown of such complex, fragile molecules. Atoms and molecules in a compound are always in motion, even at such freezing temperatures. For any scientist to have said prior to the Schweitzer discoveries that they would have expected blood vessels, delicate cell structures, DNA and proteins after 70 million years from such an experiment would have been inviting derision at best, psychiatric scrutiny at worst. There are very good scientific reasons behind Schweitzer’s earlier (2010) comment on videotape:

The information that there are abundant amounts of soft tissue in creatures supposedly millions of years old is spiralling out of control. Evolutionists know that they need to confront this dinosaur soft tissue matter head on, and their responses to date have been far from convincing.
“When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.”26

So what has Dr Schweitzer actually shown with her more recent ‘iron’ observations? She’s demonstrated that the iron in red blood cells apparently has some qualities that could well contribute to soft tissue preservation, at least if it is artificially concentrated. Actually, so far from being a threat to biblical creationists, this may well be a plus, in that it might help explain how such fragile things could possibly last for thousands of years. We commented earlier on her proposals before this latest experiment:

“Actually, this is all reasonable from a biblical creationist perspective, up to a point. Measured decay rates of some proteins are compatible with an age of about 4,500 years (since the Flood), but not with many millions of years. However, seeing not only proteins but even cell microstructures after 4,500 years is still surprising, considering how easily bacteria can normally attack them. These ideas could help explain survival over thousands of years. But they seem totally implausible for millions of years… since the above preservation proposals could not stop ordinary breakdown by water (hydrolysis) over vast eons.”[27]28

The bottom line?

The recent reports proposing iron as a preservative are indicators that the cat, if not yet entirely out of the bag, is at least peering out it. The information that there are abundant amounts of soft tissue in creatures supposedly millions of years old is spiralling out of control. Evolutionists know that they need to confront this dinosaur soft tissue matter head on, and their responses to date have been far from convincing.

Perhaps the most important lesson in all this is the power of the paradigm, i.e. the ideology of millions of years. The straightforward scientific response to such a discovery would have been to trust the laws and observations of science that indicate breakdown in a much shorter period, then seriously question the ‘millions of years’. However, in the face of today’s widespread secular religion such would have the ideological impact of a nuclear warhead. A world that made itself is basic to this religion, and it absolutely, definitely needs millions of years. So instead, in the face of this evidence, the desperate search has continued–for some mechanism, even part-way plausible-seeming, to give this belief system some straws to clutch at.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. The input and assistance of several colleagues is acknowledged and appreciated, particularly Dominic Statham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland. Return to text.
  2. Catchpoole, D., Double-decade dinosaur disquiet, Creation 36(1):12–14, 2014; Return to text.
  3. Other researchers had found osteocalcin ‘dated’ to 120 Ma: Embery G. and six others, Identification of proteinaceous material in the bone of the dinosaur Iguanodon, Connective Tissue Res. 44 Suppl 1:41–6, 2003. The abstract says: “an early eluting fraction was immunoreactive with an antibody against osteocalcin.” Return to text.
  4. Sarfati, J., Bone building: perfect protein, J. Creation 18(1):11–12, 2004. Return to text.
  5. Schweitzer, M.H. et al, Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, Bone, 17 October 2012 | doi:10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010. Return to text.
  6. Wieland, C., Radiocarbon in dino bones: International conference result censored,, 22 January 2013. Return to text.
  7. Pappas, S., Controversial T. Rex soft tissue find finally explained,, 26 November 2013. Return to text.
  8. Nielsen-Marsh, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist 24(3):12–14, June 2002; Return to text.
  9. Many dino fossils could have soft tissue inside, Oct 28 2010, Return to text.
  10. Catchpoole, D., and Sarfati, J., ‘Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery’,, 19 July 2006. A fideist is one who believes by ‘blind faith’ regardless of evidence, often disparaging those who seek to use evidence in showing that Christianity is reasonable. Return to text.
  11. Yeoman, B., Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery, Discover 27(4):37–41, 77, April 2006. Return to text.
  12. Kaye, T.G. et al., Dinosaurian soft tissues interpreted as bacterial biofilms, PLoS ONE 3(7):e2808, 2008 | doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808. Return to text.
  13. Wieland, C., Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! J. Creation 23(3):10–11, 2009; Return to text.
  14. Wieland, C., Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur, Return to text.
  15. Schweitzer, Ref. 5. Return to text.
  16. Iron Preserves, Hides Ancient Tissues in Fossilized Remains, NC State University, November 26, 2013, Return to text.
  17. These are atoms, molecules or ions with unpaired outer electrons, which makes them highly chemically reactive. Return to text.
  18. Pappas. Ref. 7. Return to text.
  19. Her technical paper is Schweitzer, M.H. et al., A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time, Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 281(1775):20132741, 27 November 2013 | doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2741. Return to text.
  20. Pappas. Ref. 7. Return to text.
  21. Jerlström, P. and Elliot, B., Letting rotting sharks lie: Further evidence that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark, not a plesiosaur, J. Creation 13(2):83–87, 1999; Return to text.
  22. Kaplan, M., DNA has a 521-year half-life [at 13.1°C]: Genetic material can’t be recovered from dinosaurs—but it lasts longer than thought, Nature News, 10 October 2012, doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11555 (Comment on Allentoft et al. Ref. 25). Return to text.
  23. Iron Preserves, Hides Ancient Tissues in Fossilized Remains, NC State University, November 26, 2013, Return to text.
  24. Pappas. Ref. 7. Return to text.
  25. Allentoft, M.E. et al., The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils, Proc. Royal Society B 279(1748):4724–4733, 7 December 2012 | doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1745. Return to text.
  26. Nova Science Now, May 2010, Return to text.
  27. Compare Sarfati, J., Origin of life: the polymerization problem, J. Creation 12(3):281–284, 1998; Return to text.
  28. Sarfati, J., DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation 27(1):10–12, 2013; Return to text.

If you were to read an article every day from this site it would take you 20 years to read them all. Such a wealth of information didn’t arise by chance. Please help us to keep on keeping on. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Joel V., Australia, 28 January 2014

Talk about clutching at straws. Wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of secular Neo-darwinistic bigotry!!! And they accuse biblical creationists of being blind fundamentalists. These folks have greater faith than any creation scientist I've ever met!! Just pathetic...

Teddy M., New Zealand, 28 January 2014

In his summation, Calvin Smith has 'hit the nail on the head'. The presence of soft tissue in dinosaur remains and the quandary it presents for evolutionists has fully exposed evolution for what it is; a religious tenet. Call the religion itself what you will - humanism, naturalism, or atheism, evolution is the capstone. Not being familiar with Mr. Smith, I read his bio and had to laugh when he notes that he and Darwin share the same formal training; Theology! Great stuff. Couple this article with those about Darwin's proclivity for plagiarism and one soon realises Darwin was not only unlearned in science but didn't absorb much from the ethics courses that would have been part of his philosophical training. Yet he continues to be hailed by the western world, especially amongst educators. I would say this falls into the 'lack of knowledge' column for its effect on the vast majority of folks.

james p H., Australia, 28 January 2014

(yet) another KNOCKOUT PUNCH against evolution....when it's all over, this bogus theory will have to be *scraped off the floor* rather than carried out on a stretcher!

john P., Australia, 28 January 2014

Evolution is just about gurgling in the water with no more straws to clutch at in the light of this evidence, but , again, these people are fulfilling bible prophesy.

Had they been honest they would have questioned and shelved their paradigm ages ago and definitely in the face of this, but for them to do so is to deny their false religion and acknowledge God for Who He is.

These dinosaurs were buried at the time of Noah's flood and the extinction of dinosaurs, if indeed they are extinct, can be measured in decades, certainly not the mythical millions of years.

This lie of Satan, his scam that we can work it out ourselves and evolve into gods, has a stranglehold on those who deny God's Word. They need to admit in humility that they are wrong and rely on God's mercy and forgiveness.

As always this is an excellent article and this evidence can be used by the Holy Spirit in spreading the Gospel

Cameron M., Australia, 28 January 2014

Playing Hunt the Quote:

“I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible … . I wrote back and said, ‘Well what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”11 (Not exactly a scientific comment on the reviewer’s part.)

I'm trying to locate this (or any part) on the Discover webversion of the article (here for your reference:

Do the articles match? Or is the web one varied? I one at the front of Social Media battles and to be able to correlate this article and the Discover would be swell.

Amazing how many will play an Atheist/ Evolutionary Strawman against a perceived Creation Strawman (example is "Molecules to man" ... is a #creationist strawman that intentionally tries to mix abiogenesis into the theory of #evolution - sorry to mix feedbacks)

Some where I saw - you can lead a man to the Truth but you cannot make him think. That covers it I think. Plain as the nose on your face/

Keep it up CMI

Carl Wieland responds

Our Andrew Lamb did some sleuthing and reported as follows:

It seems the "didn't care what the data said" quote disappeared from the online Discover article sometime between 24 Dec 2012 and 13 Jan 2013.

Here is the archived copy of the Discover webpage from 24 December 2012. The quote is near the beginning of the article, in a pullout quote on the right, just below a pictorial advert:

And here is the archived copy of the webpage from 13 January 2013; the quote is now gone:

There could be an innocent explanation. Note that in the December 2012 version the main image is a broken link, and the advert is also a broken link. It could be that someone was going through the Discover articles cleaning up broken image links, and when they removed the old broken advert image, they also removed the pullout quote, thinking it was a caption to the broken image. The "didn't care what the data said" quote only appeared in the pullout quote. It did not also appear in the main text.

Thanks for alerting us to this. O, and we subsequently found a hard copy of the Discover edition, and yes, the quote is there but only under the picture, not within the main text.

Chandrasekaran M., Australia, 28 January 2014

Well, this faulty evolution science has evolved so much that it doesn't need robust science ever though it has an appearance of science.

Ron V., Canada, 28 January 2014

Calvin, great job in debunking the evolutionists’ latest rescue device desperately aimed at ‘preserving’ their evolutionary worldview. As you point, out their paradigm, millions of years ideology, keeps them from accepting the logical conclusion. Most important, however, is to help those less steeped in such a paradigm (“public impression”) from being duped into accepting the proposed explanations for preserving soft tissues for tens and even hundreds of millions of years.

Jonathan G., United Kingdom, 28 January 2014

This whole issue (or should I say 'tissue') is the closest thing I've read, which represents a formal disproof of neo-Darwinism.

This represents a significant step forward in the argument for re-dating the fossil record (in my view). The problem though is that evolutionary theory is so 'plastic' that it will somehow morph into a shape that suggests it 'predicted' this all along.... Much like so-called 'junk' DNA (now called Non-coding DNA)!!

Jonathan W., United States, 28 January 2014

Thanks for the excellent article. Really well done. The proposed experiment in the article regarding encasing a formaldehyde soaked specimen in "rock" is amusing. But, I wonder what results would show if a we conducted and experiment closer to the actual conditions for a period of, say, just 10 years?

Aleksandar K., Croatia, 28 January 2014

Your article makes another excellent point that deserves highlighting (although you did it before). The old hydrolysis problem. Millions of alien lovers welcome any new discovery of liquid water outside Earth because they think liquid water=condition for creation of life. They do not realize that water is the mortal enemy of organic polymers if they're not protected by a cell. It's kind of funny. Because they couldn't reconcile chemical evolution with elementary chemistry, like hydrolysis, they had to rename it to abiogenesis to avoid association with evolution. Now water strikes again, and its targets are their beloved display fossils. In another words, it made its way back to the evolution arena. Still waters run deep, is that how your saying goes? True in ways most people can't even imagine.

Seathrun M., Ireland, 28 January 2014

You say that the suggestion that iron may be the looked for long-age preservative indicates that the cat, if not yet completely out of the bag, is at least peering out! Well put! Using a similar metaphor, I would say that these discoveries of dinosaur tissues etc. are clearly threatening to "put the cat among the pigeons" where evolution is concerned - and the evolutionists not only know it but are scared stiff. Perhaps we could even compare the situation with that described in James 2:19 "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder!"

God bless your vital work in His Service.

Thomas W., United States, 29 January 2014

Just wanted to say thanks for the update. I had written earlier asking about the new iron theory when the previous article on the subject was posted a few weeks ago. It's nice to have a solid scientific understanding of why the iron theory would still fail at supporting millions of years.

Dr. Royal T., Germany, 29 January 2014

Ref. 6 was interesting. The half-life of C-14 decay is about 6k years. A 60 million year dinosaur indicates about 10k C-14 half-lives.

Say you had a huge dinosaur the size of the whole earth, composed of pure C-14 (1.33*10^50 atoms).

The last C-14 atom would have decayed in 167 half-lives. No way any C-14 is going to be found after 10 000 half-lives!

Half-life of C-14:

Atoms on earth:

Dominic Statham responds

See also ref. 3 of Dr Sarfati's article Diamonds: a creationist's best friend.

David S., United States, 30 January 2014

Excellent summary of where the dinosaur soft tissue topic stands currently. I appreciate CMI keeping folks appraised of the latest developments and preserving links to older articles as the case unfolds.

peter H., United Kingdom, 31 January 2014

having just read the discover article, I am curious as whether the discovery of the bone previously known in pregnant birds but discovered in dino bone is now used by dino to bird evolutionists as an evidence for that idea.

Al C., United States, 4 February 2014

I remember writing to CMI alerting them to this scientific ‘explanation’ for soft dino tissue. I was told a response was in the works.

In the interim one other creation site had come up with their response, which somewhat disappointed. It was perhaps too premature and lacked bite.

On the other hand, this CMI article went straight to the core of the issues and grabbed the subterfuge by the throat. Well done, CMI!

Victor M., New Zealand, 6 February 2014

Even if a live, non-crocodilian dinosaur would suddenly be discovered in a dark forest or lake, evolutionary scientists would remark, “How amazing – a living fossil!” Just like when the coelacanth (!400 MYA) was discovered in 1938. And the same is said of the NZ tuatara (!200 MYA).

It reminds one of the words of Jesus in John 6:35-36, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have SEEN me and still you DO NOT believe!” [emphasis added]

Dennsis H., United States, 7 February 2014

"I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible. I wrote back and said, 'Well, what data would convince you?' And he said, 'None.' " ... [H]e shows his resistance to anything that goes against his god theory. I also see Dr. Schweitzer as a scientist who also dislikes what she has discovered. But in one way, she is doing what any honest scientist ought to do. That is to try to disprove what she found. Test it. Let her test all she wants. By doing so, maybe God will cause her blind eyes too see... Keep up the good work, and thanks for all you do.

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.