Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.

Dinosaur proteins and radiocarbon wreak ‘Jurassic World’ havoc

Latest creationist research demolishes dinosaur dogma


Published: 25 June 2015 (GMT+10)

The record-earning movie Jurassic World continuously reminds its viewing audience that dinosaurs went extinct tens of millions of years ago. Most agree with this, of course, because it is the standard view of the evolutionary establishment. But just days after the movie hit big screens around the world, six technical papers in a special, groundbreaking, dinosaur issue of the journal Creation Research Society1 Quarterly (CRSQ) presented evidence that directly confronts the millions-of-years concept.2

I wrote one paper that reviewed a few dozen reports published over several decades in evolutionary journals, all showing evidence of original biochemicals like collagen protein persisting in dinosaur bones and other fossils. Apparently, not all fossils are totally permineralized and this remains a thorny issue for evolutionist researchers in trying to explain how such organic material could still be intact in the remains of dinosaurs that supposedly died out at least 65 million years ago. Indeed, the paper also identified published decay rates that show proteins have a maximum shelf-life of fewer than a million years, assuming reasonable earth surface temperatures.

The Jurassic World movie even mentions the dinosaur “soft tissues” that creation scientists have long argued shows a recent burial.3,4 In one scene, two young characters discuss how iron acted as a preservative to keep proteins and DNA around long enough for the movie’s scientists to reconstruct an array of extinct animals. This ‘iron solution’ idea has taken on a life of its own in an attempt to explain how soft tissue, proteins and blood cells could survive in fossils that are ‘obviously tens of millions of years old’. The whole idea of iron generating free radicals as a preservative is firmly debunked in one of the CRSQ papers. Here, two Ph.D. chemists demonstrate that the radicals, and the water they are transported in, actually destroy the chemicals of life, not preserve them.5 One wonders where such iron rich solutions might apparently appear so abundantly in nature, and paint themselves onto inner bone proteins as to preserve the dozens of dinosaur proteins found around the world with no evidence of iron on or near them.

Another paper in this dino issue features stunning close-up images of intact bone cells from a Triceratops horn. Researchers used a strong chelating agent (EDTA) to dissolve and remove the bone’s hard minerals. Remarkably, they also show networks of tiny blood vessels. This adds to the list of original biochemicals and tissue remnants that should not exist in fossils any older than one million years.

Creation researcher Vance Nelson and I wrote the last CRSQ paper in this issue, which showed even more clearly how far Jurassic World departs from science and history. Carbon dates from seven dinosaur bones, including the Triceratops that yielded cells, also indicate young fossils. Radiocarbon in fish fossils, and even Paleozoic wood and lizard samples add to dozens of already published radiocarbon dates for fossils, wood, shells, and coal—all supposedly tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Carbon-14 decays so fast that it should all have become stable nitrogen-14, and would be undetectable after well under a million years.6 Vance Nelson’s book Untold Secrets of Planet Earth: Flood Fossils noted carbon-14 in dinosaur bones tested by the radioisotope lab of a major university in the US. What is it doing in so many samples, including dinosaur bones?

One simple suggestion solves these dilemmas—dinosaur fossils formed thousands, not millions of years ago. That’s why they still have proteins, cells, and radiocarbon. But due to the ruling paradigm of millions of years of evolution, such ‘young’ ages for the existence of dinosaurs are simply dismissed.

All this reveals a stunning Jurassic irony. In order to pretend that dinosaurs could not live with humans, evolutionary history demands we overlook genetics, biochemistry and radiocarbon results. But if we follow these sciences and instead look past millions-of-years dogma, we find that dinosaurs really did live only thousands of years ago, with humans.7

References and notes

  1. The CRS is the only professional society for creation scientists with at least a Masters degree in science, who all contribute on a volunteer basis. See creationresearch.org. Return to text.
  2. See articles in Creation Research Society Quarterly 51, 2015. Return to text.
  3. Thomas, B. Original Animal Protein in Fossils? Creation 35(1):14–16, 2013. Return to text.
  4. Catchpoole, D., Double-decade dinosaur disquiet: For twenty years now, dino bones have progressively divulged their contents to researchers who did not expect to find the likes of DNA and radiocarbon ‘millions of years’ after dinosaur extinction. Creation 36(1):12–14, 2014. Return to text.
  5. See Smith, C., Dinosaur soft tissue: In seeming desperation, evolutionists turn to iron to preserve the idea of millions of years, 28 January 2014, especially ‘Technical update, 19 June 2015’ at the bottom of the article that summarizes and cites the CRSQ paper. Return to text.
  6. Sarfati, J., Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend: Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years, Creation 28(4):26–27, 2006. Return to text.
  7. This aligns with biblical history too. See Batten, D. et al. What about Dinosaurs? The Creation Answers Book, Ch. 19, 2014. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Flood Fossils
by Vance Nelson
US $32.00
Hard Cover
Dire Dragons
by Vance Nelson
US $32.00
Hard Cover
US $10.00

Readers’ comments

Nick A.
Thank you for providing solid empiric evidence that supports the creation account in Genesis. Please continue to be patient and courteous with our unbelieving friends. It takes time to process this new information that is contrary to everything they have been taught since their youngest days. Keep up the good work.
John M.
Since the "living fossil", the Coelacanth, managed to evade fossilization for the past "65 million" years yet is alive and well today, why is it so difficult to believe that perhaps dinosaurs only recently died out?
If living coelacanths had not been discovered yet, and a fossil coelacanth was found with red blood cells and stretchy ligaments, perhaps excuses would have been made for its "unusual" preservation during the last 65 million years as well.
M. S.
On the C14 found can anyone point me to the actual value found in testing ?
Gary Bates
If you follow the links in the article to the Flood Fossils book it will highlight that the book contains actually lab reports from a major US university's radioisotope lab. On the page promoting the book there is a copy of the report. The point of this article was to promote CRS's iDino project. If one get the CRS Quarterly edition we mentioned it will contain all the data to confirm their analyses.
Michael H.
I'm puzzled by creationists' insistence that the presence of biomolecules presents a problem for the concept of "millions of years". Discovery of biomolecules is a relatively recent phenomenon, indeed one that even CMI notes researchers were surprised by. It is only in the last few years that researchers are now questioning what scientists thought they knew about preservation of biomolecules. Creationists state as if it were fact this outdated notion that there's some kind of known upper limit for preservation, when the very point of this emerging field of research is to question that.

If the flood is responsible for the fossil record and creationists are correct that biomolecules really can only persist for however long they wish to claim they can, one would expect far far greater numbers of fossils containing such molecules.
Gary Bates
It’s interesting to see how such comments display an unwillingness to accept the obvious. If evolutionary scientists with hundreds of hours of research cannot ‘invent’ solutions or environments where such preservation may occur in perfect laboratory conditions, then how unrealistic is it to expect it to occur in nature? And not only in one location, but all over the world. The creationists are not surprised because the facts being presented fit perfectly with our worldview. it is the religion of evolution that struggles to explain such data because of an adherence to a philosophy—even when the data does not fit. I quote one of the most famous evolutionary researchers on this topic, Dr Mary Schweitzer, who said:

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. (Nova Science Now, May 2010).
See Dinosaur soft tissue.

So while it might be convenient for you to claim no surprise, in reality this is not the case with your friends in the evolutionary establishment. Moreover, there is additional evidence of radiocarbon (which could not last more than a few tens of thousands of years) in dinosaur fossils which you seemingly ignore. Are you now going to appeal to further unknowns (special pleading) and claim that there is some environmental factor that would have to almost halt radiometric decay? BTW these are not isolated cases. Carbon-14 has been found in every single fossil that has been tested. It’s in oil, coal, and even diamonds that are supposed to be billions of years old. And you can research this site to find much more on this.
In fact, it’s actually quite difficult to believe you are being serious. Perhaps people are so used to parroting the concept of millions of years that they don’t stop to think what incredibly, almost incomprehensibly long periods of time we are talking about. We are not talking about 100 years, or even a 1,000 or 100,000 or even 1,000,000 years. The claim is that biomolecules can somehow last for tens of millions of years. By any stretch of the imagination this is unreasonable. Ironically it’s often creationists who are accused of having blind faith and ignoring evidence!
Jason B.
I also find it interesting that evolutionists readily accept the carbon-14 ages for woolly mammoths which are sometimes older than the carbon-14 ages for the dinosaurs that have been tested. The only thing driving such selective acceptance of carbon-14 results are the presuppositions that they refuse to reject, otherwise the science of carbon-14 dating would lead them to the truth. Clearly, they aren't interested in science that contradicts their presuppositions, which implies they are holding their beliefs in a superior position to science, contrary to what they say and want the public to believe about them and what they may even believe about themselves.
Christian R.
I find it amazing how scientists and other atheists/evolutionists alike are so attached to the idea that dinosaurs are millions of years old that they try any explanation possible to explain soft tissue in "million-year-old" dinosaur fossils. First, they claimed it was not soft tissue, but bacteria. That idea failed them, so they moved to the "iron preservation" theory, which has also failed them. I suspect they will come up with any other crazy "just-so" story to avoid accepting the obvious: dinosaurs AREN'T millions of years old!
Olakunle A.
In my on-line debates with Atheists and their ilk, it is almost impossible to get them to reject the evolutionary presuppositions behind millions/billions of years time-scale, even in the face of recent findings such as CMI mentioned. This further confirms to me that this is no longer about Scientific Truth.

They know the truth but would rather suppress it. And mainstream media has even made it easier for them. I believe Christians too must take advantage of all media and get these truths out there as often as we can. Faith always comes by hearing, and constantly hearing, i should add.

Thanks CMI for making me scientifically informed.
Ronald W.
Evolutionary worldview + Hollywood = one well oiled fairytale machine. The fact that the script writers worked the "iron solution" into the movie is a reminder that a battle of worldviews is indeed taking place within our society. Thank you so much for articles such as this one. They always help me formulate answers to the questions that are bound to come up through discussions with my peers.
Aleksandar K.
Well... you don't really expect facts to get in the way of a good (brainwashing) story, do you?

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.