1 Corinthians 3:19
"Fossilized dinosaur cells that defied the ravages of time — 20 years since a key discovery (Nature News and Views, 17 March 2025).
The Darwin-loyal scientific community is adamant that dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. ‘Old dead dinosaurs do not bleed,’ they insisted in effect.
Every part of a dinosaur fossil should have
long ago been replaced by minerals.
After so much time, no original tissue could possibly have remained.
Then, in 2005, Dr Mary Schweitzer found stretchy blood vessels inside the femur of a T. rex. Watch the reaction of a Darwin Party reporter and a leading dinosaur paleontologist in this clip from the CBS program 60 Minutes that aired shortly after the discovery was published.
Dr Schweitzer’s discovery was not the first. Other reports of dinosaur soft tissue had been published earlier, but hers was the one that made the biggest media splash.
Dr Schweitzer’s discovery was not the first. Other reports of dinosaur soft tissue had been published earlier, but hers was the one that made the biggest media splash.
Since 2005, numerous other reports have been published. Dr Brian Thomas at ICR keeps a list, now with over 100 entries.
CEH has been sharing many reports of dinosaur soft tissue since 2005.
But the Darwinist Deep Time consensus, intent on refuting the soft tissue claims, has tried every possible angle to show that dead dinosaurs do not bleed. They have claimed contamination. They have alleged that biofilms in the bone mimic original dinosaur tissue. They have imagined weird chemistry: anything but believe that that is real, original dinosaur soft tissue. They have run out of options.
----Now, the leading scientific journal is admitting, 20 years late, that dead dinosaurs do bleed.
That Nature would “question previous assumptions” on this subject represents the turning of a corner in the history of science.
----Now, the leading scientific journal is admitting, 20 years late, that dead dinosaurs do bleed.
"Although there had been a number of reports of soft tissues and biomolecular fragments extracted from fossils from the Mesozoic era (252 million to 65 million years ago) and Palaeozoic era (538 million to 252 million years ago), it was a landmark paper published in Science in 2005 by Mary Schweitzer and colleagues that prompted palaeontologists, chemists, geologists, astrobiologists and evolutionary biologists to question previous assumptions about the limitations of the fossil record."
That Nature would “question previous assumptions” on this subject represents the turning of a corner in the history of science.
Here are some of the admissions author Jasmina Wiemann makes in this article:
*The proteins in the fossil are original, primordial tissue.
“Surprisingly,” this includes “flexible, pliable, and translucent” organic cellular and vascular structures in a fibrous meshwork in tyrannosaur and hadrosaur dinosaur bones.
*The “reported preservation of biomolecules directly contradicted existing decay models.” In other words, the consensus was wrong.
The material includes “remarkable preservation down to the subcellular level” of original tissue.
*The material includes “structures similar to bone cells (osteocytes), blood vessels with surface marks resembling junctions between endothelial cells and containing possible cell nuclei, and patches of fibrous extracellular matrix.”
“Surprisingly,” this includes “flexible, pliable, and translucent” organic cellular and vascular structures in a fibrous meshwork in tyrannosaur and hadrosaur dinosaur bones.
*The “reported preservation of biomolecules directly contradicted existing decay models.” In other words, the consensus was wrong.
The material includes “remarkable preservation down to the subcellular level” of original tissue.
*The material includes “structures similar to bone cells (osteocytes), blood vessels with surface marks resembling junctions between endothelial cells and containing possible cell nuclei, and patches of fibrous extracellular matrix.”
Schweitzer’s discovery compares well with tissues from a modern ostrich bone, including the response of antibodies to the material.
The soft tissue “may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience”.
What Schweitzer showed on 60 minutes, eliciting a gasp from Lesley Stahl, was therefore not a trick.
Parts of the “dinosaur protein 3D (quaternary) structure were still intact, able to bind to antibodies and similar in sequence to related proteins in modern birds.”
The reaction? “This 2005 paper and follow-up investigations were met with both excitement and scepticism across the sciences,” Wiemann writes.
Parts of the “dinosaur protein 3D (quaternary) structure were still intact, able to bind to antibodies and similar in sequence to related proteins in modern birds.”
The reaction? “This 2005 paper and follow-up investigations were met with both excitement and scepticism across the sciences,” Wiemann writes.
They didn’t want to believe it.
They couldn’t imagine it.
It seemed impossible.
"Biochemists discussed whether protein fragments and their 3D structures could survive over such a long period of time, especially when they had been exposed to temperatures above 40 °C in the Hell Creek Formation that would be expected to cause protein degradation."
It was easier to just ignore this evidence.
Dead dinosaurs do not bleed, everyone knows, but dinosaurs dead for 65 to 252 million years should not even have any soft tissue evidence left (blood or blood vessels) to show that they were capable of bleeding when alive."
CEH
