By John Roberts, May 26, 2008

It has been years since soft tissue was discovered in the fossil femur of a Tyrannosaurus Rex.  Yet during all that time the scientific community has remained absolutely silent about a key question that has yet to be answered:

How can this fossil be 68 million years old if it contains soft tissue?

In living cells DNA, proteins, and other biological macromolecules are maintained by our bodies repair mechanisms.  But after death they break down and self destruct at a rapid rate.  Water strips away bases from DNA and background radiation erases all genetic information.  In the absence of preservation organic material will become petrified during the fossilization process within a few ten thousand years.

This Rex was discovered in Montana, at the Hell Creek Formation, and was exposed to the elements for "68 million years."  According to evolutionists MOR 1125 died before the seven continents were even formed, on the super continent "Pangaea." 

That is a long, long time for soft tissue to last and stay "flexible."  A good analogy to put things into perspective, it's like finding a Snow Cone on Waikiki Beach in the middle of summer. 

In addition, when this fossil was brought into the lab it had an "organic smell," like all the fossils from Hell Creek.  Million-year old fossils do not smell like road kill.

So what gives?  Why are they avoiding this critical question?  The way I see it there are only three possible explanations:

1. The "soft tissue" might be contamination.
2. Our understanding of fossilization is wrong.
3. We must call into question the age of the fossil.

When the media first reported this discovery most scientists were skeptical, thinking the tissue was most likely contamination.  But the possibility of contamination has recently been ruled out.  Researchers studying the tissue have concluded that extracted protein from this fossilized dinosaur tissue is authentic.  "These results support the endogenous origin of the preserved collagen molecules."

We can cross off answer "A" from the multiple choice questions.  This leaves us with only "B and C" as possible answers.

So is "B" the right answer?  Do we need to rethink the fossilization process?  The current body of knowledge within the scientific community says no.   And common sense also says no.  The fossilization process is fairly well known, and has been validated through testing.

A specimen in a good state of preservation is always found in amber, a bog, frozen in ice, rapidly buried during a cataclysmic event such as a volcanic eruption or flood, or it has been mummified and kept in an ultra dry climate.  Specimens left exposed to the elements quickly decomposed and their remains fossilize, the organic matter is replaced by minerals.

Could it be the humongous Rex thigh bone protected the soft tissue from decay?  Without a doubt this slowed the fossilization process down a bit.  But the thick bone would not protect the tissue from background radiation.  So that rules out "B," this tissue could not survive for millions of years.

So the facts surrounding this discovery point to only one plausible answer, "C."  The purported age of this fossil is way off.  And the best evidence for this is the fact that soft tissue was recovered from MOR 1125 and other T. rexs and species at the Hell Creek Formation and around the world.

Without a doubt this Tyrannosaurus Rex was alive and walking around Montana less than 60,000 years ago.  And that has tremendous ramifications for the scientific community.  Which explains why they are so reluctant to even entertain the notion.

And despite denials to the contrary, this discovery poses a serious challenge to the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories that are tied to it.  

Species like the Coelacanth have been found alive when science insisted they have been extinct for millions of years.  But evolutionists found a way to divert attention away from the obvious.  They simply called them "living fossils."  Nevertheless, the evidence against evolution is becoming insurmountable.

But finding T. rex soft tissue, that changes everything, and can't be dismissed so easily.    And when they do release little bits of information its all tied to the theory of evolution.

For example, in the latest information to be published on MOR 1125 we learned that six peptides, 89 amino acids, were studied to try and prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs.  The Harvard researchers that performed the study found that this T. rex fits on the "phylogenetic tree between alligators, chickens and ostriches."  Their conclusion, "birds evolved from dinosaurs."

Understand, in their words, Tyrannosaurus Rex is not going to just give birth to a chick.  Thankfully, evolutionists have not proposed that theory yet.  So it would take time, a long time, for "random mutations" in the Rex genome to eventually arrive at a chicken. 

But what they don't mention is that if chickens evolved from Tyrannosaurus Rex we should see thousands if not millions of "transitions forms" (otherwise known as configuration changes) in the fossil record.  With each random change, the Rex should look more and more like a chicken.  But these transitional forms simply are not there.

Personally, I think there are going way over the top with such claims.  I wonder how they expect to be taken seriously?  It reminds me of the movies made today with too much CGI. They are going so far out of touch with reality that people just lose interest.  I think the same thing is happening with the theory of evolution.  Scientists act like this theory is now a proven fact.  Maybe in their minds, but most of us common folk are shaking our heads in disbelief as the stories get wilder and stranger all the time.

When I look at a Rex my first impression is not, "Wow, Tyrannosaurus Rex is clearly built for flight."  Or, "Look at that, the resemblance to a chicken is just uncanny!"

Come on people, give me a break.  T. rex is estimated to have weighed up to 7 tons.  It did not have wings, it was not covered in feathers, and it was built like a tank, not like an aerodynamic flying machine. 

The fact that various species share snippets of DNA does not prove one evolved from another.  It shows that God used common building blocks of code to create all life.  In software development it is called reusable software.  And it is a sign of an good design and an intelligent designer.

I can hear the evolutionists now, "Hold on, this transition from a Rex to a Chicken did not take place over night, it took millions of years."   Once again, no it didn't, because the transitional forms are missing from the fossil record in your so called "Geological Column."

I wonder how much money was dumped into this research by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Paul F. Glenn Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation?  Just to say chickens came from T. rex?  In the whole scope of things and the problems facing us all today is this really a high priority project worth funding?

Now you understand why the theory of evolution has hung around for so long.   Darwin left science a cash cow and they are going to milk it forever if they can.   Take away their theory, and the research grants go away as well.

It doesn't matter to me if these fossils are a 100,000,000 years old, 60,000, or 5,000 for that matter.  That wouldn't change anything.  I know the dinosaurs and everything else in the Ancient World were created by God.  But science needs to get it right, and get saved.

And knowing the real timetable for when the dinosaurs walked the Earth could be useful.  It would give us more information on the length of the days of creation.  God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh.  But not every day in scripture is counted as a 24 hour solar day.  The words "day" and "week" are often used in scripture as a reference to a specific time period, the length of which is defined by the context of how the word is being used.

And remember what Apostle Peter said:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."   2 Peter 3:8-10

We are told in scripture that the Tribulation week is seven years long.  And the Day of the Lord mentioned in prophecy is about a 1,000 years long.  In one sense the Millennial Kingdom is the Lord's Sabbath.  And God is still creating, in that He is still adding to the Church, and Israel has yet to be saved.  The number seven is very important, and so is 7 x 7 or 49.  And don't forget that the Jubilee, when all things go back to their Master, is a fifty year cycle.  Any one of these things might be a clue into the length of the creation days.

But this we know, God's creation of the Ancient World was completed, in six days, and that is what is important to this story.  I have heard all the arguments used to support a 144 hour creation week by literalists.  And frankly, they just don't make sense. 

If God could create the universe in six days He could have also done it in a split second.  What's a few hours to an omnipotent and omnipresent God?  But He didn't, God created the Ancient World in a specific order, in a specific time period, and then He rested.  Everything God does He does with purpose and meaning. 

What this implies is that God spoke, things happened, then He let things mature over time in a natural way.  How long this took on each day we simply don't know, because we are not told.  It is a mystery.  If you want to believe the creation week was 144 hours long, go ahead, you might be right.  But that was one busy week, expecially the sixth day.

When Christians insist that the creation week was comprised of 24 hour days it constrains the age of the whole universe to only six thousand years.   If scientists think this comes straight from the Bible (which it doesn't), it can be a stumbling block to their salvation because it conflicts with what they see in their research. The scientific community has such a myopic view of everything as it is thanks to Darwin.  The Church should not be adding to this error and their confusion by misrepresenting the Word of God.

John's Take

Now, there is a very easy way to determine the age of this T. rex.  Radiocarbon or other dating techniques could be used on the organic matter extracted from the Rex.

But that is not going to happen.  Why?  Because Carbon dating is unreliable beyond 60,000 thousand years and these evolutionists are convinced the Rex is 68 million years old.

Where did they come up with that figure and how do they know the Rex is too old to test?  Well, the Geologic Column says so.  And exactly how does this measuring tool date fossils?   The Geologic Column dates fossils by the rock layer they are in.  And how is the rock layer dated I ask?  The rock layer is dated by the fossils that are found in it. 

Well, I might not be the sharpest crayon in the box, but there is nothing scientific about circular reasoning.  And this is the same defective thought process that delayed the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue.  No one thought to look for dinosaur DNA in their fossils because they "assumed" fossils were too old to contain organic material.

Have they learned from their mistake?  Guess not, because now they won't use radiocarbon dating on MOR 1125 because they assume the fossil is too old and it won't yield reliable data.

Lets be honest, all forms of dating are grossly inaccurate, even Dendrochronology, tree ring dating.  It appears that trees actually produce between 0 to 5 rings a year depending upon environmental factors.   But the most unreliable data tool of all would have to be the Geological Column.  But it was developed to support the theory of evolution, and that is why they use it.

I believe the result of radiocarbon dating would prove this Tyrannosaurus to be less than 60,000 years old.  Perhaps deep inside they fear that might just be right.  Maybe that is the real reason why they refuse to perform the test.

As a Christian I defend my faith in God our Creator by saying, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  To this evolutionists will respond, ridiculing my faith in God, "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."  But two can play that game.  Show me the evidence that soft tissue can retain all of its properties for 68 million years!

Stories Posted Prior To 2008

Many news stories posted over a year ago on lastdays.com are still relevant and readers may find them of some interest.  However, to improve the load time of the news section and thereby make the browsing experience more enjoyable some news stories have been moved to the archive. 

Just use the link provided below to access more Science news stories.

GO TO SCIENCE NEWS ARCHIVE