Dinosaur Shocker

Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth

By Helen Fields
Smithsonian magazine, May 2006, Subscribe

A tiny blob of stretchy brown matter, soft tissue from inside the leg bone, suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed (© Science)

$util.paragraph($article.body,$startIndex,$numParagraphs)

Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and a sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”

After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

It may be that Schweitzer’s unorthodox approach to paleontology can be traced to her roundabout career path. Growing up in Helena, Montana, she went through a phase when, like many kids, she was fascinated by dinosaurs. In fact, at age 5 she announced she was going to be a paleontologist. But first she got a college degree in communicative disorders, married, had three children and briefly taught remedial biology to high schoolers. In 1989, a dozen years after she graduated from college, she sat in on a class at Montana State University taught by paleontologist Jack Horner, of the Museum of the Rockies, now an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution. The lectures reignited her passion for dinosaurs. Soon after, she talked her way into a volunteer position in Horner’s lab and began to pursue a doctorate in paleontology.

She initially thought she would study how the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones differs depending on how much the animal weighs. But then came the incident with the red spots.

In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

Schweitzer tends to be self-deprecating, claiming to be hopeless at computers, lab work and talking to strangers. But colleagues admire her, saying she’s determined and hard-working and has mastered a number of complex laboratory techniques that are beyond the skills of most paleontologists. And asking unusual questions took a lot of nerve. “If you point her in a direction and say, don’t go that way, she’s the kind of person who’ll say, Why?—and she goes and tests it herself,” says Gregory Erickson, a paleobiologist at Florida State University. Schweitzer takes risks, says Karen Chin, a University of Colorado paleontologist. “It could be a big payoff or it could just be kind of a ho-hum research project.”

In 2000, Bob Harmon, a field crew chief from the Museum of the Rockies, was eating his lunch in a remote Montana canyon when he looked up and saw a bone sticking out of a rock wall. That bone turned out to be part of what may be the best preserved T. rex in the world. Over the next three summers, workers chipped away at the dinosaur, gradually removing it from the cliff face. They called it B. rex in Harmon’s honor and nicknamed it Bob. In 2001, they encased a section of the dinosaur and the surrounding dirt in plaster to protect it. The package weighed more than 2,000 pounds, which turned out to be just above their helicopter’s capacity, so they split it in half. One of B. rex’s leg bones was broken into two big pieces and several fragments—just what Schweitzer needed for her micro-scale explorations.

It turned out Bob had been misnamed. “It’s a girl and she’s pregnant,” Schweitzer recalls telling her lab technician when she looked at the fragments. On the hollow inside surface of the femur, Schweitzer had found scraps of bone that gave a surprising amount of information about the dinosaur that made them. Bones may seem as steady as stone, but they’re actually constantly in flux. Pregnant women use calcium from their bones to build the skeleton of a developing fetus. Before female birds start to lay eggs, they form a calcium-rich structure called medullary bone on the inside of their leg and other bones; they draw on it during the breeding season to make eggshells. Schweitzer had studied birds, so she knew about medullary bone, and that’s what she figured she was seeing in that T. rex specimen.

Most paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives. In fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs. The theropod of the Jurassic forests lives on in the goldfinch visiting the backyard feeder, the toucans of the tropics and the ostriches loping across the African savanna.

To understand her dinosaur bone, Schweitzer turned to two of the most primitive living birds: ostriches and emus. In the summer of 2004, she asked several ostrich breeders for female bones. A farmer called, months later. “Y’all still need that lady ostrich?” The dead bird had been in the farmer’s backhoe bucket for several days in the North Carolina heat. Schweitzer and two colleagues collected a leg from the fragrant carcass and drove it back to Raleigh.

As far as anyone can tell, Schweitzer was right: Bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. A paper published in Science last June presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features.

In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.

In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens. Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vessels—the tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs. Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.

Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this “the awful question”—whether Schweitzer’s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction’s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It’s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up. Instead, Schweitzer has been testing her dinosaur tissue samples for proteins, which are a bit hardier and more readily distinguished from contaminants. Specifically, she’s been looking for collagen, elastin and hemoglobin. Collagen makes up much of the bone scaffolding, elastin is wrapped around blood vessels and hemoglobin carries oxygen inside red blood cells.

Because the chemical makeup of proteins changes through evolution, scientists can study protein sequences to learn more about how dinosaurs evolved. And because proteins do all the work in the body, studying them could someday help scientists understand dinosaur physiology—how their muscles and blood vessels worked, for example.

Proteins are much too tiny to pick out with a microscope. To look for them, Schweitzer uses antibodies, immune system molecules that recognize and bind to specific sections of proteins. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have been using antibodies to chicken collagen, cow elastin and ostrich hemoglobin to search for similar molecules in the dinosaur tissue. At an October 2005 paleontology conference, Schweitzer presented preliminary evidence that she has detected real dinosaur proteins in her specimens.

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.

But schweitzer’s interest in the long-term preservation of molecules and cells does have an otherworldly dimension: she’s collaborating with NASA scientists on the search for evidence of possible past life on Mars, Saturn’s moon Titan, and other heavenly bodies. (Scientists announced this spring, for instance, that Saturn’s tiny moon Enceladus appears to have liquid water, a probable precondition for life.)

Astrobiology is one of the wackier branches of biology, dealing in life that might or might not exist and might or might not take any recognizable form. “For almost everybody who works on NASA stuff, they are just in hog heaven, working on astrobiology questions,” Schweitzer says. Her NASA research involves using antibodies to probe for signs of life in unexpected places. “For me, it’s the means to an end. I really want to know about my dinosaurs.”

To that purpose, Schweitzer, with Wittmeyer, spends hours in front of microscopes in dark rooms. To a fourth-generation Montanan, even the relatively laid-back Raleigh area is a big city. She reminisces wistfully about scouting for field sites on horseback in Montana. “Paleontology by microscope is not that fun,” she says. “I’d much rather be out tromping around.”

“My eyeballs are just absolutely fried,” Schweitzer says after hours of gazing through the microscope’s eyepieces at glowing vessels and blobs. You could call it the price she pays for not being typical.

Single Page 1 2 3 4

Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.

Comments (158)

Great feature, absolutely fascinating. The real shock though is reading the comments, and the alarming views of creationists.

Posted by Peter Davis on May 5,2013 | 05:43 PM

Decay is an observable process TODAY and if we don't understand it by now we certainly don't know anything about the "process" of evolution.(I put it in quotes because if it's unguided and random then you can't call it a process.)

Posted by Andrew on April 17,2013 | 08:02 PM

Finally in a fossilized dinosaur you found red blood cells that was thought to not have been able to preserve for 65 million years yet there are mummies or fossilized people in Egypt that they still cannot get cells or DNA from the bones to see if they can trace their line, why is this? It should be more easily accessed in mummies if it is found in fossilized dinosaur bones. I've always been interested in this type of information just knew how to follow it in the field. Please can I have an answer or help me find a way to answer it myself by getting me in-touch with those that could help me!

Posted by Debra Riley on April 8,2013 | 02:11 AM

it's funny searching this article for "million" and seeing how many time they continually try to emphasis it's millions of years old. I sense panic in the article. They dated the rock around the bones to be millions of years? Give me a break, they date rock by fossils, fossils by rock, and you have trees growing through many layers of 'millions of years' fossilized. When Mt. Saint Hellen's blew, trees were burried in many layers of dirt rapidly, vs. millions of years of sediment piling up.

Posted by Trevor Fayas on March 14,2013 | 02:34 PM

I have this red skinned toe with a long nail almost looks like Satan's finger lol I have both segments it's about a foot long both combined and the skins still in tact it was originally in a stone that was reddish brown.and shaped like a flask no joke curiosity got the best of my husband who then chipped piece by piece at it until he came to this discovery first flask shaped piece a segment to a toe of a dinosaur I assume then we worked on second flask like rock and discovered the other piece island what it is but I know it's not human and it's in perfect condition I do know it's petrified and I was wanting information on who to contact about these amazing discoveries

Posted by heather on February 22,2013 | 11:20 PM

Where can I get the paper about the soft tissue found in the Argentina theropod and the other tyrannosaur?

Posted by Randomosaur on February 17,2013 | 10:18 PM

It fascinates me that when good evidence shows that maybe scientists have gotten it wrong, it is explained away. They even want to believe that soft tissue takes billions of years to actually decay! There was no mention of the dinosaurs that have been recently carbon 14 tested and shown to be less than 50,000 years old. I found it humorous that Helen Fields had to continually "remind" us how old this dinosaur was! Why can't dinosaurs have lived 50,000 years ago? Why are scientists so scared of that being possible? It still doesn't prove creation. (I also thought it was funny how the writer said creationists only think the earth is a "few thousand" years old. She obviously doesn't know what they think). This whole article came across as being very biased and deceptive. Not impressed.

Posted by Anne on February 9,2013 | 09:54 PM

Instead of trying to make this fit with the Bible or Evolution, just welcome the steady and the information. People have to perpetually argue if it should fall on the evolution side or the bible side. It it what it is. Data presented to the public.

Posted by on February 9,2013 | 03:35 PM

Young Earth creationists didn't hijack the research. The interpreted it correctly. The young earth model much more likely predicts soft tissue preservation than the evolution model.

Posted by Tom Breuner on February 1,2013 | 11:53 AM

This Montana discovery very much proves that dinosaurs have not been extinct for 'nearly' as long as many claim. Now, is our government going to find a way to cover this up too, with the help of their 'atheist' scientists? This would not be the first time. This of course would be to support their belief in evolution, a 'THEORY' that is being pushed down peoples throats as fact and at the same time cleverly undermining God's place in the scheme of things. 1 John 5:19, Rev.12:12, 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 2 Thessal. 2:9-11. I do appreciate Schweitzer's willingness to make all this known. I hope that she gets the support that she should get, for the sake of all who love the 'truth' from science.

Posted by eydie barrientos on January 25,2013 | 09:01 PM

The comment about how old the earth is according to some 'creationists' misrepresents what many people that put faith in the Bible KNOW: that the book of Genesis simply does NOT support the idea that the earth has only been around for a few thousand years. Through careful study one will find that each creative day was at least 7 thousand years long. I am tired of people who are too lazy to read and just don't care enough about the Bible and so inevitably 'misrepresent' it. Let's get it straight. God and his word are not against 'science'. It is science against the Bible and God. Because 'most' scientist make science their God to replace the real God, the Creator with whom they would also have to answer for their conscience or lack of one. Where there is no God there are no rules and no 'truth'.

Posted by eydie barrientos on January 25,2013 | 08:30 PM

I guess it takes a 875 Quadzillion years for the blood cells to decompse in a dinasaur. yeah that's it. This actually proves the earth is older. Maybe into the Bentillian quaddrouplezillion years. It's their story and they are sticking to it up until God returns and well it's too late.

Posted by Charles on December 18,2012 | 10:44 AM

Jack Horner “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” or 'Mary honey, everyone knows the world is flat, seeing those ship masts rising up on the horizon can't be right. Do you hear me dear? Would you like to continue your research? Ok, now that we see 'I to I' you are ready to continue.' Welcome to Scientism, where the high priest tells you what to believe and how to be absolved of your sin. Frankly I'm surprised that Schweitzer is still alive let alone still working for the Man. There is no desire to go where the evidence leads, just a ferocious holding to the template at all costs. Enter divergent evolution, Oort clouds, polystrate anomolies, living fossils, a bazillion helpful mutations, et al.

Posted by John S on December 18,2012 | 09:14 AM

maybe it's not as old as they think it is. How can a tree grow up through two different seams of coal that took millions and millions of years to form. To funny. Science would never admit they coud be wrong ?

Posted by flatpicker on December 5,2012 | 11:47 AM

You cannot claim to be a Christian and support evolution to the extent that the earth was around for millions of years. I'm with the creationists on this one. God preserved that tissue for us to find. Science doesn't make sense without God. The "theory" of evolution is just that. If I took a steralized test tube and I put all the things for a single cell to live in it, it would live, but if I took a needle and poked a hole in it and let all the contents leak out, the cell would die, and no matter what you do, you would not be able to put "Humpty Dumpty" back together again. Oh God is real alright. Some people refuse to believe because they say science cannot explain God. Well duh, that's the whole point. Science was established simply to explain natural phenoma, there is no reeason to assume science can explain supernatural phenomena.

Posted by Zach on December 2,2012 | 02:00 PM

Grow up people - I still can not believe that on "scientist" can fool so many. We are talking about 75 millions of years. In one million years everything becomes rock. And of course she could not extract the DNA from it - that would reveal the truth and we want to believe in "WOW!!!", don't we?. Pathetic

Posted by Me on November 19,2012 | 06:19 PM

I commend the lady for her immaculate work of unearthing the hidden. She has a great passion and deserves immense credit. I have for quite some time now been interested in these Monstrous creatures. I particularly like movies on them. I have watched The Skull Island,Journey to the Island which is based on a book by V-someone, all which features these animals. How I enjoy seeing them! Good job!

Posted by Nkurunziza on October 30,2012 | 09:22 AM

I'm sure Smithsonian won't even publish this but... This article is highly biased and false. Why don't they publish an article that tells everyone the truth for once. Scientists can't prove any theories of the age of the Earth and that they are based off of unproven methods. Carbon dating itself could not be proven unless one was able to observe the hypothesis for the millions of years to authenticate the process. Otherwise it is an educated guess based off of short term tests and then a mathematical formula to "guess" at the age of objects. Nobody hijacked her work because in essence her work is probably hijacking the real truth that all of you will never find out in your lifetime.

Posted by Matt on October 28,2012 | 10:04 PM

Great work. Dr. Schweitzer's find is that of a true scientist--not deterred from doing something that seems crazy. I, a PhD biochemist and MD, find the God of the Big Bang so much more awe-inspiring than one who made clay models of everything in six days (of what length?) and, admittedly awesomely enough, breathed life into them. I can just imagine him flicking one switch and spending the next 14 billion years watching what he started--so transcendent! Why can't creationists see the beauty of this?

Posted by Margaret Shirley on October 28,2012 | 03:39 PM

ugh, young earthers. Mary Schweitzer , you are awesome for sticking to your science/faith guns, lets hear it for Christians and scientists both, who are willing to actually study and learn, not have closed minds. A common claim i'm seeing is "there's no known way for soft tissue to remain not decomposed for millions of years..." to support their young fossils. How about the fossilization process - doesn't it take a rather long time for total mineralization to happen? not to mention sediment layers becoming solid rock as well. Any how, this is an absolutely amazing find, for dinosaur lovers and paleontologists everywhere. I am so excited I teared up a bit. Good on ya team, keep up the research, take the occasional break to tromp in the field to keep the passion alive, and of course, we hope to find DNA and clone some big old-school dinos soon. :) not that ostriches aren't cool but... you know. man, this is SO COOL! cheers -J

Posted by jason on October 26,2012 | 07:02 PM

So why on Earth did I not expect this to turn into some God diatribe? Give me a break! It's a story people, brought to you by dreams and visions of a boatload of people hundreds of years after the so called "fact". Any "predisposition" as someone mentioned is actually an incorrect presumption simply because you either have a story or you have a tangible object like a dinosaur bone in your hand. Revealed religions also told us the world was flat because nothing else fit their theory.

Posted by Leon on October 26,2012 | 06:06 PM

Religion is comical.

Posted by Guy that thinks for himself on October 25,2012 | 06:34 PM

"dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr." Just out of curiosity, what was HE wearing?

Posted by Chris Leithiser on September 16,2012 | 01:29 PM

Evolution itself is a faith. Scientists uncover a skull that differs slightly from a regular chimpanzee and they label it a 'transitional fossil' or 'missing link'. Most scientists working in these related fields of paleontology, microbiology, physics etc have this 'unwritten law' that what they observe in their particular field in no way can be accredited to a divine act. That notion is disregarded from the start and are forced to make it fit into a naturalistic explanation, which means that a lot of the conclusions they come up with are based of a predisposition. I'm not saying we should grasp at strawmen, but rather be truthful and call it a fact when we know for sure. I mean a scientific fact is something which is observable? Baffles my mind how people can call macroevolution a fact when no one can actually observe it and most of it just assumption. Science will always lead to God. Just look at the hundreds of factors and constants holding our universe together so complex, self-aware beings as ourselves can exist. If any one of those factors were changed, we wouldn't exist. If the earth were slightly smaller we wouldn't exist. If the moon were smaller or bigger, earth would be uninhabitable. If the sun was bigger, smaller, closer or to far away life would exist on earth. If gravity was a tad stronger, or weaker, we wouldn't exist. If the strong and weak nuclear forces were altered slightly, we wouldn't exist. If the earth's crust was thinner or thicker, we wouldn't exist. Gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism were all brought into existence at the big bang. The universe is expanding at just the right rate to avoid and implosion and was instrumental in the forming of stars, galaxies etc. These are just a few of the factors which grant us life. And people think all this happened by chance?

Posted by Americant on September 8,2012 | 05:14 PM

Lol I love how in the circular Evolutionary theory, new contradictory evidence means the evidence is wrong, not Evolution. So....we know soft tissue decomposes rapidly, and is completely gone in a short period of time, within thousands of years...this has been the scientific belief, with good reason up till now. But when we find soft tissue on a dinosaur bone supposed to be 68 million years old, we throw out the previous science on body decomposition and just say "Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.” " See---we know evolution is true, therefore what we can see and prove today...rapid decomposition of all soft tissue on a skeleton...must be wrong. "We don't understand it yet". Lol. When do we end this stupid religion called evolution. Where facts don't matter,and every new fact that comes along (soft tissue on so-called 68 million year old dinosaur bones) against evolution is either wrong or it must be re-interpreted to fit the theory. Real Scientists would ask the obvious question: Are these bones as old as we think?

Posted by Jon on September 4,2012 | 03:11 PM

CLONE DINOSAURS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Sean Wilson on September 1,2012 | 02:04 PM

Does Job 40 [acredited as the words of God] describe a sauropod? The reasoning is that no living creature has a tail like a cedar, this seems to describe a sauropod. If this is the case then dinosaurs lived alongside humans, post the flood and were taken aboard the ark. A hippopotamus has a wippy tail and has little strength in its hips. Job 40:15-24 New King James Version (NKJV) 15 “Look now at the behemoth,[a] which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox. 16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles. 17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. 18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron. 19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword. 20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there. 21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh. 22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him. 23 Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed; He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth, 24 Though he takes it in his eyes, Or one pierces his nose with a snare. Genesis 6:19-22 New King James Version (NKJV) 19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.” 22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.

Posted by John Stickland on August 21,2012 | 08:06 PM

this page is cluttered by creationist idiots.

Posted by on August 13,2012 | 12:25 PM

The soft tissue extracted from the T.rex femur should be organic material. Why not test that with radio carbon dating? Seems unconventional but so is the work Schweitzer has done. Perhaps this will help resolve some of the questions generated.

Posted by Alan Hart on August 11,2012 | 08:20 PM

@Arnold: "The only test I am aware of is carbon dating" Carbon dating is usually not used in dating fossils, because fossils are mineralized: they do not usually contain organic remains. Carbon dating is limited to organic remains no more than 60.000 year old, because after about 60.000 year, the amount of C-14 becomes so small that it becomes difficult to measure the difference between a thousand years older or younger. Using carbon dating, it would be impossible to tell the difference between a corpse that's a million years old and one that's twenty million years old. Of course this fossil is an exception. It may still contain carbon, in the organic remains. If the C-14 content is unusually high, then it might be concluded that the sample is younger than previously thought. Two questions arise: 1. Is the organic material original, or is it the result of bacterial or fungal infection? If the latter, then the organic remains would be much younger than the bone. 2. What other contaminants could affect the carbon content of the fossil? In fact, one of the samples was analysed, and dated to be no older than a few decades - at the limit of the detection. If this is correct, then this would indicate that some of the 'soft tissue' found is not original, but the result of recent bacterial or fungal activity.

Posted by Gralgrathor on August 3,2012 | 06:29 AM

someone asked were are the dinosaurs now. the most obvious answer is that almost all if not all were hunted into extiction by humans. also like to point out that the term dinosaur appeared in 1840 and before the term dragon was used. Just some food for thought.

Posted by cyp on July 31,2012 | 03:58 AM

"they cover their eyes so they cannot see the truth" since there is no known natural process that would preserve soft tissue for those millions of years the only logical conclusion would be that the period that passed from the burial was not millions of years, but since that would be against the new religion of evolution they say that it must have happened somehow. How? How did it happened? You abandon all logic when you believe in evolution and millions of years.

Posted by cyp on July 31,2012 | 03:53 AM

Just more evidence for a young earth.

Posted by Cassandra on July 9,2012 | 11:31 PM

Lets not forget that the earth was once thought to be flat. Mans idea. Fact it is a dinosaur bone with protien, red blood cells, ect. fellow scientist have tried to discredit her findings. When that didnt work, LOL it's more proof dinosuars evolved from bird. God created everything. The rocks will declare HIS GLORY. By the way that's in the Bible. True observation/science is not going to contradict the evidence of His marvelous creations or His word. God isn't hidding anything or misleading us. I think it is awesome the amount of things discovered that line up with the Bible when the facts arent twisted. You have to dig because anything that points to a one true God is buried or twisted. Looking forward to the untanted version when God reveals all!

Posted by Sandy on June 28,2012 | 08:15 PM

Faith is simply a logical conclusion, based on evidence, of something we didn't see or haven't yet seen. Everyone exercises faith on a daily basis, i.e. simply trusting the testimony of someone you trust based on your on the evidence you relationship with them has provided. Faith has become grossly misrepresented in our culture as an irrational blind leap of logic or deliberate disregard of evidence. It is neither. Every human being, including our very human scientists, excercise faith when drawing conclusions from evidence.

Posted by Joshua on June 14,2012 | 12:04 AM

I thought fossils were bones turned to stone. You can't carbon date stone, only organic life right?

Posted by Joshua on June 14,2012 | 11:52 PM

The scientific theories presented on evidence of timespan and historical events has intrigued me enough to make me think over these things in layman terms, or in common sense terms. Human ingenuity has led to many and continual discoveries of our world, as well as our larger universe. These posted comments express a variety of views and opinions with strong convictions by most commentors. The assumption that fossils decay at certain rate, that dinosaurs are certain ages, that blood cells can survive a certain timespan without decay, all seem to bring serious causes for considering how valid the assumptions really are. A question that came to my mind a few years back was: "how large in diameter was our sun 4 million years ago, or 68 million for that matter?" Some space research suggests the sun is in fact burning and that it is using up certain amount of the sun's fuel, leading to reduction of the size of our sun. Another item in the news a while back suggested that the planet pluto, now not considered a planet, had a small moon that itself had a volcanice eruption going on. That made me wonder: "why was the small moon able to hold its heat for 4, or in the t-rex assumption, 68 million years, or more", as many scientific assumptions claim. Why do we have these causes for questions, with so much technology at hand, and such "factual evidence" for the assumptions? Has any archaeology efforts found any human historical evidence of any man being around to observe any of the pre-historic animals or events? True science is supposed to be based on unbiased observations and research. Anymore, I am not inclined to be so naive to believe most "scientific" assertions, as much more than beliefs or faith in whatever methodology is being promoted.

Posted by robert on June 4,2012 | 12:35 PM

Time to clone dinosaurs. Any species capable of bringing another species back from extinction surely deserves to be brought back itself.

Posted by gagoonies on May 30,2012 | 04:19 PM

Or here is a shocker for all you creationist folks, Science is ever moving forward and learning that what we thought about a process maybe wrong. So here is an idea, fossilization creates an encapsulated environment within the bone that allows the soft tissue to be protected against the causes of decay(bacteria, environmental effects, etc.), I know that would ruin your totally "logical" belief but try to think about it. As for the person wondering about carbon dating, the process measure the decay of isotopes in organic matter it has at this point only a small few years to a few thousand year based on state of decay margin of error. So if tested that it is 68 million years old it could be 68 mil or 67,980,500 years old, not much of a difference folks.

Posted by William on May 29,2012 | 02:58 AM

Not to get into an argument, how can someone say the fossles are 65 million years old. what kind of proof is thier? how can one besure they are 100% correct? The only test I am aware of is carbon dating. I am not a scientist and as a layman Ive only heard reference to this test. As mentioned in this artical a good scientist will try to prove thier findings are wrong rather than assume they are correct. Has this actually been done? Is their a reference for this study? This appears to be a statement based on faith in the evolution more than fact, but I will listen.

Posted by Arnold on May 15,2012 | 06:57 PM

Also, stability time 20ms typical living tissue-In a holography experiment, research paper 1991; "exposure must be done in this interval or fringes will smear". Since Dinosaurs are homoeothermic, keep temperature at 91˚C. How could we understand what the instability time of their tissue was? I think may be correct with 1991 research paper. Thank-you, Eleanorceol@hotmail.com or ceolint@uwindsor.ca

Posted by Eleanor (Tania) Ceolin on May 9,2012 | 04:25 PM

for all these people saying the bone is only a few thousand years old i just wont to know where are all the dinnos at if they were alive 1000 years ago where do they go hahahahaha wake up people the ladys right and your wroung

Posted by kenny on May 3,2012 | 09:17 AM

It is obvious to the scientists and everyone that believe that dinosaurs exsisted millions of years ago that this simple find of red blood cells in a supposedly 68 million year old bone is just too impossible to believe. It can be said that the bone is actually a thousand or 2 thousand years old and was preserved pretty good. So stop worshiping satan and go to church before its too late.Sorry for the rudeness God bless Amen

Posted by daniel on April 26,2012 | 10:28 AM

Interesting to see all these comments. They do raise some questions though. If creationism and anti-evolutionism are being so severely censored as is claimed, how is it that we see so many such comments on a Smithsonian webpage? Compare that with the closed-shop attitude of almost all creationist-anti-evolutionist websites I come across. Nowhere to even ask questions or make comments, much less get them posted. Isn't someone being rather hypocritical here? By the way, no one ASSUMES that the bones are 68 millions years old. Such figures are based on EVIDENCE, evidence that is continually being tested.

Posted by DRL on April 25,2012 | 01:57 PM

Maybe they didn't get fossilization wrong, maybe it is how old the dinosaurs are and I'm talking a few thousand years.

Posted by Brian on April 7,2012 | 03:33 PM

If the research scientist discussing the process of exceptional preservation is OK with stating that "maybe the textbooks have it wrong about the fossilization process", then why is it not OK to question the conventional textbook wisdom of the age of the fossil itself? Or is that one of those forbidden questions that get you fired?

Posted by Patricia Coble on April 3,2012 | 02:00 PM

"Bones and/or soft tissue CANNOT remain in the ground intact for that long." Says who? This evidence shows that they can.

Posted by Cavan on March 19,2012 | 10:13 AM

Awesome! Let the evidence do the talking. Hemoglobin can't last that long (60-70 million years) says one pathologist. This strongly supports (and provides empirical evidence of) the idea of the catastrophic flood and short earth chronology as revealed in the Bible. Why are scientists so bent on not believing the truth? Science is about discovering truth. Truth is truth! But to admit they were wrong would put holes in the evolutionary theory, hint (or totally support) at intelligent design (God)and cause thoughtless evolution supporters to begin to think! God loves us and that is why He left us with plenty of evidence to draw the appropriate conclusions.

Posted by Troy on February 22,2012 | 09:19 AM

This isn't the only instance either. There is one of the "dinosaur mummy" ...skin, ligaments, etc found with the bones.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy_2.html

And numerous other similar discoveries by Otis Kline and others where soft tissue was discovered.

Amazing feat that not just once, or twice or even three times that soft tissue or skin lasted 60-70 millions years old.

Unless ...it's not really 60-70 millions of years old.

Then average in that less than 1% of fossilized bones that have been cataloged are vertebrates... and of this small percentage there was "luck" enough to find ones with soft tissue. Amazing!

Posted by John on January 23,2012 | 03:23 PM

I think I found a bone I would like you to take a look at it how would I show u it

Posted by Noah on January 21,2012 | 08:45 PM

M.E.2 posted: ""The passage about god talking to Job is about a hippo, not a dinosaur. Fail."" You are wrong, sorry. Have you seen the tail of a hippo or an elephant?? NOT a cedar tree! I have a study bible where the commentary says the verse is about a hippo or an elephant, but almost all bibles have been influenced by the theory of evolution. Unfortunately with the pressure to conform to the thought that the world is billions of years old, they did (I bet Satan loved that one!!). Read the King James Version or go back to the original greek and hebrew. God created the world in 6 days, dinos included!! Science is still trying to catch up to the Bible. As science advances We are able to prove the word is accurate and trustworthy.. Science has never been able to PROVE the word of God incorrect. One day all the evolution believing Christians will have their eyes opened and they will surely say, “I can’t believe I fell for that”.

Posted by Ferguson on December 27,2011 | 03:44 PM

Preston writes, "The "collagen," according to these responses, is more likely some sort of microbe that fed on the original substance."

That simply begs the question: how can "some sort of microbe" or "biofilm," as the pseudo-scientists call it, have survived for 70 million years? You still have the problem of how organic material avoided complete decay for so long.

But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16:31

Posted by Scott Edward Vines on November 29,2011 | 09:55 PM

Soooo... they obviously aren't millions of years old after all.

Posted by Cassandra on November 20,2011 | 10:53 PM

@ M.E.2: Unless a hippo has a tail like a cedar, I think your assumption is a fail.

Posted by JonaH on November 20,2011 | 02:56 PM

There has been a strong response to this among the scientific community, and some very justified criticism. Her theory comes about because someone unrelated to her field saw something that looked to them like red blood cells. There are competing theories now, since virtually any sphere containing iron will look like a red blood cell and similar "cells" have been found in ammonite fossils where no blood would have been located. The "collagen," according to these responses, is more likely some sort of microbe that fed on the original substance.

Posted by Preston on November 20,2011 | 02:17 PM

The passage about god talking to Job is about a hippo, not a dinosaur. Fail.

Posted by M.E.2 on November 16,2011 | 07:30 PM

I have done quite a bit of reading on this topic. Very very interesting! Couldn't help but think about the Coelacanth; 'extinct' 65 million years ago, with the dinosaur, but still swimming around today looking exactly like the '65 million' year old fossils!!!

Posted by Pierre on November 16,2011 | 11:31 AM

If anyone doubts that there is a concerted effort to quash any "scientist" who dares challenge macro evolution, just go to wikipedia and search Richard Sternberg. He is one of many highly credentialed scientists who have been fired for bucking the Darwinian system. What a shame that true critical thinking has come under attack by those who espouse the same.

Posted by Richard Scott on November 15,2011 | 03:03 PM

I would just like to point you to an article I have just read, it states:-

"in Montana 2005 field palaeontologist Otis Kline and his excavation team unearthed fossils from a triceratops and a hadrosaur. These specimens came from the same Hall Creek formation as the Schweitzer T-rex. They were also in good condition and the team was propelled to determine if these, like the T-rex still contained some fresh remains that hadn't yet fossilised.
Both the dinosaurs still possessed collagen!!
Otis Kline & another Scientist, Hugh Miller, were eager to test both of these dinosaurs for Carbon 14.
Due to the significance of this study, the industry-recognised Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) was used to test for Carbon 14. Furthermore, not one but two internationally recognised labs, Geochron Laboratories and the University of Georgia Isotope Center were used so that the results could be independently confirmed.
The tests yielded paradigm-shifting results: BOTH bones contained Carbon 14
According to the AMS testing, the Triceratops registered, on multiple tests an average age of 30,890 ±380 years old.
The Hadrosaur was tested to be 23,170±170 years old (Josef Holzschuh, Jean Pontcharra, Hugh Miller, Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils Including Dinosaur Collagen, Nov 2009)
The Evolution believing Scientists who found and tested the T-rex bone, Refuse to carbon date it, because they say it is impossible as it is 65 million years old. Are they afraid it will cause them even more problems.

Posted by mark on October 27,2011 | 07:08 AM

"After 68 million years in the ground..." I still can't believe people are this dumb. Bones and/or soft tissue CANNOT remain in the ground intact for that long. This is just proof positive that folks who believe in evolution are simply dishonest, liars, and deliberately deceptive. They follow the true science that speaks so clearly. A logical thinking person would question the number of years those bones were in the ground before raising any other question.

Posted by Rick Ramdon on October 21,2011 | 12:29 AM

Good video to see on this subject can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hhsx80P1PQ. The evolutionsits have gone to great lengths to try to debunk the consistent C-14 dating of dinosaur bones which show them to be less than 10,000 years old!

James Phillips

Posted by James Phillips on October 5,2011 | 05:14 PM

The question should be, why there is no decay? Rapid burial under tons of water pressure may be the answer for the remarkable condition of these fossils. You will not find so well preserved fossils after the ice age because of decay.
The answer may be found in the Bible. Many earth science discoveries were found from understanding the Bible.

Crosby, Howard. The Bible on the Side of Science: A Lecture : Delivered in New York, December 14, 1874, Before the Society for the Advancement of Science and Art. New York: J.F. Trow & Son, printers, 1875.

http://books.google.com/books?id=l_wRAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=html_text

Posted by Ralph on October 1,2011 | 12:23 AM

To all scientist and other logical thinkers responding to the creationist postings - you are wasting your energy trying to reason with these people.

Spiritually speaking they are going through the adolescent stage. They are equivalent to teenagers who have read one book (on any subject) and think they know all the answers. And, of course, everyone else is always wrong! Just treat them as you would any child going through this phase - with a grain of salt.

Posted by rita on September 4,2011 | 06:56 AM

creation and evolution are just a belief, on how they interpet the results from a scientific investigation.Why do the evolutionist call their self,a scientist, and don't call scientists, who believe in creation ,a scientist.Many and I believe many creationist and evolutionist all came from the same universities.There is a difference thou,that if the person questions the results as possibly falling under the creation view,at the class,they will be treated different,for asking the question.Example, thou it may be at the high school level, a student made a comment,that the scientific results could of fallen under the creation view point,was treated with disrespect,the rest of the semester,as how dare he ASK a question,that didn't support evolution.Even his semester grade was lowered because of his defiance, to the question,thou he answered all the tests,as how the school wanted him to answer the tests.I didin't say he belived his answers were true,just that he answered them as how they expected. He had lower grades on his essays,for believing other scientists, interpatations of the results.Now if he ever becomes a SCIENTIST, he won't be called a scientist,he will be called a creatonist.What's wrong with this picture.Even this debate on, if the blood or flesh, is signs of a young age or older, degenerated into are you a scientist or a creationist,by what the current technology dictates, as to the age.Science is science,I don't understand as to why we treat other scientist, with disrespect,because of their interpatation of the scientific results.Maybe it's because I don't have the faith of a creationist, wait a minute, maybe the faith of a evolutionist.I believe the results show young age, as to the test eqpt used today,does that make me a confused creationist, or a confused evolutionist? One thing for sure I won't be called a scientist,by one or the other!

Posted by robert e on August 25,2011 | 10:21 AM

I was thrilled to discover a T. Rex could suffer a fractured leg too. And I thank you for proving the same. And I do so as a retired medical doctor who has treated many broken bones. Your quoting Jeremiah 29:11 as Christian thrilled me too. I myself read myself into evolution via the Word. And I will tell you how in future posts. Please let me hear from you. Deone Hanson. p. s. I practiced in Forsyth, Montana.

Posted by Deone Hanson on August 8,2011 | 01:22 AM

19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse Romans 1

Posted by E Burke on July 9,2011 | 03:16 PM

@Nathan its funny the way you say that. You propose that others are set in their ways and won't bend to your interpretation of things. Could you not be the one set in your ways and doing everything you can to ensure that this is interpreted the way that suits you? If the tissues exist then they must fit into your beliefs/theories instead of you changing your theories. In my opinion, others have no obligation to do what you cannot.

Posted by Tembew on June 21,2011 | 12:40 PM

As a mere lay-person, I see conceptual myopia in many fields of science. The rate of radioactive decay has been proven to vary through an as yet unknown mechanism in relation to the sun ( http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html ). This makes radiological dating of stone - and bones - rather worthless since a massive stellar event could easily have depleted all radioactive content on the surface of the earth at once. Possible? Almost anything is possible. Probable? Won't know until the mechanism is understood. Dark matter and dark energy exist, not because they have measured it, but because what they did measure didn't match their formulas. Perhaps the speed of light is not constant, after all. But no, there's dark (invisible) matter out there. It's is far more probable that dark matter is simply the error introduced by flawed theories. And, it is far more probable that these dinosaur bones are younger than radiological dating would currently indicate. As any good CSI TV character will tell you, "go where the evidence leads." Domga exists in scientific circles just as it does in religious ones. As do "leaps of faith." It will be interesting to see where this evidence leads.

Posted by Burley Ward on May 9,2011 | 06:42 PM

This is very interesting. However, it DOES NOT disprove evolution, or fossilization. It simply shows how scientists cna be wildly off-base on basic assumption. I think it's odd that creationists and scientists set in their ways refuse to think about the possibility that soft-tissue could survive under specific circumstances for a very long time. Schweitzer and other people can be religious and scientific without denying scientific theories. I'm religious, but I think the earth is billions of years old. Am I wrong? Maybe, but I doubt it. Schweitzer is right, this type of discovery shows the majesty of God's power and the beauty of the universe.

Posted by Nathan on April 13,2011 | 12:38 AM

It's interesting that the "feed the creationists to the dinosaurs" comment seems to fit the profile of a dogmatic person, on the defense. In this case an atheist, who cannot see through anything except the eyes of evolution. I was once an atheist, I was raised that way, but the outrageous complexity, coupled with beauty, emotion passion, pleasure, joy and love seem to me to be far above the reaches of "random design". The bible contains many interesting facts that the non reader will never know about.
I.E. a long discourse in the bible where God is speaking to Job (at the end of the book), He clearly describes 2 different dinosaurs. Interesting that God chose this subject as a discourse with Job. It should be a sign to the skeptic that maybe the bible is valid.

Posted by M.E. on April 6,2011 | 07:44 PM

Follow this discovery and keep those interested, informed -
Forget the rights/wrongs; believers/non-believers.

Posted by McDonald, A. on April 6,2011 | 07:17 PM

Come on now!!! If a man was ever found inside a T Rex stomach you actually think that kind of discovery will be made known?! It will be hidden and anyone thinking about revealing it will lose their career and reputation.

Posted by of course on March 11,2011 | 08:36 PM

I look fwd to the day that a T Rex is found with human remains in it's "stomach", or what used to be it's stomach. Finally people will realize that humans and dinosaurs DID live at the same time.

Posted by Mina on March 10,2011 | 03:26 PM

In response to comments below:
This is "new evidence", and it at least merits questioning the supposed age of these fossils. When facts seem to contradict theories, true science requires further investigation. This does challenge the theories of age strongly. No reasonable creationist expects the proponents of old-earth evolution to just drop their beliefs. We would like to see the bias removed from scientific observation. Additionally, where is the place in scientific discourse for insults and name-calling? Often these seem to be the most frequent "arguments" against creationism.

Posted by May on February 23,2011 | 09:02 PM

It is what it is. Theses are red blood cells. Can red blood cells last for millions of years? That will require more research however it reminds me of a story I once read.

A pilot was speaking with his psychologist friend on how he had actually seen ufo's while in the air. His psychologist friend agreed to go with him on his next flight so that he could prove what he had seen was real.

Once in the air they were in the presence of a bright unidentified flying disc and the pilot said, "look! don't you see it? Its right there!" Seeing that the psychologist had turned his head away he asked, "why are you not looking?" His friend simply replied, "I do not believe in ufo's."

UFO'S are not the subject of this story. However, the complete ignorance people will place upon themselves in order make themselves feel right is a plague upon this country and the scientific establishment. They say that, "bring evidence that you are right and you will become famous in the scientific community!"

This is never the case. Everyone look at where you work. You know for a fact that politics are heavy in every aspect outside of our personal lifes. Even if you are right about something that proves your boss wrong you don't contradict him in most cases. You look at your cards carefully to make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot. There will always be arguments but never dismiss any of them, even if contradicts your own.

Posted by aaron on February 23,2011 | 10:54 AM

I found it interseting that the writer of the article chose to simply insult the "creationists" who use the findings as evidence for a younger age, rather than actually address the issue of how could there be anything but mineralized remains after 65 million years. If the scientists were truly following the evidence and not viewing the data through the current paradigm of evolution and long ages, isn't the logical question that the date for the fossil is much too old??? I don't see much honest response when it comes these anomalies; rather, simply adhering to the dogma of evolution and long ages and characterizing questioners and dissenters as "creationists" or Bible thumpers. Too bad, I thought that was how the science establishment progressed, by asking questions and coming up with the most reasonable explanation based on what we know.

Posted by Steve Read on February 17,2011 | 10:13 PM

So according to this story, our ideas about decay are all wrong, even though it's an observable process today. However, the unobserved, but assumed, evolution over billions of years is still a fact and cannot be challenged. All thanks to Carbon 14, we can rest assured the ground the bone was found in is millions of years old, even though evidence proves that Carbon 14 reduces to unmeasurable levels after 100,000 years (which makes you wonder how they can date something over that amount).

It's real simple, kids. Soft tissue DOES NOT survive 68 million years. If you believe it does, seems like that would take a lot of FAITH.

Posted by Chris H on February 9,2011 | 12:46 AM

cool!

Posted by lilly on February 7,2011 | 10:35 AM

Let's see...
on one side are the scientists who actually DO SOMETHING to find answers to natural phenomena, and often keep searching for better evidence.

On the other side.. well, a bunch of creationist ignorant fools who have ONLY a book full of contradictions cobbled together by bronze age sheep herders for their answers.

Who am i going to trust? It sure isnt going to be the bible thumpers.

And BTW Ramasse, a scientific theory is very different than what a philosophical theory is, which is what most people and creationists, are used to. Try digging a little deeper than what your bible or whatever your pastor tells you.

Posted by Bart on February 2,2011 | 11:24 PM

Dr. Schweitzer's research is being used as a battleground between religion and evolution.I don't think that the main point is being addressed: That Modern Technology and Advancements, through the research of a dedicated scientist, have been used to find new data from an old subject.

Dr.Schweitzer's research has opened up a can of worms for some and new opportunities for others, for example,in Mr Yeoman's article: Sweitzer's Dangerous Discovery,states that many new avenues of research have been opened for future investigators,one being comparative studies of animal tissue from the past to present.

Posted by Albert Langford on February 2,2011 | 10:37 PM

I cannot see why the existence of dinosaurs more recently would prove evolution and/or the theory of an old earth wrong?

Is is not probable that dinosaurs could have existed much earlier than thought?

If this is possibly the case, this should be properly investigated rather than assuming that dinosaurs died 65 million years ago.

Posted by ChrisJ on January 24,2011 | 05:59 PM

i believe the earth is 6000yrs old... the carbon dating system is wrong... thats why a "68 million year old fossil"
has tissue inside it...its not really 68million years old...duh

Posted by Daken Williams on January 18,2011 | 07:51 PM

This is a very provocative story, It brings into question many issues not just the age of the earth, First of all Carbon 14 dating does it truly tell us how old something is and are we using something that really doesn't have or ever had a true control subject that could be verified as being millions of years old, well we don't have this subject, were do we start on the scale? And if this is something no one has ever done then how do we really know how long something can be preserved? if it could be 6000 years then why not 60,000 or 60,000,000 we just don't know and even if the earth is much older than 6000 years why does that effect "Creation" God could have created the earth and man 60,000,000 years ago as easy as yesterday? but I'm just not that confident in Mans methods of determining this sort of thing. It's still very interesting to study and as for God and Creation you just have to have FAITH.

Posted by D.G. on January 6,2011 | 03:33 PM

I really hope the DNA is recoverable. We could learn so much about the evolution from dinosaurs to birds. We could also clone Tyrannosauruses and feed Creationists to them, which would be an immensely amusing spectacle.

Posted by Hmm on November 26,2010 | 01:33 PM

Why not simply admit that dinosaurs, especially this T Rex, are not that old ????

Posted by Carl Stebner on November 20,2010 | 03:56 PM

It seems that to "prove" the creationists wrong it is only necessary to establish that protein can survive more than 6000 years. ( If more than 6000, why not 60000, or 60000000?) I have not seen any real scientific attempt to determine whether there is any evidence defining the limits of protein preservation, other than possibly, its presence in the animal structures thought to be very much older than 6000 years. It seems that there is at least a contextual basis of a problem for establishing 6000 years as the age of creation: light generation, supposedly created at the same time as the world. The age in terms of light travel in our universe rather quickly surpasses the 6000 year mark. The presence of protein in dinosaur fossils only exposes the current limits of scientific knowledge about such matters. Time is needed before either camp can claim triumph!

Posted by Walter Ward on November 1,2010 | 03:52 AM

picture this: a tornado just went through a nearby landfill. among all the rubbish, you find a motorcycle. it isn't in perfect condition, but it is fully functional, and has various things of trash on it. Now, how did it get there? (please choose from these two answers, or have a 'fill in the blank') First answer to the question is that the tornado collected various parts from the landfill and placed all the pieces into the proper place. The second possible answer is that someone drove in after the tornado had come through and simply left it there.

WHY ask this question? because, the chance that a tornado would go through a landfill and construct a fully funcional is nearly equivilant to the chance that life was started by spontanious generation(or the Idea that the first cell was created by random reations in the environment)

P.S. this is NOT ment to go against evolution in any way. or spontanious generation, but point out how logical sontanious gen. is.

Posted by Ramasse' on October 30,2010 | 10:09 PM

I think we should leave all the bones and fossils in the ground alone for at least another 10 billion years. Since they have been preserved so well for millions and millions of years there should be no doubt they will be preserved just fine for eternity. In 10 billion years there should be enough advancement in technology to measure the age of these fossils down to the minute and second. The integrity of the historic record is being destroyed by the crude technologies of the 21st century. We just don't really know what to look for and what to measure. Please, lets wait until we evolve into the creatures who will be suitable for the job. Our great, great, great, great, great, great etc. grandchildren will be grateful!
OR we could trust the most trustworthy words ever written!

Posted by Neal Wright on October 30,2010 | 09:15 PM

Instead of asking: "How is it possible to see red blood cells in a dinosaur bone today when our best theory says all dinosuars died out over 64 million years ago?"

Wrong question...ask instead: "Whats wrong with the theory that says dinosaurs died out over 64 million years ago?"

(AnswersinGenesis, 2007)

Posted by Kathy kliewer on October 10,2010 | 02:08 AM

I believe this type of rare discovery of Mary Schweitzer not only presents an astonishing event, but more importantly provides a once in a lifetime oppourtunity for someone capable out there to bravely steer us all in the right direction. Who out there will heed to their conscious and choose to support and provide what's critically needed in making this information finally known to us all that which has always belonged for us all, not just for the sake of scientific integrity, but providing mere Truth.

Posted by Kathy Kliewer on October 10,2010 | 01:42 AM

Below is a Link to a 1-Hour online Video on Dinosaurs that is very well done.

The URL is: www.forbidden-history.com/

Just Click on "Watch the Movie" ... and then make up your own mind as to what the truth is.

Posted by Randy Berg on October 5,2010 | 08:51 PM

I find this find.... AMAZING!!! But the problem I have is that everyone seems to say that Evoloution is FACT. It's called a theory, and it has flaws- In other words we need to make sure our theories aren't determining the fact, but instead the facts determining the theories.

Posted by Ramasse' on October 2,2010 | 01:39 PM

Dear Mary,

I am sorry if you are offended by people who quote your "actual words" in articles about dinosaurs and whether they are really "millions of years old" like you and your colleagues believe.

Feel free to also consider what God, Himself, says in Genesis 2:19 about how He made the land animals and birds independently: from the dust of the ground: thus leaving no Scriptural room for the morphing of one kind on animal into another: unless, of course, we "twist" and "manipulate" what is actually recorded.

This idea is also supported by how we are told that God made them to reproduce: i.e. "after their own kind" as opposed to morphing into other kinds without Him or His Creative/Programming aid.

Below is a link to an article where you are quoted. Feel free to comment on why you think the points that are made are baseless, illogical, and/or unscientific.

www.earthage.org/are_dinosaurs_millions_of_years_old.htm

Posted by Randy Berg on September 26,2010 | 01:56 AM

I finally took the time to read some comments on this article and felt I had to reply, even at this late date. First of all, I am tired of those supporting evolution assuming that all creationists are ignorant, uneducated, bigoted souls who believe that the earth is flat! You show your ignorance by such comments. I have been making a study of this issue for over twenty years -RESEARCHING WHAT BOTH SIDES HAVE TO SAY. Your comments about our position shows your ignorance of our side of the issue. How about being courageous and unbiased enough to pick up two books that clearly present both sides of the issue and see which one truly is supported by the scientific facts. First of all, read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. Then read "The Greatest Hoax on Earth" by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. (Dr. Sarfati has studied and received honors levels in physical and inorganic chemistry, condensed matter physics, and nuclear physics. He received his Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. He is well versed in his subject.)

If you are afraid to do this, do not use the excuse that you KNOW the truth and do not have to research it. This is the position of someone with a strong religious faith that cannot tolerate questioning it. I imagine few of those who read this will bother to follow my suggestion. I have long been of the opinion that this controversy is truly one of science versus religion - evolution being based largely on faith and creation based on scientific fact.

Posted by Shelby MacFarlane on September 14,2010 | 04:29 PM

Has anyone thought that since the t-rex was preserved, mircoorganisms couldn't get to the soft tissue and red blood cells inside the fossil? The reason why the fossil surivies is because it doesnt decay too quickly, if it does at all. Therefore, anything trapped inside the fossil WOULD be protected from the world and anything that would try to decompose it. And if it was completely untouched by time, weather, and life, then it could be seen as it did 68 million years ago.

The reason why she found the soft skin and red blood cells is because she dissolved the fossil in acid, something considered taboo by paleontologists. Because this was considered taboo, paleontologists would never do something like this, and therefore never found soft skin and blood. But now, someone intelligent, but crazy, finally did what was considered taboo and found something that no one knew of before. That's not a big deal. Therefore don't go around saying "The earth is 6000 years old, blah blah blah," unless you've considered every possible explanation besides yours. And to those who may think im a hypocrite, the theory I gave a paragraph before was just a possible explanation. I dont consider it fact, and I'm not going to start saying that this is fact. So go do some research before you start claiming things are fact.

Posted by Andrew Paek on September 9,2010 | 11:17 PM

God is real, people. The earth is 6000 years old. Hello???

Posted by Will Long on August 5,2010 | 05:18 PM

How come nobody thought about salt being a preservative and very abundant on this planet also on Mars. I have discovered lots of soft-tissue still around. The Secret Life of Rocks on slideshare.net will explain.Google Squid eyes or go to photobucket.com. and search for heart-rocks,raptor bite marks. All of these materials were salt-brined to begin with. Have a nice day. The Evolution of Ones self is Our greatest Achievment... Rockhead.

Posted by steven culbreth on July 22,2010 | 07:01 PM

"Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

Wow...really wow.
Her work is showing us we dont understand decay!
if we dont understand decay how is it that we know precise dates in History from rates of decay of other chemicals like 14c etc?

These ideas are presented to us as factual....we know how long chemicals take to break down! how do we know that? we were not there to measure, so we must have based this on assumptions.....would these be the same assumptions that says that soft tissue doesnt last 65 million years?

Its interesting which science we determine is factual when we are faced with contradictory evidence.

Posted by andrew on June 23,2010 | 01:57 AM

Dr. David Menton, who holds a Ph.D in cell biology from Brown University, wrote at that time it “certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history. “ This would be a tall order, even if they were kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab.

But such is the stifling effect of the evolutionary dogma that scientists can be blinded to the clear implications of their own data. Accordingly, when a co-worker, a professional pathologist, first noticed blood cells in T-rex bone under the microscope, Dr. Schweitzer’s startled reaction was to question the evidence, not the dominant long-age paradigm, quote, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it..the bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive for millions of years ?” Of course, the obvious, sensible, logical answer based on the scientific evidence is that they couldn’t. Her boss, famous paleontologist “Dinosaur” Jack Horner insisted that Dr. Schweitzer prove they were not red blood cells, but to date she and her team have been able to do so. In fact, she has since found similar soft tissue in several other dinosaur specimens! At the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri in 2006, as recorded by National Geographic, she explained that “traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissue,” though she will not re-think her view that dinosaurs are 65 million years old

Posted by Rayburne F. on April 23,2010 | 05:39 PM

She states, “we felt comfortable claiming that these dinosaur tissues contained heme,; however, haemoglobin is more than just heme--there are peptide chains as well. And other proteins contain heme units, for example, cytochromes, which are found in all living organisms including microbes. So to rule out contamination, Schweitzer sent samples to an expert immunologist, who injected extract from the T-rex bones into rats. The rats’ immune system generated antibodies, which showed that it was homing in on some protein fragments. Heme itself is too small to produce an immune response. Then the rats’ blood was filtered to leave only the antibodies , forming an antiserum. This was shown to bond to haemoglobin from modern creatures, including birds, crocodiles, and mammals. A control sample, that is, rat serum extracted from before they were injected with T-rex substances did not bond to the modern haemoglobin. This means that there is enough of the hemoglobin protein in the T-rex structures for the rats’ immune system to develop antibodies specific to haemoglobin. Such a specific response shows that there must have been a substantial amount of the haemoglobin protein remaining in the T-rex bone. Hemoglobin would not be the only well-preserved protein from dinosaur fossils or fossils of the same assumed age. The protein osteocalcin has been identified in hadrosaur (duck-billed dinosaur) bones from Alberta, Canada (Muyzer et al., Geology 20:871-874 (1992). This is a protein specific to bones, so cannot be due to contamination from outside microbes.

Posted by Rayburne F. W on April 23,2010 | 01:04 PM

Leslie, Its not christians that believe the earth is flat its the secluristst that read the bible and point out the verse that mentions the pillars of the earth or another verse that says the four corners of teh earth. Most christians at the time tjhis was being debated new the earth wasnt flat as a matter of fact it was seclurists that were reading the bible that thought the world was flat.

Posted by Doug A on April 15,2010 | 06:30 PM

So why the deathly silence on the suggestions that double and triple blind Carbon-14 tests be done on the specimens?

I do understand that evolutionist protocol directs that such tests should not be performed on things which supposedly are more than 50 000 years old but surely in this case there is some obvious living matter present which SHOULD be tested.

I fully agree with Larry [oct 2009] that we should put this issue to the sword once and for all. me-thinks evolutionists are afraid to find out, hence the silence.

Posted by KevinR on April 7,2010 | 02:33 AM

I think that rats are evolved dinosaurs?

Posted by RatMan on March 8,2010 | 04:57 AM

What is the carbon-14 date of the soft tissue? Why is there nothing to be found about this discovery since 2006? Any new news?

Posted by Bill on January 30,2010 | 12:21 PM

This is a momentous discovery, and more so if there is a chance of surviving DNA fragments in the soft tissue. Although millions of years seem like a very long time for anything soft to survive, if its location prevented mineralization and also oxidation, microbial attack, and so on, absent a cause for something to happen to the soft tissue, what else could happen?

Posted by John Savard on December 8,2009 | 07:34 PM

That sounds really cool. What will happen next? Good Luck!

Posted by chloe on November 24,2009 | 04:53 PM

I totally believe and understand her findings. I am an amateur Paleontologist who has found fossils so preserved due to the iron and clay content in the soil. They were buried quickly, shapes are in tact. They are mostly claws and teeth, but also some bone fragments. I can see how this form of diagenises could be hard to believe but in fact does happen.The fossils were buried so quickly in clay and salt that they hardened with a protective matrix that preserved anything inside because of lack of oxygen. I am located in New Jersey, also in bird and reptile history area. Open minds are always a great thing in science and are essential to new discoveries.

Posted by Linda P on November 20,2009 | 05:27 PM

what kind of acid was used?

Posted by bill myers on November 17,2009 | 09:29 AM

I AGREE COMPLETELY!!!! Why doesn't the vet who first saw the cells get the credit?? Because he's not a paleontologist?? He's obviously had enough education to know an animal cell when he see's one.....even in stone non the less!! Give credit where credit is do! THE VET DISCOVERED IT!!!

Posted by Emsa medic on October 18,2009 | 03:38 AM

To: Mary Schweitzer,

I read all the comments & believe there is only one solution to this quandary. You & you alone need to put this debate to bed once & for all to everyone's satisfaction. Here's how.

Firstly, keep your personal identity a secret throughout the following experiment since your name could impact the integrity of the results. Secondly, using freshly acquired samples of the T-Rex's blood cells etc. and using several independent labs, run double-blind or triple-blind Carbon-14 tests to see if any age results will be achieved. It's imperative that the identity of the samples remain anonymous as well.

If these samples are less than 50,000 years old, the tests should give data to silence the sceptics on either side of the argument. If older than 50,000 years, there will probably be no detectable C-14 left and thus no results. Once the test results are in, have them published in peer-reviewed articles and on the front pages of major U.S. daily newspapers and the Internet for all the world to read about.

By doing this Mary, you will stand head & shoulders above your colleagues & Christians will admire you even more for your bravery. Be forewarned however that there is a strong element of censure within the defensive evolutionist community. Should the results come back saying this T-Rex is less than 50,000 years old, you could be blackballed and "Expelled" from your profession for supporting the "creationist" viewpoint.

However, be that as it may, I assure you there will be no negative impact on your career from the believer's camp. In fact, I will go so far as to say that, "We will all be only too happy to buy your New York Times #1-Best Selling book on this fantastic discovery." You'll be an even bigger overnight sensation than you are now and a multi-millionaire to boot.

Posted by Larry on October 17,2009 | 10:55 PM

I find it interesting that the "faithful" are so willing to put their trust in science, which they believe states that body tissues will automatically decay completely in a matter of a few short years (obviously, it would have to decay in less than the time alotted for the age of the earth, which is only 6000 years old...or is this just a fantasy?)

If they were at all interested in science they would be asking questions about processes by which biological tissue can be cut off from oxygen and/or micro-organisms, and in what ways such conditions could persist for tens of millions of years. Were they genuinely interested in the way things work, they would seek out more facts, but instead they "assume" that this anomaly "proves" an entire retinue of private fantasies.

Delusion is ignoring, distorting, or suppressing established facts in order to support one's private (or even shared) fantasy. In listening to many Creationists speak, my judgement is that if they really believe what they say, they are delusional.

Creationsists seem to be well informed for the sole purpose of distorting and denying known facts. Sadly, many here seem to be poorly informed, which might make it easier for them to deny known facts to support their preconceived fantasies.

Facts are established by a body of evidence. This means facts can change when new, positive evidence comes to light, and is included in the body of evidence. One should always thoroughly inquire into new discoveries to prevent fraud and mistakes and faulty conclusions based on cherry-picked data. Using this soft tissue data by itself to prove anything is cherry-picking. Where's your body of evidence? And what known facts are you ignoring or distorting?

Posted by shoelace on September 23,2009 | 02:49 PM

LOL to David, "These born-agains remind me of the censure of Galileo by the Catholic Church." I find it encouraging to see that someone else has thought of the same idea. Creationists, I think, forget that the most important gift one can bestow on a child is the ability to think logically. And after examining the evidence let them make their own decision and leave it at that. But that's what they are afraid of isn't it? They fear their "little ones" will grow up to believe something other than what they interpret to be true.
Also, to Bro Cope, the theory of creation explains nothing. It does not explain gravity or any other natural force. To simply say "God did it" is not an explanation, its dogmatism and quite frankly I'm rather tired of it. If anyone can show me actual HARD evidence to the contrary I will be converted, beacause thats what I follow, Facts and evidence to support it.

Posted by Jon on September 14,2009 | 04:59 PM

Dr. Mary, take your evolution glasses off and see the evidence for what it is. This dino "dragon" has only been dead for a few thousand years instead of millions. The scientific evidence for a young earth is all around, you just need to interpret it differently than your secular evolutional education has duped you into believing. This may just be your God given ministry to help people turn to Him. I will keep you in my prayers. May God bless your work and may you use it to His glory.

Posted by MarStar on September 13,2009 | 10:25 PM

I am amused continually by the contortions that evolutionists go through to support a theory in trouble. Such great faith they have. They are able to believe in things that are SO INCREDIBLE, like soft tissue can survive for 65 million years underground. But believe that an intelligent sentient individual has a way to control pure energy to form into "matter" and can control how all those different elements interact. We can imagine this being done. It is portrayed as a "holodeck" on the starship named Enterprise, and it seems quite reasonable. But suggest that it actually has happened? Then it becomes "you rednecked right wing Christians believe in fairy tales". When an evolutionist can answer just one question, then they can ridicule the science of creation.

That question is "Since like charges repel, why does matter hold together". Just answering "strong nuclear force" is insufficient. We do not know what that force is. We can not identify it. We can not isolate it. It has no existence as a force that can be duplicated. It has no existence in matter. All we can do is observe that it must be there because nothing blows apart. Since science is demanding empirical evidence of God, the strong nuclear force is that empirical evidence. All of matter holds together, but as far as science is concerned, the force is unknown. The Bible says that Jesus created all things, and all things are held together by the power of His word. Evolutionists have no explanation. Creationists do.

Posted by Bro Cope on September 1,2009 | 12:33 AM

I have a dig site that has yielded what I believe to be a pit viper.The head piece is 10 and 7\8in. long. One body part is 8in. by 8in.and has what appears to be a modern looking bird and a frog.Another body part is 15in. by 15in. all of the parts have very distinct "anatomy" in common. I have conventional xrays and 3 cat scans that I think substaintiates my theory. There is a midline with bilateral structures. It's not just (bones),there is fossilized soft tissue on each piece. I also offer this fossil as proof of evidence of creation.(it was found in upstate Ny). Aug 04 11:26 pm 2009

Posted by Mike Wood on August 4,2009 | 11:27 PM

Science is based just as much on belief as religion is.

Remember that it was once a scientific "FACT" that the world was flat.

It was once a scientific "FACT" that the earth was the center of our solar system.

It is also a scientific "FACT" that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago in some sort of unexplainably cataclysmic "K-T" event.

Taking a piece of evidence and trying to cram it into an evolutionary model where dinosaurs are 65 million years old is exactly the same as trying to cram it into a Biblical model where the world is 6,000 years old.

Get rid of your predispositions! Not everything you read, hear or watch is necessarily true.

The laws of science are changing every day just like they have been for thousands of years. Don't get so married to a model like evolution that you hamper the progress of true, open-minded science.

Posted by Connor McArthur on August 4,2009 | 11:00 AM

I'm not sure why my post dated July 11, 2009, is no longer on this blog, but here it is again... I think it is interesting that some scientists choose to totally dismiss a "young earth" scenario. Evolution says that everything is getting bigger and stronger, but in all actuality, everything is winding down. If 100,000 years is the best you can get from carbon dating (and everything has carbon), where do you come up with millions or billions of years? There is absolutely no proof of an old earth. Take a look at Dr. Mary Schweitzer's find with the t-rex bone (soft tissue was found). How can soft tissue be there when they claim it is 68 million years old? Maybe, just maybe, our dates have been wrong. Science may claim to have issues with a “god”, but Science NEVER has issues with the word of God!

Posted by Tammie Stone on August 3,2009 | 02:28 PM

I'm really wondering if there is ANY evidence that will EVER cause scientists to perhaps doubt their model or even parts of it. I think if God came down and told them they were wrong they would say He was conspiring with creationists!

Here is a CLASSIC case of adjusting the evidence to fit an evolutionary model.

“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland.

THEIR BELIEFS affect even how they research--why don't you guys fess up to it?

Posted by Steve Gaddis on July 19,2009 | 08:58 AM

Oh my! They assume that it's 68 million years old! How stupid can one get!

Posted by JA on June 18,2009 | 11:51 AM

No, this is not some conspiracy invented by creationists and though the stifling effect of the dominant long-age evolutionary paradigm leads some scientists to blindly reject the clear implications of the evidence of red blood cells and positive tests for hemoglobin; namely, that red blood cells could not have survived for millions of years, let us not jumb to the absurd conclusion that they could not have survived for thousands of years. Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University wrote that "it certainly taxes one's imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history. this would be a tall order, even if they were kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab." Of course, blood cells could not have survived for millions of years, but they could have survived for thousands of years, despite the nonsense one hears to the contrary; for example, that the bones could only exist for a year. This idea, wherever it came from, certainly did not originate with creationists who have been maintaining and rightly so that this discovery is powerful testimony that dinosaurs are not millions of years old, but speaks powerfully of the Biblical truth of a recent creation.

Posted by Rayburne Winsor on May 30,2009 | 08:13 PM

Do you think they might be able to clone it? Is there even a chance?

Posted by Grant on May 22,2009 | 12:36 AM

J Brum-the bible doesn't say anything about a fired breating behemoth(brachiosaurus). It only says that it is one of the biggest creatures to ever rome the earth and that its tail "moveth like a cedar tree". It sounds like a brachiosaurus to me.

Posted by Grant on May 22,2009 | 12:35 AM

Someone mentioned that the bible mentions 'the behemoth' and says that this was a dinosaur. The bible also states that this behemoth breathed fire. Doesn't sound like any dinosaur that ever existed...sounds like a made up creature to me.

Posted by J Brum on May 2,2009 | 09:21 PM

Why the arguements? We have ancient pictures from cultures all over the world and writings both biblical and non-biblical showing proof that man new what dinosaurs (a.k.a dragons)looked like. In my world pictures and writings equal proof.

Posted by ageclectic on March 16,2009 | 08:58 PM

Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
Schweitzer stated.
“Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, whereT. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it.”
The assumptions that go into geological radiodating are quite major. We live much of our daily humdrum lives based on assumptions that work out most of the time. But the further things are away in space and in time from us the more inaccurate are the assumptions .I do not doubt that Schweitzer has some doubts about the dating methods and if enough contradictory evidence comes up in her research she will be the first to publish it.

About the Bible being mish-mash –The message of the Bible is that a superloving God exists and cares for us. It is not a message about science or math theories, even though God in His creation puts down the foundation for both these areas of human thought. Although the Bible exhibits the fingerprints of a mathematically superable being, this is just incidental to the main message – which isn’t mishmash.
Some people like Bible Math. I refer those to the maths of Genesis 1.1 and John 1.1 as detailed in
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/First_Princs.htm#Part5 or
http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Creation_John1.asp

Posted by robert bryant on March 15,2009 | 10:40 PM

I agree with many people here who say that this might be proof for a young earth. BUT, BACK OFF for a bit and let the reasearch be FINISHED. No need to rush to conclusions. I personally believe in a old earth creation model(where a single day could have been millions of years.)

Posted by Hons on March 13,2009 | 04:45 AM

I agree with James. As for the evolutionists: Is there such a thing as evil?

Posted by Z on March 9,2009 | 07:39 PM

The problem is the dating methods are false. They dig up a bone and it is contaminated, yet they think it is all hunky dory. The dig up a fossil and because there is no fossil, but a replacement or a recrystalization they date the material by a dubious method. So they date the ground around the bones and fossils, and say the fossis are the same age as the dirt, rock and anything around it. That is intellectual fraud. The found a femur that is modern and dated it at 6.1 million years, and the "evodelusionists" don't talk about this much (leave it out of the classrooms or barely touch on it, because it destroys thier belief system. There are at least four scientists who have stated that the dating system is false and they make assumptions, about a hypothesis, on the atomic theory to date things. There are so many contradictions like this bone with blood that destroy this belief in evolution. The longest any human has been on earth is less than 10,000 years from study of the fossil record. These people are nuts.

Posted by James on February 25,2009 | 01:53 AM

If media outlets would present a fair unbiased showing of the facts and both sides of the scientific debate we might reject the millions of years ideas. What we get is dogmatic assertions and propaganda techniques instead. One must ask isn't science supposed to be an unbiased search for the truth rather than blatent indoctrination, even if you don't like the implicatons? This is just one example that the parigdim we are trapped in is simply wrong. I love Dr Schwietzers video interview on MSNBC however her claims of being misrepresented are not very well founded, no one has to change anything just hit play. This does support young earth creationist ideas far better than the uniformitarion geological hypothesises.

Posted by JFB on February 10,2009 | 10:11 PM

Is there no commonsense in the scientific community? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the tissue is not millions of years old as they assume. Just because they "believe" that dinosaurs "had to live millions of years ago" this is an amazing find (considering it withstood millions of years battling the elements. Hah!). Come on now, time to come out of lah-lah land and get back to real science.

Posted by Martin on February 1,2009 | 03:34 AM

I feel like I'm open to the possibility that scientific dating of things is wildly wrong. But it seems weird to me that people who start from the premise that nothing is more than 6000 years are latching on to this so firmly. The reason why it's exciting, presumably, is that they think they can declare that this sort of material can't be millions of years old. But if you genuinely believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, you ought to believe that _nothing_ is millions of years old, that you yourself and everyone else has never seen anything that old... so how can you begin to come up with _rules_ that say what can be millions of years old and what can't, to present to the rest of us as evidence? How would you trust yourself or anyone to come up with any guidelines for what can be really really old and what cannot be, if no one has ever seen anything really really old? It seems paradoxical. It seems as though you'd examine God himself and declare, "That cannot be more than 6000 years old!"

Posted by Quoth on January 22,2009 | 06:43 PM

Oh Susana: This shifting perspective clicked with Schweitzer's intuitions that dinosaur remains were more than chunks of stone. Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says. Given the conventional wisdom that such fossils were made up entirely of minerals, Schweitzer was anxious when mentioning this to Horner. "But he said, 'Oh, yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell,'" she says. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register. To Schweitzer, it meant that traces of life might still cling to those bones. This is from a more detailed interview. Christians, stop worrying about science and start tending to your neiighbors

Posted by tim o on January 14,2009 | 04:19 PM

It would be great to test some of these samples for Carbon-14 and pulish the results.

Posted by Bill on November 14,2008 | 09:53 PM

This find has nothing to do with the age of the earth. No matter how old the fossil really is (68 million years old, 4000 years old as creationists claim), there should not be any tissue inside. Making the age of the fossil younger (down to a few thousand years) will not explain the presence of the tissue because 4000 years is still too old for tissue to exist. Following creationist logic, the correct age of the bones should only be less than a year (which is highly ridiculous). Therefore, the true reason why there is tissue in the fossil lies somewhere in the processes of preservation. Although I accept evolution, I am not arguing it's validity here; I'm just saying that this specimen is not evidence for a young earth.

Posted by jiggy on November 7,2008 | 08:52 PM

In response to "just wondering", I ask: Do you think that the earth just began to revolve on the 4th day? My, what a cataclysmic event that would have been. All the vegetation of day 3 would have been totally wiped out with the sudden movement at the equator of over 1000 mph. A simple solution to your problem is that the earth obviously was spinning from the first day of creation, because When God said: "let there be light" the bible next states that the evening and the morning was the first day. From this narative it is obvious that the earth experienced night and day in respect to that source of light. The creation of the Sun, moon and the stars being made on day 4 was for the purpose of determining years and months, times and seasons. Scientists cannot tell how the dinosaurs were formed nor how they died out. The meteor theory is ridiculous. Why did not the elephants die out, or the giraffes? Jim 10-1-08

Posted by Jim on October 1,2008 | 03:59 PM

Is it possible that "science" and the "truths of God" can coexist? If there is only one truth, of which none of us have the perfect interpretation, it would seem that science would help us to find the answers. I would think that any "Godly" person would embrace the theories of science, because when fully "proven" it should provide a basis of faith, if there is a God. My question, is it not simple, "childlike", logic to presume that the "days" of Genesis 1 are "time periods, given that the "24 hour day" whas not "created" until the FOURTH time period???

Posted by justwondering7 on September 30,2008 | 09:53 PM

We have our original E.D. Cope fossils from Garden Park at your famous place which would have come there around 1875-1895. As a volunteer who works in the lab @Dinosaur Depot in Canon City,CO, I would like your advice on what to choose for a new or used microscope and lighting system for use at home and/or in the lab. What is a good source for me on a limited budget but such an avid volunteer worker in our lab? I would surely appreciate any help you could provide. Thank you and we are sending back some of your fossils we worked on and will be picking up more soon.

Posted by Chris L. Christensen on September 29,2008 | 02:04 PM

Science is the search for the truth Where does the evidence lead in this case? Darwinian Evolutionists please do not look for silly explanations lest you make yourself a fool, if still thinking dinos lived 70 millions years ago, keep on dreaming If evolutionists continue defending an old age position I will say I do not admire they intelligence but their blind fait and please do not call evolution neither evolutionary theory science, you can call it science fiction

Posted by Jesus Ortega on September 27,2008 | 04:40 PM

It is both amazing and appalling to me that people will seize upon one facet of a piece of astounding research and abuse it for political purposes. There is nothing whatsoever in this research that suggests either that man and dinosaurs coexisted or that the fossilized remains studied are younger than believed. Rather, Schweitzer has opened a new door in science and revealed an area in which there is more learning to do. This is the wonderful thing about science. As we learn more, we can turn away from our misunderstanding of certain phenomena and toward a greater understanding of our world.

Posted by Scott McLean on September 26,2008 | 12:17 PM

Well there it is, on the tip of your nose... Evolution is a scam, in fact it has become a religion where many can't see straight anymore. LOL, evolution's minions are trying to reinvent molecular biology to "stick with Darwin's cloth" with ideas of polymers??? C'mon this stuff (heme/red blood cells) doesn't last beyond 10,000 years, being generous say 30,000 years. I am an atheist and have been working in the field of science and engineering for over 20 years. Clearly if you can't see the time of day, well it's time to move on to something simpler. This discovery is a paradigm shift but some still won't quit or seriously question the outdated theory of evolution. In fact astonishing artifacts in multiple carvings have been uncovered in South America (Dr. Cabrera: ICA rocks, Google it) depicting humans and dinosaurs in the same carving: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Ica+Stones&ndsp=20&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tab=iv# http://www.crystalinks.com/icastones.html Similar discoveries have been made in Texas (Taylor/Turnage Patton Trails) with human and dinosaur footprints on the same sedimentary rock layer... Rumors of recent dino carcase discovered by natives in remote South East Asian jungle!... Read Dr.Immanuel Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision, Without being a Christian or of any other religion, the fact it that this planet as stated in the Bible (and other native culture histories from all over the planet) has went through a recent major catastrophe, period.

Posted by MakeSense on September 7,2008 | 12:17 PM

what is your proof, David? about the bible being mish-mash....evidence and facts or is it based upon your opinion? The fact that you breath and that your mind is an amazing testimony of the fact that God created such a complex intstrument. God is real. "Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord."

Posted by David on September 7,2008 | 06:24 AM

It's just so, so unfortunate that there are so many supposedly intelligent people who premise their opinions on the contradictory mish-mash that makes up the Bible. Waving a book under my nose proves NOTHING. Waving a book of selected, legendary anecdotes proves even less. A book that has gone through hundreds of translations, often slanted and edited to prove the point of a certain religion, be it Judaism or Christianity. A book based on the premise that a Jewish Rabbi, born of a virgin, performed miracles, rose from the dead and will return sometime to judge all mankind. Let science govern itself without interference from the Christian ultra right wing. These saved-agains remind me of the censure of Galileo by the Catholic church. May I be preserved from the denizens of this Bible Belt. David.......31-8-2008

Posted by David on August 31,2008 | 03:44 PM

Turbe, I completely agree with you, this is a gift that's extended to all people's, they only need to accept it. We have nothing to gain outside of perhaps another friend for helping the godless see that God indeed is ready willing and able to be there for them for all things., This discovery is the smoking gun, there are plans to break open more fossles, we have only scratched the surface on this one.

Posted by Brian on August 17,2008 | 08:00 PM

I agree with Roger's post (July 31, 2008). What I don't understand is why are some so against letting nature proves itself and that God's Word is true? Why are some so afraid of the proof showing that God created all? If I were an atheist I would think that I'd jump for joy to be shown through evidence that Creationism is the truth and not evolution, as this means that one's life is not over when the body dies. Why wouldn't anyone want to be shown evidence of this truth? Is it because they don't want to change their way of life and live as Christ had shown us we should and as the Bible instructs? Even if that could be the reason I don't get it, as who wouldn't be willing to live as God wants us to in return for eternal life with Him...and what's so hard about accepting Jesus as one's Saviour and after he suffered so on the cross for our sins...a free gift of our Lord's love, as opposed to works and a sinless life, which no man (or woman) can say they are without sin? I will just never understand why some wants so badly to believe in the lies of evolution. Another thing that I will never understand- how can evolutionists truly convince themselves that all was created by a big bang and everything fell into perfect balance as opposed to chaos, as that would take much more faith to believe? Well, one day God will reveal to all but unfortunately for those who refuse to be open to the truth, it will be too late...and so many who despise Christians (true Christians whose lives are in line with Jesus' teachings and love and not those who call themselves such but actually teach hate)for what they call, pushing religion down their throat, will finally realize that it was just their brotherly (or sisterly) love for them and wanting no one to parish, but to have ever lasting life with our Creator, just as our Creator wants for all of his Children.

Posted by Turbe on August 9,2008 | 11:10 PM

Wonderful discovery indeed! Sorry I'm so "after the fact" in posting here, but I only came across this article today after doing some research on dinosaurs. I heard about this discovery while at the Creation Museum in Cincinnati (which hopefully everyone who reads this gets a chance to tour), and can't help but be amazed at how God chooses to reveal truth. This to me is firm evidence that the earth is not millions of years old, but more like 6,000 years old, as some of you suggest. Consider another twist. At the time of Creation, God did not create death. Why would he have, because he created a perfect world. It was only after the fall of Adam and Eve that death occurred. Now, if things didn't die before sin came about, then that would mean that animals and humans lived at the same time. Have humans been around for millions of years? I think not! We have accurate records in the Bible that Adam was the first man, and also how old he and his descendants were when they died, which gives us a time frame for the age of the world. Based on that, we can see that scientists have their rock and fossil datings way off course! Dinosaurs living only a few thousand years ago? Sure! Dinosaurs and humans cohabiting? Of course! Did dinosaurs become extinct after the flood? Quite likely. Remember, there would have only been two of every type of dinosaur in the ark, and it is quite likely that earth conditions after the flood were not conducive to sustaining their life. Who knows? God could have allowed them to die off just to give scientists something else to disagree on.

Posted by Roger S on July 31,2008 | 08:13 AM

ROFL "To Schweitzer I would say, get God out of the box you made for Him, and let the evidence speak for itself: that the Bible is correct in all matters, not just where she decides it should be for her personal agenda." As if requiring the Bible to be infallible isn't putting your God in a box. You'd be funny if that comment wasn't so insanely ignorant.

Posted by Thegreatpuma on July 29,2008 | 03:46 PM

Will G Stated: Fact is NOT in the eye of the beholder. A FACT is something that cannot be disputed (eg the sun came up this morning, electricity is powering my computer, two plus two equals four, blood cells were apparently found preserved in a dinosaur fossil, etc) Will I dispute your fact that the sun came up this morning. The sun did not come up the earth rotated giving the appearance of coming up. It is how you interpret the evidence. You say that soft tissue from the t rex was 68 million years old. you say that it has to be so because this type of dinosaur died out 65 million years ago. Why not test the soft tissue to see what its age is? Already many are saying why test it we know because we know what the age is. If ms Schweitzer had used this kind of thinking she would never have found red blood cells. What prevented this kind of discovery from happening over the past fifty years. To be honest it is because every scientist worth his salt knows beyond a doubt that blood cells would not survive 68 million years. That is why no one did it before. The best and most logical conclusion is that the bone is not millions but thousands of years old. That is good science.

Posted by Chris on July 19,2008 | 12:41 PM

I am a Registered Nurse for 23 years since I was 21. I worked in an operating room for 7 years. If we didn't put enough formalin on any tissue that had to be sent to the lab we got blasted by the pathologist. Red Blood Cells, tissue, skin, and cadaver smell- does not last. What I dont understand is, why didn't the scientists prior to Mary Schweitzer look inside the bones of the Dinosaurs? Thats elementary and common sense, you dont have to be a scientist to know that- no disrespect to any scientists on here. Another thing- why didn't anyone prior to Mary Schweitzer not notice the "cadaver smell" in Hell Creek? How could someone not notice that? Maybe a team of Medical professionas- RN's, MD's- Pathologists, Veterinarians- like the one who told Mary Schweitzer about the Red Blood Cells, and CSI investigators should be doing the examining of these Dinosaur bones. Pathologists in particular- they would give you a more accurate date to the age of the specimens. Susana RN

Posted by Susana on July 15,2008 | 08:54 AM

Nice try, AMD! Problem that you face though, is that stupidity is an incurable disease and all the explaining and using complicated stuff like facts is a waste of time. Suffice it to say that the main difference between scientists and "religionists" is that the former group, when presented with new facts, will take them on board and revise the science accordingly. The problem with the "faithful" is that they will never let facts get in the way of their opinions. The discoveries made by Ms Schweitzer, living proof that not all Christians are idiots, may change the face of palaeobiology beyond all recognition in the (near) future. For this we can all be grateful. For the other group of idiots: "Jurassic Park" was a movie, not a documentary!

Posted by Dancat on July 4,2008 | 10:28 PM

To smoore, zip and any others who might be thinking that tissue survival for millions of years is impossible: the agents of biological decomposition in the sense of "rotting" or chemical digestion are microbes, such as Bacteria and Archaea. There isn't some magical ether that pervades everything and makes organic things decompose after death. If for some reason microbes don't have access to biological tissue, decomposition will not happen. The dense bone marrow of a dinosaur bone, likely microbe-free in life, is relatively inaccessable to microbes after death, and the miraculous discovery of soft tissue structures millions of years old may make sense if viewed in this light. Working from this first principle, it almost makes the discovery of the preserved soft tissue all the more remarkable, if we think of how efficiently microbes have otherwise removed almost all traces of the biological veneers on Earth's surface that made up past worlds.

Posted by AMD on June 21,2008 | 06:04 PM

Fact is NOT in the eye of the beholder. A FACT is something that cannot be disputed (eg the sun came up this morning, electricity is powering my computer, two plus two equals four, blood cells were apparently found preserved in a dinosaur fossil, etc) Belief is a choice. You accept something as true. It does not require (and most of the time does not have) any facts to back it up. You may have some personal reason to believe the way that you do, but you have no real proof, nothing you can show to someone else to compel them. In order to turn that belief into a fact (ie to get it accepted in science), you need evidence that is universal, something that most of the people you show it too agree is the same conclusion you have come to. Creationism does not have that kind of evidence. All it has is misleading and ineptly gathered data, improbable conclusions and holes in accepted science (which are growing smaller all the time) that it tries to exploit. Proving that I don't know everything does not make you right.

Posted by Will G on June 13,2008 | 01:42 AM

JMSC- Fact and Belief are in the eye of the beholder. Facts come from investigation and analysis of information. What you are calling belief sounds strangely like a hypothesis. Faith is something else. That's where a person holds a view that is based on information PLUS other contributing elements: emotional, instinct, hope, intuition etc. Science is great for solving simple problems, but only faith and a personal relationship with God can answer the real questions that matter. This is a wonderful discovery, and I think is bringing the ministry of Jesus to hardworking scientists who are challenging their belief in the "truth" from "facts."

Posted by Jonah P on June 5,2008 | 03:49 PM

While I understand Dr. Schweitzer’s angst about the implications of her discovery and the response of some Christians, her characterization of biblical faith being in someway blind is not accurate. Biblical faith is not blind, it requires spiritual insight, but God's Word contains many infallible evidences for the reality of God and the infallibly of His Word, e.g. the proof of Prophecy. Read Isaiah 53, written seven centuries before the birth of Christ, for just one example. The real problem for Dr. Schweitzer is the evidence indicates a miracle has taken place, that flesh and blood has been preserved for 70 million years. That is truly blind faith.

Posted by Steven Rowitt on June 5,2008 | 02:30 PM

"Rates of decay has been proved for decades. " Wait - are you seriously claiming that data exists demonstrating controlled measurement of decay over millions of years - heck, I'll settle for scientific experiments on decay that were initiated 6,000 years ago with an unbroken chain of observation? Lots of claims in the comments, but no substantiating evidence. That alone is a red flag.

Posted by Skeptic on June 1,2008 | 11:27 PM

Rates of decay has been proved for decades. For quite some time scientists have been sure of these rates. So, logically, if the cells have not decayed, then they CANNOT be millions of years old. There are two relevant facts here: 1) Cells decay at a certain rate. 2) Cells have been found in a bone. So the conclusion to be drawn is: these cells are not older than the proven rates predict. Which means....the dino is not as old as everyone thinks. What's so bad about dinosaurs surviving for longer than expected?

Posted by NKCar on May 16,2008 | 02:09 PM

People, let us deal with evidence and facts...not beliefs. I too could write a wonderfully told story, have many people translate it into and out of different languages, and pass it off as my beliefs - but would that make every aspect of the stories true? Would a multitude of people interpret the exact wording (after many translations mind you) to be 'fact'? Would they use those exact words to try to prove a point? Where is the empirical evidence to support it? That is what makes religion a system of beliefs, not facts. Yes, these beliefs have merit and a place in our societies. They help many people govern themselves and also guide their behaviors and actions. It also gives a valuable checklist of what actions benefit and hinder the progression of societal interaction. These tenets have helped us progress to the place we are in today. But remember folks, it is a series of stories told to help guide and govern our behaviors and actions. It is a belief. It is not fact-based like science. Science does not deal in beliefs. Let's compare apples to apples, not apples to kiwi. Kudos to those scientists who continue to look at things in different ways and who try new methods to gain knowledge.

Posted by JMSC on May 7,2008 | 04:44 PM

Great discovery! Great to see someone trying something like this that others would not. I think an honest scientist will admit they have some sort of bias or model or a scenario into which the pieces of the evidence puzzle are placed and by which they are interpreted. A useful scientific model should be able to make some predictions, and in my opinion the Biblical model with shorter time scales is better at predicting this type of evidence than if this critter had lived millions of years ago. However, I understand why others may think it must have been preserved for millions of years because that is the model they are working with, so they are looking at the evidence in that context. I don't automatically think millions of years when I see a fossil because I hold to the Biblical model, like the great scientist Sir. Isaac Newton ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_views. I also believe that fossils in general can't take a very long time to form because decay before fossilization would ruin it. As far as I know most living tissue decays quickly; even the Egyptians couldn't fully beat that. A fossil that shows features that are not very durable must have formed quite quickly e.g. the fossil jellyfish shown here http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071031-jellyfish.html

Posted by Joel P on March 28,2008 | 03:34 AM

Congradualtions on a great scientific find. It is a amazing what dilute acid reveals on fossilized slices of bone matrix. We also have uncovered mammoths with collogen found inside the bones on the Peace River Florida in the late nineties. For the past three summers we have been digging in the Hell Creek formation and have found numerous fragemsnts of Tricertops with tips of T. rex teeth found in situ. Although there have been millions and millions of fossils collected over the years the verdict honestly is still no clear record of how we got here. There are just as many transiitioanl fossils missing as we make case for new species. The Hell Creek formation only with even the most of the modern finds added there only according to Norrel et.al. from the American Musium of Natural History states that the can only identify 40 different kinds of dinosoaurs becasuse the fossil record is incomplete in his words "we suspect it may be very bad." The dino dig we are involved in is revealing that many tricertops mad their demise there. We are looking at catastrophic event perhaps like a global flood. It should be mentioned that they preent Geological column is made of index fossils that are 95 % shallow water invertebrates mostly shell fish. Beacuse of this new discovery of Dr. Schweitzer there have been Carbon dating studies done on other femurs which indicate that there Carbon 14 found which give dates in lower thousands versus 65 million years. It is our contention if the research leads to earth that dates young - lets go with it. Good science allows conclusions that are not censored! Tom D

Posted by Tom D on March 22,2008 | 12:08 AM

I would absolutely love to read an article on the kind of soil that was around this particular dino. Reason being, what preserved this dino so well and could it something that would help out modern world? Also, would it not be so cool to come across actual blood?

Posted by Mel Taylor on March 8,2008 | 01:02 AM

The tissue didn't survive 75 million years, according to the Bible, the Earth is really quite young, maybe only 50 thousand yrs. or even less. Since Job is the oldest book in the Bible read what he says aboput the Behemoth, and he even states that the "The Earth hangs on nothing" (Space), how did he know that since "Science" books weren't written way back then. and lastly, take a good look at Icca stones, these petroligths have carved drawings on them with men fighting dinosaurs, yep, man lived with dinosaurs up until the flood , Noah's flood, which by the way is up in the Moutains of Ararat, which is why Turkey won't let any credible scientist, (Christian) or otherwise go up there, the discovery would be to much of a shock to our "politically correct culture". Hang in there people, Jesus is coming soon, bye.

Posted by Mike Sexton on February 25,2008 | 08:12 PM

its been a long journey science versus faith( the creationists) remember that these folks believe the world is flat that the earth is the centre of the universe man walked with the dinosaurs that the virus and bacteria do not exist and many other debunked theories science is not perfect but its is open minded it speculates yes but all speculations and must be proven by hard cold facts the creationist do not use facts they use faith that does not have to prove anything but a belief in god nothing wrong with faith einstein was asked does he believe in god he replied "god does not play dice with the universe " but faith has to realize that man has been given the ability to think and reason by evolution or by god take your pick

Posted by leslie martin on February 24,2008 | 11:10 PM

That's my professor. She's great!

Posted by KA on February 16,2008 | 08:43 AM

So they still don't explain how that tissue survived for 65 million years..... See, that's the cool part about science. It doesn't claim to know everything. That's how you know it's science, not faith.

Posted by Adam Shinbrot on February 14,2008 | 01:00 PM

The imagination soars at such promise this discovery entails! Who was the vet that accually found and voiced the fact that they were red blood cells in the bone? I believe that the vet should be named and have a clear claim to the discovery of the cells, don't you think? Right is right and fair is fair. Thanks Al.

Posted by Al Brown on February 10,2008 | 09:15 PM

If science shows that the book of nature contradicts darwin's strange ideas (descent-with-modification, or macroevolution), then there must be a mistake somewhere. And since darwinism is infallible (just ask teachers who were fired for questioning evolution - NOT 'teaching creationism' [sic]), it necessarily follows that the mistake is being made by scientists, “Schweitzer’s work is just showing us we really don’t understand decay. There’s lots of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.” So which should we trust?... The known laws of science or the “assumptions” darwinists “just make”… so they can keep believing in darwin? Heaven forbid secular scientists ask the question, "Is this SOFT dino tissue really 68 million yrs old?" THAT'S a scientific question that is not allowed to be asked! Regardless, it's important for darwinists to be able to harmonize their philosophy with science because many are members of knowledge-intensive occupations. It's never a good time to be a secular scientist.

Posted by windarr on February 6,2008 | 05:02 PM

JURRASSIC PARK!!! Let's make it happen!

Posted by pollux.rees on January 29,2008 | 07:23 AM

I think your fantastic, please keep up the great work your doing, God gave you the gift to be able to look into bones and find blood cells. As for the bible; who really knows what a day was when God made the earth, all the animals, and Adam and Eve. God gave us the free will and the mind to invent things and to look into the past. Don't stop too long, digging in the ground looking for fossils. We need you to find more about the past, and why they all died. I look forward to your next discovery! Yvonne

Posted by Yvonne Lubman on January 24,2008 | 08:17 PM

Well I guess we won't ever see the 14C Dating data on these T-Rex bone fragments (not the fleshy stuff). It's bad enough that Mary has 'rocked the boat' with this new discovery. Why capsize it with radiometric dates like 49K to 2K BP. Heck that would put T-Rex's within human coexistence. Fancy that the enigmatic T-Rex inscribed Ica Peru petroglyph artifacts* could not be a hoax** after all. I wonder if that impacts the similar prehistoric animal ceramic artifacts found at Acámbaro, Guanajuato, Mexico by the late Waldemar Julsrud? Naah - paleontologists are not trying to hide anything... Are they? Protecting their turf from hard empirical data? That's crazy talk isn't it? ;-/ *Ornamental lacquered stones found by the late Dr.Javier Cabrera **Identified as hoax by UPENN.edu paleontologists

Posted by Dr. Anon Yusef Mous on January 16,2008 | 06:59 AM

Dr. Schweitzer sounds like a pretty cool person. I congratulate her (belatedly) on her discoveries. It's an amazing thing when people challenge stagnant ideas and conceptions and show us how incredible our world is. P.S. I would ask that smoore refrain from accusing Dr. Schweitzer of lacking Christianity. It's really quite rude to assume things about the beliefs of others when you don't know them at all, regardless of how they may be portrayed. Besides, just because her beliefs don't fit into your personal agenda doesn't mean that they're wrong.

Posted by allo on January 15,2008 | 08:13 PM

this is a pretty cool discovery, paleontology rocks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by qwertyuiop on January 13,2008 | 05:02 PM

I agree with zip. Their ideas on decay could be wrong (after all, how many laboratory tests have been done to show an animal decay into a fossil?), or maybe the ideas are right and the time frame is wrong by a few million years. To Schweitzer I would say, get God out of the box you made for Him, and let the evidence speak for itself: that the Bible is correct in all matters, not just where she decides it should be for her personal agenda. Science was made by God in the manner described in Genesis and elsewhere. Secular science will invariably prove God and disprove godless, humanistic evolution, and if Schweitzer is truly a Christian then hopefully she will switch sides to fight the good fight, which will invariably win.

Posted by smoore on January 12,2008 | 06:49 PM

So they still don't explain how that tissue survived for 65 million years.....

Posted by zip on January 8,2008 | 05:09 PM

Fantastic discovery, work, and patient PEOPLE. THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS....PLEASE CONTINUE...!!!! You're Great!---john nieb

Posted by john nieb on November 19,2007 | 01:46 AM

In The Magazine

June 2013

View Table of Contents »

Travel with Smithsonian

Smithsonian Store

View full archiveRecent Issues

About Us

Smithsonian.com expands on Smithsonian magazine's in-depth coverage of history, science, nature, the arts, travel, world culture and technology. Join us regularly as we take a dynamic and interactive approach to exploring modern and historic perspectives on the arts, sciences, nature, world culture and travel, including videos, blogs and a reader forum.

Smithsonian.com

Dinosaur Shocker

Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth

Add New Comment

Comments (158)

Most Popular

View All Most Popular »