Odd, this 65 million year old bone still has soft-tissue in it?!?

Trex  Another find that seemed to disappear from public eyes and has recently re-appeared, is the T-Rex bones that were discovered with soft tissue and blood cells.  I thought I heard about this find being in Alaska, but it appears that it may have been Montana.  The discovery was made by a Mary Schweitzer.

Do-While Jones (he’s into programming what do you expect) makes some interesting points and joined a dig expedition to find out more.



He states, “Our readers have known for years that Mary Schweitzer found some T. rex bones with dried blood cells in them in 1990. This was surprising because the blood should have completely disintegrated if the bones were really 65 million years old. She published her findings in the June 1996 issue of Earth, a now-defunct science magazine written for the general public. It was not a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. The article was reviewed in the September-November 1997 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, a creationist magazine published by Answers in Genesis.”

Apparently Mary experienced some snubbing from fellow evolutionary mucki-mucks as Do-While Jones continues:

‘Mary has learned her lessons in diplomacy. Here’s what she said to a British television crew.

“This is fossilised [British spelling] bone in the sense that it’s from an extinct animal but it doesn’t have a lot of the characteristics of what people would call a fossil,” she told the BBC’s Science In Action programme [British spelling].     

“It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it’s not any more dense than modern bone; it’s bone more than anything.”

Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material – only that they give that appearance.

She and other scientists will want to establish if some hitherto unexplained fine-scale process has been at work in MOR 1125, which was pulled from the famous dinosaur rocks of eastern Montana known as the Hell Creek Formation. 2 [emphasis supplied]

In other words, despite the fact that it doesn’t look fossilized, it must be fossilized because it is 68 million years old. Therefore, she doesn’t claim that she found unfossilized bone. She claims she has found a new form of fossilization! But given what happened to her in Montana, we can’t really blame her. Sometimes one has to say what one has to say in order to keep a job and get the information published. We are glad she chose to give this song-and-dance rather than to keep her discovery secret.’


ICR, the Institute for Creation Research, adds to the discussion with the facts of the impossibility of these bones being more than 100,000 years, yeah even 10,000 years old.  And in reality are probably much younger than that. Check this out for more info:



Come on folks, lets get the secular humanistic manifesto out of our schools and our scientific institutions so that actual open learning can occur!!  I think that even if while out on a dig expedition, one of these scientists were bit in the ass by a live dinosaur, they would either deny that it really was a dinosaur or they would deny their own ass!

Leave a Reply