V RaptureChrist Newsletter
May-June 2006

Our current model of fossilization says that organic molecules are not preserved for a period greater than 100,000 years and yet there is now evidence that remains of red blood cells have been found inside a T. Rex dinosaur bone.

This link contains photos of the evidence.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

For fossilization to occur, organic matter is replaced molecule by molecule with minerals and is turned into a rock. There are no more proteins or DNA. The problem is that the T. Rex bone was not fossilized. It still had organic matter inside.

If one puts chicken bones inside wet concrete, the concrete will harden into a rock, but the bones will still be bones containing organic matter with blood vessels and red blood cell, just as you can see in the above picture of the T. Rex bone.

Scientists have a problem with a finding of red blood cells in a specimen that is supposedly over 65 million years old. That is why they immediately stated that the red blood cells were small deposits of iron. Their problem is that since they do not believe in God, they have created a scenario where planet earth is billions of years old and all life happens by chance if given enough time.

Just a few years ago, scientists used to say that dinosaurs disappeared because mammals ate the dinosaur eggs.  At that time scientists were against "catastrophism" because it sounded too close to the events of Noah's flood. They were into "gradualism" -- a theory in which changes happen slowly through billions of years of evolution. According to this theory, dinosaurs disappeared from the earth 65 million years ago.

The finding of fresh unfossilized dinosaur bone with red blood cells is a dagger through the heart of evolution.  Read about the discovery by Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology at North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences at:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/6291

At first they thought the dinosaur was male, so they called it Bob, or  B. Rex.  Dr. Schweitzer noticed the trabecular structures that are present only in egg laying females. Not only did she find red blood cells, but also soft fibrous tissue, and a network of blood vessels similar to that of an ostrich. Chemical tests of T. Rex blood residue found their proteins similar to avian blood.

The finding of soft tissue inside a dinosaur bone tells us that this bone is not 65 million years old, in fact, it is at most a few thousand years old. This evidence points to a young earth hypothesis, proving the veracity of the Bible.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp

Evolution is the theory by which scientists claim that new species develop from other species by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

According to this theory, only the organisms best suited to their surroundings will survive and transmit their DNA to their descendants, while those poorly adapted will disappear -- survival of the fittest.

There are many problems with the theory of evolution. Let’s go over some of the major problems:

Survival of the Fittest
The main driving force for evolution is survival of fittest. In other words, an organism will attempt to reproduce and increase its numbers no matter what. In that context, a gay couple makes no sense as people would attempt to have as many children as possible. Abortion would simply not exist. Suicides would be unheard of. And yet the world suicide rate from the year 1950 to now has doubled from 15 per hundred thousand to 30 per hundred thousand. According to the laws of natural selection, behavior that does not lead to reproduction gets weeded out of the gene pool. Yet we see that this is not the case.

Transitional Forms
The fossil record has many gaps. Scientists cannot explain the gaps. They used to say that with time the transitional forms would be found, but now years later, there is still no evidence of a creature evolving from one species to another.

Mutation
The engine of evolution is mutation, but this is a fallacy, because making random changes to DNA code is usually fatal, and at best detrimental.

What is mutation? Copying errors. For example, if  one copies Shakespeare's novel Hamlet, and gets a few of the letters wrong, it is still readable, but can it be claimed that the masterpiece has been improved? Will hundreds of copying errors make Hamlet or other works of literature more readable and perhaps an improvement over the original?

Most scientists say that mutation is what powers evolution, but mutation is not evolution; it is pollution of the gene code. Darwin did not understand how complicated cellular organisms are. If scientists really believe that mutation  helps new species evolve, then where would scientists go to look for superhumans? Hiroshima? Nagasaki?  Due to the atom bomb, the people of those regions of Japan have been subjected to large amounts of radiation causing mutations. Yet, what is found is high rates of cancer.

Mutations are not good for you, they are bad for you. Some scientists say that maybe 99% of mutations are bad, but 1% are good. If this is the case, then perhaps we should go to Chernobyl to look for this magical 1%.