Ashley-Star*Child Posted February 7, 2005 #1 Share Posted February 7, 2005 REAL DINOSAUR BLOOD FOUND? Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old. It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousand years old. In a recent article1, scientists from Montana State University, seemingly struggling to allow professional caution to restrain their obvious excitement at the findings, report on the evidence which seems to strongly suggest that traces of real blood from a T. rex have actually been found. The story starts with a beautifully preserved T. rex skeleton unearthed in the United States in 1990. When the bones were brought to the Montana State University’s lab, it was noticed that ‘some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’ To find unfossilized dinosaur bone is already an indication more consistent with a young age for the fossils Let Mary Schweitzer, the scientist most involved with this find, take up the story of when her co-workers took turns looking through a microscope at a thin section of this T rex bone, complete with blood vessel channels. ‘The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!”’2 Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ‘So far, we haven’t been able to.’ Looking for dinosaur DNA in such a specimen was obviously tempting. However, fragments of DNA can be found almost everywhere from fungi, bacteria, human fingerprints and so it is hard to be sure that one has DNA from the specimen. The Montana team did find, along with DNA from fungi, insects and bacteria, unidentifiable DNA sequences, but could not say that these could not have been jumbled sequences from present-day organisms. However, the same problem would not be there for hemoglobin, the protein which makes blood red and carries oxygen, so they looked for this substance in the fossil bone. The evidence that hemoglobin has indeed survived in this dinosaur bone (which casts immense doubt upon the ‘millions of years’ idea) is, to date, as follows: The tissue was coloured reddish brown, the colour of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue. Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied. Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modem heme compounds. To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments. Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is 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. To claim that bone could remain intact for millions of years without being fossilized (mineralized) stretches credibility. The report here of red blood cells in an unfossilized section of dinosaur bone is not the first time such bone has been found. Biologist Dr Margaret Helder alerted readers of Creation magazine to documented finds of ‘fresh’, unfossilized dinosaur bone as far back as 1992.3 More recently, based on these reports, a team associated with Buddy Davis, a staff member at Answers in Genesis, in Northern Kentucky, has retrieved similarly unfossilized dinosaur bone from Alaska.4 Na na na na na Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotoke Posted February 7, 2005 #2 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) again false info? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html They have clearly stated they could not even assert that there were residual blood products, but Wieland falsely claimed Schweitzer asserted there were actual cells. The lack of permineralization (the infilling of the intravascular spaces with minerals, and recrystalization of the bone mineral itself) is the reason that Schweitzer could loosely refer to the bone as "not completely fossilized" in The Real Jurassic Park. Wieland grossly exaggerates this as "unfossilized Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone" (1997A) gives us a straight forward data presentation,and concludes that there were heme, and hemoglobin protein fragments sufficiently well preserved in a small portion of a particularly well preserved bone from which they could produce an immunological response in rats. There is no indication that there were "blood cells" found in the bone apart from a provocative title, is equally clear that neither hemoglobin nor red blood cells were discovered - that article is misinforming people Edited February 7, 2005 by Hotoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley-Star*Child Posted February 7, 2005 Author #3 Share Posted February 7, 2005 again false info? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html They have clearly stated they could not even assert that there were residual blood products, but Wieland falsely claimed Schweitzer asserted there were actual cells. The lack of permineralization (the infilling of the intravascular spaces with minerals, and recrystalization of the bone mineral itself) is the reason that Schweitzer could loosely refer to the bone as "not completely fossilized" in The Real Jurassic Park. Wieland grossly exaggerates this as "unfossilized Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone" (1997A) gives us a straight forward data presentation,and concludes that there were heme, and hemoglobin protein fragments sufficiently well preserved in a small portion of a particularly well preserved bone from which they could produce an immunological response in rats. There is no indication that there were "blood cells" found in the bone apart from a provocative title, is equally clear that neither hemoglobin nor red blood cells were discovered - 478737[/snapback] Funny it just said that red blood cells and hemoglobin were found in the bone....with tissue. It also said it was tested on rats, etc. You getting false info? So quick in defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley-Star*Child Posted February 7, 2005 Author #4 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) I'll also add (if you READ IT) that it's not the first time it was found, this time it was found by accident. Edited February 7, 2005 by Ashley-Star*Child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley-Star*Child Posted February 7, 2005 Author #5 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) Anyway, night night. Edited February 7, 2005 by Ashley-Star*Child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 7, 2005 #6 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Care to source this, Ashley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted February 7, 2005 #7 Share Posted February 7, 2005 In a word....absurd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beowulf Posted February 7, 2005 #8 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Biologist Dr Margaret Helder alerted readers of Creation magazine to documented finds of ‘fresh’, unfossilized dinosaur bone as far back as 1992.3 More recently, based on these reports, a team associated with Buddy Davis, a staff member at Answers in Genesis, in Northern Kentucky, has retrieved similarly unfossilized dinosaur bone from Alaska.4 There are her sources, totally unbiased "Creationist" sources. Would Xians of that caliber ever lie? 10 times before breakfast and then constantly all day. The only time they aren't lying to support their ridiculous beliefs is when they are sleeping! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted February 7, 2005 #9 Share Posted February 7, 2005 You know....to this day, I struggle to understand how anyone can believe so strongly in something that they have to outright lie in order to try and justify it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotoke Posted February 7, 2005 #10 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) Funny it just said that red blood cells and hemoglobin were found in the bone....with tissue. It also said it was tested on rats, etc. You getting false info? So quick in defense http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html they exagerated THE report. red blood cells were not to be founded. you dont ever read my posts do you Mary Schweitzer the one who found this never said any thing about blood cells on the bone, the religious dude just exagerated that. just read the real report of Mary Schweitzer Edited February 7, 2005 by Hotoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 7, 2005 #11 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Funny it just said that red blood cells and hemoglobin were found in the bone....with tissue. So, tell me how this tissue and actual red blood cells even lasted a few thousand years? Then tell me why, if its true, it hasnt reached the media. AND THEN tell me why this supposedly supports Christianity and not some other religion. And then you can actually read about why the report is a fake. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologeti...aur_blood.shtml To quote you: Na na na na na Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beowulf Posted February 7, 2005 #12 Share Posted February 7, 2005 While you are at it, explain why there is no Schwietzer on the University faculty or staff? Seems that she would have to actually work there to be a part of the study! Incidentally your friend Dr Helder is a Creationist Scientist whose biography gives neither her degrees nor her schools....very strange! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star_child Posted February 7, 2005 #13 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Blood cells die after 120 days, and thats is in your body. I When you donate blood, it can be frozen for just 10 years, so I don't think I'll believe this story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekorig Posted February 7, 2005 #14 Share Posted February 7, 2005 And i still waiting Ashlay Star Child...that has always when confronted by science, runs to her little book. and not he bible... I still belive that Ashley angels are the ones from Evangelion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athenian Posted February 7, 2005 #15 Share Posted February 7, 2005 What if it was one of those "loch ness no surrender style" dinosaurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richdog Posted February 7, 2005 #16 Share Posted February 7, 2005 And thus Ashleys credibility sinks lower into the minus points with each passing day... i'm actually starting to feel a bit sorry for her now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverCougar Posted February 7, 2005 #17 Share Posted February 7, 2005 unbelievable.... creational science has always been fuzzy... at best. One would hope with such a high IQ... one would not be so eager to gulp down exaggerations and not do further studies on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotoke Posted February 7, 2005 #18 Share Posted February 7, 2005 While you are at it, explain why there is no Schwietzer on the University faculty or staff? Seems that she would have to actually work there to be a part of the study! Incidentally your friend Dr Helder is a Creationist Scientist whose biography gives neither her degrees nor her schools....very strange! 478941[/snapback] yes indeed the only Schwietzer i found was a professor of history at villanova university and it lives in delaware on medical leave. it also has a site http://pw1.netcom.com/~schweit2/home.html looks like another fake attempt of xians to proof they are right like the man and dinosaur footsteps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack0fhearts Posted February 7, 2005 #19 Share Posted February 7, 2005 One would hope with such a high IQ... one would not be so eager to gulp down exaggerations and not do further studies on the matter. 478974[/snapback] Agreed. It's all quite funny that the more I read the christian news, there's always additional historical happenings to support the validation of the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverCougar Posted February 7, 2005 #20 Share Posted February 7, 2005 There are some who need to prove they are right so absolutely, they'll twist anything to do so. It's just like when archeologists find a place in the bible. Like.. a temple mentioned, or steps... or a tunnel. Some people pop up and say "LOOK! THERE'S PROOF!" No, it's only further proof that those places did exist, just not what happened with the place in the bible is real. It just proves further that authors right about places around them, places they're familiar with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richdog Posted February 7, 2005 #21 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) The word "desperate" springs to mind, and this comes accross in nearly all of her irrational posts... Edited February 7, 2005 by Richdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 8, 2005 #22 Share Posted February 8, 2005 One would hope with such a high IQ... one would not be so eager to gulp down exaggerations and not do further studies on the matter. It appears that when her IQ was measured, it wasnt her Intelligence Quotient, it was her Irritational Quotient... and a rating of 210 of that IQ I'd agree with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted February 8, 2005 #23 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Now, now, aren't you all being a little bit hard on Ashley? Just because she bragged about having an IQ that is far superior to anyone on the forum? Just because she believes weird stuff that makes no sense and offers no proof and exhibits Zero Common Sense...is that any reason to throw all that back in her face? I ask you. Isn't it just a wee bit childish? Or is it just wicked good fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 8, 2005 #24 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Wow, joc, you scared me for a moment there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted February 8, 2005 #25 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Just because she bragged about having an IQ that is far superior to anyone on the forum? Vastly superior to the rest of the human race too I admire Ashley for, if nothing else, having as vivid as imagination as she does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts