The Un-Fossils: Soft Dinosaur Tissue

No Comment Yet

Author: Tom Shipley

One of the most compelling reasons that have come to light in recent decades to reject the Darwinian-Lyellian hypothesis of millions-of-years-old fossils is the fact of soft tissue (i.e., unfossilized) finds of dinosaurs and other extinct organisms in the rock of the earth! These soft tissue finds DISPROVE the evolutionary speculation that these creatures lived millions of years ago because soft tissue, even under the most ideal conditions conceivable, cannot survive even 100,000 years, to say nothing of a million years—to say nothing of the supposed 65 million years of time since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Secondly, These soft tissue finds are also yielding significant Carbon-14 content in the original tissue, which is another impossibility if, in fact, the tissue is 65 million years old, as C-14 has a very short half-life of about 5,500 years. Thirdly, these soft tissue finds are also yielding unracemized DNA, that is partly undegraded (still left-handed) DNA which rapidly randomizes (racemizes) after the death of the organism to a 50/50 ratio of left and right handed DNA, then gradually disintegrates completely. DNA’s half-life is even shorter than C-14 at about 621 years.

This triad of facts is like a Molotov cocktail thrown into the gasoline tank of evolution. These original soft tissue finds have utterly demolished the evolutionary pretensions of the Darwinists. Unfortunately, the administrators of the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine have no interest in educating the general public about the significance of these facts nor students attending our colleges and universities. All we are getting from them now is special pleading after the fact, propaganda, in contradiction to all known science about organic tissue decay.

Mary Higby Schweitzer, more than anyone else, has been front and center in the theater of soft dinosaur tissue finds and investigation. She is a paleontologist at North Carolina State University. She is also the protégé of the famous Jack Horner who, according to Wikipedia,

“is one of the best-known paleontologists in the United States. In addition to his many paleontological discoveries, Horner served as the technical advisor for all of the Jurassic Park films, and even served as partial inspiration for one of the lead characters, Dr. Alan Grant.”

Horner is reported saying to Schweitzer, upon learning of Schweitzer’s discoveries, “The creationists are going to love you.”

In public news media interviews, Schweitzer has said:

It just doesn’t seem possible. But yes you can actually take the vessels [i.e. soft dinosaur blood vessels] and they do have internal components and so you can take a probe and kind of squeeze those things out into solution and the vessels are fine. It’s just…I can’t explain it to be honest.”


Well it is very amazing. It is utterly shocking, actually, because it flies in the face of everything that we understand about how tissues and cells degrade…the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone. It should be degraded completely.”


A lot of our science doesn’t allow for thisAll of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we’ve done don’t allow for this. So if this material turns out to be the actual remnants of the dinosaur then, yes, I think we will have to do some, certainly rethinking of some of the basics of the model of fossilization.”

Note well that Schweitzer asserts that our science regarding the fossilization process needs rethinking. That rethinking should start with the basic assumption that fossilization takes many hundreds of thousands or millions of years to occur. Subsequent investigation has shown that the tissue being found is, in fact, original organic tissue. (I don’t have the space to elaborate on this here, but let me mention also that the internal evidence of most fossils powerfully testifies to rapid burial and rapid fossilization of the living organisms.)

Until just a couple years ago, I was under the impression that the very first soft dinosaur tissue finds were unearthed by Mary Schweitzer in 1997 until being informed better by Mark Armitage in a video. Apparently soft dinosaur tissue finds go all the way back to at least 1966! Roman Pawlicki of Jagiellonian University in Poland has apparently published fifteen or so scientific papers on his finds.

To judge from the things Mary Schweitzer has said publicly, Mary Schweitzer herself appears to have believed that she was the first scientist to discover soft dinosaur tissue. She was not. Apparently, the self-appointed Guardians of Evolutionary Dogma have not been very interested in spreading the word about Pawlicki’s findings. I ask, how is it possible that an educated scientist such as Mary Schweitzer could have been in ignorance of fifteen (15!) scientific papers spanning from 1966 to 1995 in her own specialty? Apparently, the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine not only quarantines information from getting outside of academia but also within.

According to Mark Armitage, Mary Schweitzer’s first such discovery was in 1997 in the fossilized(?) bones of the most popular of all dinosaurs, the tyrannosaurus rex. Found there were original soft blood vessels, proteins, various blood cells, collagen and even DNA sequences! I encourage the reader to investigate this information at the ICR website here, and Bob Enyart’s page from Real Science Radio. These are established facts now twenty years down the pike, but in the beginning the evolutionists, virtually in unanimity, were loudly screaming “contamination,” because everyone “knew” the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Therefore, the samples found “had” to be contamination.

Until these discoveries started to be unearthed in 1997 by Mary Schweitzer, there was (and this cannot be stressed too strongly) universal agreement across all of the relevant scientific disciplines that soft organic tissue could survive at the outside maximum, under the best, most optimal of ideal conditions, for maybe up to 100,000 years and certainly not for multiple hundreds of thousands of years —to say nothing of millions of years. This is why fossils were never before investigated by scientists for soft tissue. It was just simply assumed that the dinosaur and other remains MUST be millions of years old—hence, it was not possible for them to contain soft tissue, and therefore there was no need to look for it. (Bob Enyart of Real Science Radio has asked a pertinent question: How much valuable scientific information has been lost forever over the last 150 years due to the false beliefs of the evolutionists?)

Organic tissue, which consists of complex molecules, rapidly degrades of itself after the death of the organism even absent any external influences. Organic tissue is unstable and degrades even from its own molecular motion of the constituent atoms and also from exceedingly slight temperature fluctuations. Needless to say, the evolution-minded scientists have been scrambling to explain away the obvious significance of these finds. They are trying to concoct ad hoc explanations (and “concoct” is the appropriate adjective) to advance the assertion that these soft tissue finds have survived for millions of years—despite their own previous universal agreement that such extant soft tissue was known to be impossible. This attempt smacks of special pleading after the fact to me, as the referenced ICR article also observes.

Secular paleontologists and geologists and biologists over the last 150 years were all so universally convinced that dinosaur fossils were so old (i.e., millions of years) that no one ever dreamed of attempting to find extant soft tissue in them. Dinosaur bones with extant soft tissue inside of them have been on display in museums around the world, all the while the curators of these museums being completely in ignorance of what they had in their possession. Extant soft tissue finds in dinosaur bones has astonished the scientists. It certainly astonished Mary Schweitzer, according to her own testimony. Mary Schweitzer was so incredulous at the facts before her eyes that she tested and re-tested the samples 17 times searching for laboratory error!!!

Conclusion: the entire age scheme of modern Lyellian geology and Darwinian evolution is now completely discredited, conclusively falsified, and must be discarded in favor of a young earth model. The facts warrant this.

The obvious and irrefutable conclusion to be made from all of these dinosaur soft tissue finds is that the unfossilized remains examined (and, therefore the rocks they are found in) are merely thousands of years old, not millions. Fast-forward nearly 20 years to today: the number of such finds keeps multiplying exponentially to the point where these soft tissue finds are now the norm (as predicted by Mark Armitage). A few random citations include, 1) organic tissue found in a triceratops horn, 2) soft tissue found in a hadrosaur, 3) soft tissue from a supposedly 80 million year old mosasaur, 4) soft tissue from a supposedly 150 million year old archaeopteryx, 5) and, get this, soft tissue from supposedly 500 million year old pre-Cambrian beard worms!!! The evolutionists now want us to believe that organic tissue can survive for half a billion years! To whom I respond: get real, and go get a half-life! It’s time to get out of academia and science research and go drive a truck for a living.

These soft tissue finds dramatically and conclusively disprove the fundamental axiomatic, a priori age assumptions pre-loaded into virtually all archaeological, paleontological, and geological research of academia. The secular scientists have simply been wrong about the age of the fossils (or in these cases, the unfossils) and, therefore, of the age of the earth. They are now beginning to look very, very foolish, indeed, trying to defend the dogmas of their naturalistic religion.



Tom Shipley

About Tom Shipley

I am a former atheist and evolutionist during my college days; came to faith in Christ at the age of 20; regard my pro-creation activities as part of the work of the kingdom of God; believe that a very tough, strident and unapologetic stance against evolution is called for though I may soften my tone if and when Mark Armitage and David Coppedge, fired for their creationist beliefs, are given their jobs back. I am also a contributor for The Creation Club. Articles copyright Tom Shipley. All Rights Reserved.
Up Next

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.