This is the greatest discovery in the history of paleontology.
We went to Alaska a few months ago with scientists from around the world,
scientists from Oxford, and just...
These were men who were willing to look at the science.
So I went to scientist after scientist, ended up talking to about a hundred people
on the cruise.
So I said, I'd like to show you photos from science journals of an animal,
and I'd like you to guess, if you could, what animal do you think they're from?
And, you know, they couldn't guess that these are from a Tyrannosaurus rex.
These are blood vessels and blood cells from a T.
rex, in soft, inflexible, transparent tissue.
And so I asked, how could it be that there is soft tissue if these bones are supposed
to be tens of millions of years old?
What I found was interesting.
What happened next happened by mistake.
Mary put some fragments of the bone in acid to dissolve away the outermost layer
of mineral.
But the acid worked too fast, and all the mineral dissolved away.
Being a fossil, there should have been nothing left.
But there was, and it was elastic, like living tissue.
This is the piece.
No.
She showed us video she took under the microscope.
That's really what happened?
Yes.
That's the dinosaur bone?
Without mineral now.
That's what was left.
It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been
modern bone.
Well, let's say you took a steak and you wrapped it, you hermetically sealed it,
you put it in your refrigerator.
I mean, try freezing a steak for 10 years.
Take it out, you're going to see it looks haggard.
It's had a rough time in that refrigerator.
So you see this, and you think, what?
I didn't want to tell anybody.
You'd be ridiculed, right?
And so I said to my technician, okay, do it again.
I don't believe it.
And yet, in sample after sample, they were there, things that looked
suspiciously like flexible, transparent blood vessels.
She finally mustered the courage to tell Jack.
She said she dissolved the bone away, and there were blood vessels.
And, you know, I was, like, shocked.
How could that be?
That's right.
Look at that.
Blood vessels, and even what seemed to be intact cells, pose a radical challenge to
the existing rules of science, that organic material can't possibly
survive even a million years, let alone 68 million.
Now, this has major implications for the age of earth and fossils.
If soft tissues in dinosaur bones are the norm, and that is what we are predicting,
then these bones cannot be 65 million years old, because they're loaded with
soft tissues.
These break down quickly, and so they can't be old at all.
These are pieces of an even older dinosaur, a well-preserved
80-million-year-old duckbill.
When she dissolved it away in acid...
Let's put this under the scope here.
Well, look.
Is that a blood vessel?
This is a blood vessel.
You see the branches right there?
And look at all of them.
And it's so consistent, over and over and over again.
You do this bone, and it comes out, and I get excited every time.
There is, first of all, just the soft tissue itself, that we could look at,
and with our own eyes, say, is this soft, stretchy material, is it 80 million years
old?
Is it 68 million years old?
This is what we mean by an example of soft tissue, which was collected from the
Triceratops horn in Montana.
I'm going to stretch it.
Look at how stretchy this is.
And this is full of bone osteocytes, the tiny cells that make this tissue,
and then impregnate it with bone mineral.
And this was found one foot from the surface in Montana, in the presence of
insects, microbes, rodents, plants, and fungal bodies.
And we've recovered the DNA of all of those.
So this cannot hang around for millions of years, in the presence of all those
organisms, and oxygen, and water.
And so this is what we're talking about by soft tissue.
Right.
Then there is carbon-14, and that is huge.
If the entire Earth were one giant ball of nothing but carbon-14, which deteriorates
over time, in one million years, the entire ball, the size of the Earth,
would be completely gone in a million years.
Yet they're finding carbon-14 in dinosaur bones.
I'd like to point out, for the record, that a dinosaur bone is a lot smaller than
the entire Earth, yet it's still got carbon-14 inside of it.
In bottom line layman's terms, though these tests, carbon dating,
in this case, can spit out dates all over the map, in one single chunk of dinosaur
bone, what it does prove, by sheer virtue of having carbon inside of it,
is that what you are testing is not very old.
You have dinosaur DNA, and it's been published.
Although, of course, the scientists are aware that they're threatened,
they're even hated, they're mocked, they say, you know, you have people being
fired for the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue for publishing it.
The discovery tells someone with common sense that this dinosaur is not 68 million
years old.
This dinosaur is more in the range of the age of Egyptian mummies.
And so these scientists, first they're in denial, then I get them to Google on their
own phone, they go to the journal Nature Science, they see it for themselves,
and then they're just bewildered.
And they also don't understand why they've never heard of it.
What should we find if, in fact, dinosaurs are millions of years old,
when we look at dinosaur eggshells, and they have, and they've looked at the
amino acids, you know what they say?
Contamination!
Why are there all these left-handed amino acids in these dinosaur eggshells?
They shouldn't be there!
They should be fully racemized, 50-50.
And so you have amino acids, you have DNA half-life, you have carbon-14,
then you have just the basic common sense of dinosaur soft tissue, where blood
vessels are still transparent, flexible, they're stretchy, and when you
squeeze them, blood cells come out.
If you are finding carbon-14 in dinosaur bones, which contain original biological
material from a dinosaur, which you have 11 universities, including Harvard,
that have verified that the soft tissue being found inside dinosaur bones is,
in fact, original biological material from a dinosaur.
If you've got those two things combined, then it's impossible to argue,
very difficult to argue, that the carbon inside the dinosaur bones is
contamination.
This was presented at a Singapore American Geophysical Conference, and it was
presented by an international team of scientists who took 10 different dinosaurs
from multiple continents, had them carbon-14 data at the world's leading
labs, and they showed the results, and after the fact, the American
Geophysical Union censored their paper, removed all reference from their paper,
and all they said was, we are getting measurable carbon-14 from dinosaur bones
all over the world.
And moreover, we have genetic and fossil evidence going back, We have blood
vessels...
Lawrence...
Because of...
Because of dinosaur blood vessels.
Why don't you open your mind to the evidence of reality, and say, look,
if there is a God, the God as Galileo, if there is a God, he gave us a brain.
We can draw the brain out.
I'm talking about nature, science, paleontology...
You know, again, you've got a God of the gaps thing.
No, no God of the gaps.
We learn, our ideas evolve...
Blood vessels, Lawrence, blood vessels don't hang around for 65 million years in
sandstone in Montana.
Hartford has sequenced proteins.
I've been with Jack Horner in Montana, and seen the fossil blood vessels.
In fact, it's perfectly consistent with things that are 65 million years old.
They say, well, we don't have a problem with...
We expect this to happen.
We expect these materials to still be here.
Based on what?
Because the science of tissue decay, the science of protein decay demonstrates,
not just illustrates, I'm talking proves in a lab, a repeatable experimental proof
type of background, that this stuff should not last even one million years.
Oh yeah, right.
How about the carbon-14?
How about the carbon-14, Lawrence?
There's carbon-14 in the mosasaur fossil that has soft tissue.
Harvard has sequenced proteins from a hadrosaur.
Carbon-14 can't last a million years, yet it is everywhere.
I mean, you know, when you talk about anomalies, you're like the people who tell
me about UFOs, and they say, you know, there's a UFO sighting in this...
I agree with you.
You can't tell me it didn't happen.
Well, you're absolutely right, there are anomalies.
I agree with you, but these anomalies are everywhere.
Ridiculous anomalies.
When there's a whole process of knowledge, which tens of thousands of scientists have
worked their whole life on, then people like you come along and say, I want to
deny all that knowledge, because I've decided in advance, in advance of reading
anything, based on some book that was written God knows how long ago.
That's closed-mindedness, that's not open-mindedness.
The anomalies are everywhere worldwide.
There's carbon-14...
...diamonds...
Look, don't talk to me about anomalies, talk to me about the evidence...
Well, carbon-14 decays with a half-life of 5700 years.
This is the greatest discovery in the history of paleontology.
I mean, indisputably.
Dinosaur soft tissue.
Dinosaur DNA.
Dinosaur DNA is the greatest discovery.
The science world, the atheistic science world, wants to know nothing about it.
They wish it weren't true, they don't want it to be true.
When they hear it, they put it out of their minds.
How can anyone in the 21st century think the world is 6000 years old, and still
consider themselves not a Neanderthal?
Professor Roberto Fondi is a specialist in paleontology.
He teaches at the Department of Earth Sciences in the University of Siena,
in Italy.
You may be surprised to know that the fundamental assumptions upon which
evolutionary thinking is based are not at all confirmed by paleontology.
All the biological groups, from bacteria and blue-green algae to man, appear
abruptly in the fossil record without any links connecting them with each other.
Why is it then that so many people believe the fossils prove evolution?
Evolution is presented to grown-ups and taught to the very young as a fact that
has been verified and demonstrated for so long that it is a waste of time,
and even ridiculous, to question it.
So, what is the truth of the matter?
Well, there is a history book of the past, and that is the rocks and the fossilized
remains in them.
So, it is up to the paleontologist to read that book and give the answer.
And what do you read in that book, professor?
The fact is that after nearly two centuries of intense research,
the paleontological evidence for evolutionary theory is not only rare,
but highly questionable.
The point is that if evolution had really happened, the evidence would be in great
abundance and incontestable.
The museums would be overflowing with fossils, clearly documenting the
transitions between the various biological groups.
Yet there are none.
Moreover, there is no indication that the situation will change in the future.
Those very few fossils which are claimed to show some kind of evolutionary link,
such as the amphibians Ichthyostica and Simoria, the reptile Probnognathus,
the bird Archaeopteryx, and the australopithecine ape called Homo habilis,
are very far from conclusive.
I'll tell you.
All right.
The Neanderthal...
Lawrence, the Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced.
Yeah, I know.
It's closer to you than a chimp is to a chimp within the same species of chimps.
So the creationists who've been saying for decades that Neanderthals were people have
been confirmed.
DNA doesn't lie.
What do you mean people?
People.
And so we offered Jack Horner, in fact you could hear it, we offer him
thousands of dollars to Carbon-14 date their T-Rex.
You guys might have other things you'd like to Carbon-14 at the same time.
In fact, in the last couple of weeks I've been able to raise a little more money,
so that's up to $10,000 now, that we'd be honored to give you guys if you would
consider doing that test.
Well, we can't do that test.
Because Carbon-14 doesn't work on something like this, your results that you
get could be all over the place.
Well, they should be infinity.
It should be not datable.
In other words, it shouldn't come back saying it's 25,000 years old.
Right.
It should be infinity.
And he turns it down.
And I say, Jack, is it not enough money?
And I keep, you know, first $5,000, $10,000, $20,000.
We go up to, it costs $3,000 to run the test on five different specimens.
And they thought, well, it'd be logical to do this.
To just go ahead and do it, even though nobody would be inclined to do it.
Just like nobody would be inclined to look for soft tissue inside of a T-Rex.
Well, yeah.
And, you know, we're still trying to figure out what it is.
What it's actually made of.
Right, exactly.
Whether it's a hemoglobin.
Well, yeah.
Jack, is the amount too small that it's just not worth the consideration?
No, that's not it.
What if I were able to raise more money?
No, the amount of money has nothing to do with it.
So we say, we'll pay the $3,000 for the test and we'll give you a $20,000 grant.
We will.
Just for you to run the scientific test.
And he's hemming and hawing, he's saying...
Not going to help.
Not going to help us.
Yeah.
So, even though it's just a scientific test, they're not asking for voodoo.
It's not actually a scientific test.
That's what I'm trying to tell you.
Carbon-14 dating something.
With soft tissue in it.
He said, I don't want to run that.
Then he's finally, I'm almost pleading with him.
And we sent him, we aired this on the radio, we sent him a written grant offer,
finally $23,000.
And he said, I'll talk to Mary Schweitzer and we'll, you know, we'll let you know.
Well, they decided not to run the test.
They decided not to run the test.
But it's somewhat mute because, for example, the Mosasaur, which was just
published recently.
Mosasaur bone with original biological material loaded with carbon-14.
And so many atheists and evolutionists now saying that perhaps...
What do you mean by atheists and evolutionists?
Well, there's some people who are atheists.
Some people are evolutionists.
Some people are not.
What do you mean by evolutionists?
People who believe molecules to man evolution.
Neo-Darwinism.
What do you mean?
Can I tell you what they're saying before...
The people who accept the evidence of empirical science.
Yes, those people.
The same people who believe the Earth is round.
Well, the president of the Flat Earth Society is a Darwinist.
You know, they operate to that.
I'm just saying he's an idiot for being a president of the Flat Earth Society.
I agree with you.
See, we agree on something.
Yeah, no, exactly.
Lawrence, Lawrence...
There are no scientists who aren't evolutionists.
Can I make my point so you...
I believe in gravity.
Can I make my point so you can tell me I'm wrong?
They're on the same level of footing.
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science.
With National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners.
I have sat with them.
And when I get them alone, not in public, because it's a scary thing if you say what
I just said.
And it does contradict a signed statement by hundreds of scientists...
Yeah, but I told you, don't give me signed statements.
That doesn't matter.
Well, they're scientists just like you are, Lawrence.
To sign a statement saying the earth is flat, are you going to run your show
tomorrow?
No, no, no, the flat earth guy is a Darwinist.
All right.
The CMP, let me ask you about the...
I say, do you understand all of this?
Where all of this came from and how this happens?
He's talking about evolution.
Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, they go,
uh, nope.
So history shows that these predictions were adjusted after the fact.
No, no, no.
That's according to William Mitchell.
That's better and better ways of testing.
And the point is, don't you understand that some scientists would love to find
out the data is false?
Do you know 50% of American adults think the sun orbits the earth?
No, I don't.
I don't believe that.
The National Science Foundation does that study every year.
Are you going to argue with me?
I don't, Lawrence.
I don't believe that.
Hold on, there are classes we should teach that the sun orbits the earth?
Of course not.
50% of people think that?
I bet you not one hundredth of 1% of US medical doctors believe that.
And I don't even believe the study anyway.
You can bet me all you want.
I'm giving you a statistic.
You know, this is what James Tuer said, and I promise you, this guy here would not
be saying this if he weren't someone who had developed lists of things with more
than 52,000 sites.
He's valuable, otherwise he wouldn't even speak these words.
I promise you that he wouldn't.
Not in the position he's in.
That's dangerous for him, and that's what he just said in the last quote.
Let me quote you this one.
My recent advice to my graduate students has been both direct and revealing.
If you disagree with Darwinian theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your
careers.
Unless, of course, you're one of those champions for proclamation.
I know that that fire exists in some.
So be ready for lead-ridden limbs.
They're going to shoot at you the moment you come out and you start letting forth
even a pinch of truth.
It goes on.
But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty,
it will not be comfortable for the young nonconformist.
Mary Jack and their team published their B-REX findings in a series of papers in
the journal Science and were promptly attacked.
Critics said their samples might have been contaminated, or that the supposed blood
vessels were actually something called biofilm, a type of slime.
But as Mary showed us, she's been able to replicate her findings.
Creation journals, by the way, are the best science journals in the
world.
But this is the Journal of Paleontology.
And so when they publish that they have found original biological material in a
beard worm.
And this beard worm, like you said, Trey, they start up at the top,
they get down to the bottom, Cambrian, and then Precambrian.
This is a Precambrian beard worm.
It's supposed to be a half a billion years old.
We should hear it.
And by April 2014, the Journal of Paleontology reported that they found
original soft tissue in Precambrian beard worms.
This is what they claim are 530 million years old.
So they look at these fossils, it doesn't matter how old they are,
and look for soft tissue.
I'd love for you to hear this one.
Eventually, everything falls apart.
And so, after a million years, you are not going to have any protein,
you're not going to have collagen, you're not going to have DNA.
But what we're finding is it doesn't matter how old the fossil is, if they look
for soft tissue, they're going to find it.
We don't mean in every fossil, but we mean you go look in a handful of
fossils, you'll find soft tissue.
Here now is a piece of triceratops bone that has been decalcified, so all the bone
minerals have been removed.
You can see how many of the blood vessels are here.
This white area here, this is soft tissue on top of these blood vessels.
So the bone is very stiff because it's fossilized, but yet there's soft tissue in
here.
This is about 40 power under the dissecting microscope.
As I move this, you can see these soft tissues waving back and forth in the
liquid.
So this is impossible for these soft tissues to be here if these bones were
that old.
This would all be gone.
Here you see the matrix of blood vessels that have all been permineralized.
They're all hard rock, and yet these white areas show all of the soft tissue that is
still present here after decalcification.
So this is an indication that these bones are very young and not even 20,000 years
old.
Probably much younger than that.
I'm a biologist and a microscopist, and so my cells that I was getting out of
this bone were spectacular.
In fact, I presented at a national meeting in Hartford, Connecticut last summer,
and I showed some of these cells, and a professor, a PhD, came up to me
after the talk and said, I want to collaborate with you and try to culture
these cells.
I mean, that's how alive these cells look.
So I was stunned and rather pleased with the results that I was getting.
Molecular motions.
The slightest variations in temperature.
You know, hemoglobin, put all the hemoglobin around it you want,
it's not going to stop it from a varying temperature through the seasons over 80
million years, 100 million years, 500 million years.
That temperature change, it increases the molecular motions that will degrade and
destroy, cause the tissue to decompose.
Of course, one of the most stunning and exciting finds from our trip to Montana
was this soft tissue that I'm peeling away from the bone.
These sheets of soft fibular bone that were full of the kind of cells that you're
going to see as we progress through this little tutorial.
You soak this for a few weeks, and put it back under the microscope,
and now you can see all the blood vessels.
The concrete has been dissolved away, and you see all the blood vessels that are
left.
And it's on the surface of these blood vessels where we find the tiny little
cells.
And as we zoom in, take note of the little white dots.
The white dots are actually the bone cells laying on the outside of the vessels.
They're soft tissues coating or surrounding the outside of the blood
vessels, and you can see these little tiny white dots.
Those are the bone cells that we're going to image under the compound microscope.
And that's where Schweitzer and her team did this iron work.
And I'll tell you, everybody's running around parroting, the iron preserves the
tissues, the iron preserves the tissues.
Well, the iron doesn't preserve the tissues, and this is akin to a 10th grade
science experiment.
As I mentioned, she basically soaked ostrich blood vessels in highly purified
blood on a laboratory bench in an air-conditioned laboratory for two years.
And she extrapolated out from that point and said, well, it's obvious, this is what
preserved these dinosaur tissues for millions of years, 68 million years.
Well, let me say one thing to begin with.
These are not fossils.
These are dinosaur bones that have not fossilized because we have dissolved them
in a weak acid.
This, of course, is a mock-up, a casting of the condyle that we found,
but this is real triceratops frill.
And we've dissolved this away in a weak acid, exposing the soft tissues within it.
So these are not fossilized artifacts.
These are the real bones that were buried in the ground and left there because they
dissolved.
Now, Mary Schweitzer essentially used an anticoagulant to keep the blood from
clotting because blood clots almost within minutes upon leaving a blood vessel.
And so essentially, by removing all the platelets, by removing all the white
cells, by removing all the proteins like fibrin and thrombin and all these proteins
that initiate this blood clotting cascade by these proteins, she removed all that
from the blood and so she essentially used an anticoagulant to prevent the blood from
clotting.
Now, this is far removed from the conditions of the Hell Creek Formation in
Montana where these dinosaurs were buried.
And many of them were ripped apart.
The horn that we found was completely ripped away from the skull.
And so it was completely exposed less than two feet from the surface of the Montana
soil there.
And so nothing like the laboratory conditions that she used for her
experiment.
She also concentrated the red blood cells.
She centrifuged and centrifuged and centrifuged and came out with this pure,
not even a solution, a pure deposit, a pure amount of pure red blood cells.
And then she lysed them.
She broke them open exposing all the hemoglobin which has the iron inside.
So again, nothing like the conditions found at the Hell Creek Formation.
Again, she left this on a laboratory bench in air conditioning in the absence of
fungal bodies, of plants, of microbes, of insects, of rodents.
And we have found the DNA of all these things associated with our horn.
And so again, nothing like the actual conditions found at the Hell Creek
Formation that are supposedly there over these supposed 68 million years.
The other thing that Schweitzer and her team should have done is they should have
studied their bone anatomy.
And here I have Weter's functional histology and here is a diagram of compact
bone.
And all of these tiny little squiggly lines you see inside this bone are the
filopodia, the little arms from the osteocytes.
All of this is massively protected within this compact bone, massive bone mineral,
and never comes in contact with blood.
Ask any orthopedist, any orthopedic surgeon, and he will tell you that none of
these bone tissues, like the soft stretchy tissue, ever come in contact with blood.
So the iron from the blood could have never preserved this soft stretchy tissue
and all of the bone osteocytes that we have discovered and shown you.
And so this is akin to a 10th grade science experiment and it's not reality.
I mean, iron oxides are so reactive.
In fact, just go to the Rust Belt during the winter and look at all the rusted out
cars and you'll see the effect of iron oxides on metals, let alone tissues.
And so these iron chelation that they talk about in this video, this is used to
remove heavy metals from the body.
It is in no way a standardized protocol for the preservation of tissues.
If it is, it would be in my electron microscope manuals on methods to preserve
tissue for long periods of time.
In addition, if this was a standard protocol for the wonderful preservation of
tissues for long periods of time, don't you think all these very wealthy
people who are freezing their bodies in hopes of being revived some thousands of
years in the future when medical cures are available to help them with their current
woes, don't you think they would be using iron chelation as a protocol to save
themselves, to preserve themselves?
This is hogwash, folks, and it's a lie.
It's a method that the evolutionists are using to prove that soft tissue now has an
explanation.
It has no explanation.
We don't know why these soft tissues are preserved.
There's no method, there's no protocol, there's no methodology that we know of
that can preserve these tissues for long periods of time.
So, you know, the evolutionists are still up the creek without a paddle.
They cannot explain how these tissues have been preserved for a long time.
And the conclusion is obvious.
These bones, which are not fossils, they are bones that can be dissolved in
acids, are young.
They have to be young.
If the bones are young, then the deposits are young.
If the deposits are young, then the Earth is young.
If the Earth is young, then Genesis suddenly becomes believable.
There is a Creator who made our grandparents, Adam and Eve, put them in a
perfect garden.
But sin entered the world, changed everything, and now we need Jesus Christ
as our mediator, as our helper, as our forgiver to get us back to God.
So please pass this video around.
And remember, these are bone tissues, soft, stretchy bone tissues that never
come in contact with blood.
How can they be this stretchy after millions of years?
Thanks for watching.