alt_description
Dinosaur Protein Denial by CMIcreationstationDinosaur Protein Denial by CMIcreationstation
📺 Dinosaur Protein Denial
CMIcreationstation 📤 6 years ago 2011-05-17
For more details visit: http://creation.com/creation-magazine-live-episode-26

In this episode Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith discuss amino acids (constituents of proteins) found in both hadrosaur skin and a claw, and how evolutionists would have charged "contamination" if actual proteins had been found. However, dinosaur protein has been found in a partially fossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex leg bone!

Main article:
From Creation magazine 32(2) Dino protein denial
(http://creation.com/dino-protein-denial)

Related articles
• 'Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery' (http://creation.com/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery)
• Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! (http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-protein-even-more-confirmation)
• The real 'Jurassic Park' (http://creation.com/real-jurassic-park)
• Why don't they carbon-date dino fossils? (http://creation.com/why-dont-they-carbon-date-dino-fossils-+-a-powerful-plug-for-a-powerful-christmas-gift)
• Dinosaur proteins and blood vessels: are they a big deal? (http://creation.com/dino-proteins-and-blood-vessels-are-they-a-big-deal)
• Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend)

For more information on the creation/evolution issue visit: http://creation.com
▶0:00
How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 21 Dinosaur Soft TissueHow Creationism Taught Me Real Science 21 Dinosaur Soft Tissue
📺 How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 21 Dinosaur Soft Tissue
Tony Reed 📤 2 years ago 2015-10-17
In this episode, we examine the nail in the coffin for evolutionism. Soft-tissue discovered inside a T-Rex.

References:

Creationist version
http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue#2008-PLoS

Mary Schweitzer's Original Paper
http://sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952
http://rpgroup.caltech.edu/~natsirt/stuff/Schweitzer%20Science%202005.pdf

Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020381

Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present:
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/

How the collagen was extracted
http://archive.wired.com/medtech/genetics/magazine/17-07/ff_originofspecies?currentPage=all

What Acid
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279360/
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279360/table/pone-0031443-t003/

Demineralization
http://researchgate.net/profile/Konstantinos_Demadis/publication/5449927_Principles_of_demineralization_Modern_strategies_for_the_isolation_of_organic_frameworks_Part_I._Common_definitions_and_history/links/0fcfd50c70d7113dad000000.pdf

Spectroscopy:
http://archive.wired.com/medtech/genetics/magazine/17-07/ff_originofspecies?currentPage=all
https://books.google.com/books?id=5WH9RnfKco4C&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=MOR+1125&source=bl&ots=076LR-1GJu&sig=BzRvh9-psMhzbSoBV59LvWbrtbQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pZhbVb6jPIWggwSQx4CgDA&ved=0CGoQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=MOR%201125&f=false

Amber Inclusions
http://scribol.com/science/15-incredible-images-of-prehistoric-creatures-trapped-in-amber

Recent Amber inclusion soft tissue
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3831950/

Smithsonian article
http://smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist

Bacterial Biofilm
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2483347/

Well, maybe
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013334

Mary Schweitzer's paper on Iron preservation
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741

Update: Iron preservation confirmed
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0151143 qabalaHCTMRS
▶0:00
T.R.U.T.H. about the Dinosaurs: Soft TissueT.R.U.T.H. about the Dinosaurs: Soft Tissue
📺 T.R.U.T.H. about the Dinosaurs: Soft Tissue
theTRUTHgroup 📤 9 years ago 2008-05-07
Click this link to watch a video about the people involved in this blood cell discovery.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=97jYngUaepA

Check out this link for more information about this topic.
http://icr.org/article/2032/

[This clip is an excerpt from the DVD project "T.R.U.T.H. about the Dinosaurs", which can be found on-line at theTRUTHgroup.com or at livingwaters.com.]
▶0:00
Dr Mary Schweitzer discovers T-rex blood cells - Horizon: Dinosaurs: The Hunt for Life - BBC TwoDr Mary Schweitzer discovers T-rex blood cells - Horizon: Dinosaurs: The Hunt for Life - BBC Two
📺 Dr Mary Schweitzer discovers T-rex blood cells - Horizon: Dinosaurs: The Hunt for Life - BBC Two
BBC 📤 4 years ago 2013-08-22
More about this programme http://bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039grrx Mary's first discovery, what looked like the blood cells of a 68 million year old T-rex.
▶0:00
soft tissue in dino fossils-nothing in science can allow this to be millions of years oldsoft tissue in dino fossils-nothing in science can allow this to be millions of years old
📺 soft tissue in dino fossils-nothing in science can allow this to be millions of years old
TruthIsLife7 📤 7 years ago 2010-12-08
Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her research assistants were working on a T-rex dinosaur fossil and saw medullary tissue (showing that the T-rex had been pregnant). Because no one had ever found this tissue in a dinosaur fossil before, she told her assistant to soak it in acid to be able to study the structures better. When they tried this new approach, they were stunned to find blood vessels, bone matrix and elastic tissues in the fossil, all soft tissues found somewhere they shouldn't be according to evolution. Schweitzer et al. also found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants.

She eventually published a number of papers (references and links below) which right from the first challenged the basic principles of fossilization by stating,
"Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia."

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, states, "When you think about it, the laws of chemistry, biology and and everything else we know, say it should be gone, it should be degraded completely."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MhN_ZXM_Ycg (~6:30)

Derrick Briggs, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the Peabody Museum at Yale University agrees saying, "Nobody was imaging that dinosaurs might have had preserved soft tissues... this was totally improbable....We have this clear understanding that part of all biological cycles involves decay. Nature's set up to break down that material and recycle it. So, it's just improbable that those kinds of very delicate structures would survive, particularly for millions of years."

He's also agreeing that nothing we can verify with science would allow soft tissue to last for millions of years. The obvious conclusion is that they are not millions of years as Creationists have said for long. Remember that evidence from your critics is one of the highest levels evidence you can get. Creationists have that in MANY areas. Evolutionists don't.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50

Leading evolution experts agree that nothing in science would make it possible for soft tissue to last more than ~100,000 years (http://youtube.com/watch?v=X2kMlm8ZFtI ~8:30)

Why don't we know of more soft tissues in fossils?
1) As. Dr. Schweitzer said, she used a new technique with acid to remove bones that almost no one had used before. If more used that method, we'd find more soft tissue in fossils. Dr. Kaye tried to replicate Dr. Schweitzer and found a very large amount of soft tissue with her technique just like she did.
2) There actually are quite a number of other soft tissue finds.
A) Soft tissue in fossilized salamandar.
http://creation.com/muscle-and-blood-in-fossil
http://physorg.com/news176660912.html

B) DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
http://creation.com/article/419

C) http://creation.com/a-165-million-year-surprise
and others.

3) Even evolutionists say that only a very few of biological forms that die become fossils and most of those are marine animals or were buried in water (things that make you go hmmm...when considering the flood story).

RESEARCH PAPERS BY SCHWEITZER
***Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/
***Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex
http://sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952.abstract
**Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 274:183-187; 2. Schweitzer MH, Suo Z, Avci R, Asara JM, Allen MA, Teran Arce F, Horner JR. 2007.


****More detailed interview with the researchers & info in notes here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50
▶0:00
Does Dinosaur Tissue In Fossils Prove Evolution?Does Dinosaur Tissue In Fossils Prove Evolution?
📺 Does Dinosaur Tissue In Fossils Prove Evolution?
Nobleeagle100 📤 5 years ago 2012-10-09
"I cannot imagine soft tissue surviving millions of years. Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body, Bada says: "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules." - Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego.

The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue
by Frank Sherwin, M.A. - http://icr.org/article/2033 .

Dr. Kaye labeled Dr. Schweitzer's findings as biofilm. But,Kaye's paper refers to pores in the cells that are NOT consistent with mineral origins as well as admitting that there was soft tissue(osteocytes) in it.

Here's the REASON why Kaye "found" biofilm: "as Kaye examined more fossils,he was puzzled to find similar materials in nearly every bone.Unable to reconcile the notion that so much tissue could have survived for millions of years,he turned to Zbigniew Sawlowicz." http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/

He's basically saying that since so much soft tissue would contradict evolution,it couldn't possibly be real soft tissue no matter what the evidence. That's pretty severe bias.

Kaye admits,"We are not experts in the field. We are not disagreeing with the fact that their instruments detected protein."
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/355642

Dr. Schweitzer points out numerous flaws in Dr. Kaye's dissent:
"There really isn't a lot new here,although I really welcome that someone is attempting to look at & repeat the studies we conducted. There are really several errors in wording(& spelling & grammar) in the paper by Kaye et al. that seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work,our data & our interpretations.

"Something that is not fully appreciated by the outsider is that science is a process. One makes an observation,forms a testable hypothesis about the observation,gathers data,& the data either support or refute the hypothesis. It is then refined & retested. If the hypothesis is tested multiple times,it is strengthened,& eventually moves to become a theory,one of the strongest statements in science.

"If one chooses to challenge a hypothesis & the data put forth by another researcher to support it,one is under the obligation to
1. form a hypothesis that provides an alternative to the first;
2. reinterpret the original data presented in such a way that it __better supports__ the new hypothesis than the original,&
3. produce new data that,in addition to the original,more strongly supports the alternative hypothesis than the original.
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683

"While Kaye et al. address the morphology of the structures we observed,& find their own explanations for these,they do not address the considerable chemical & molecular data we put forth to support our hypothesis of endogeneity. We did propose biofilm production as a possible explanation for the material that we see,but we determined that based upon the data we had,microbial biofilms were not a parsimonious explanation for the data(see Schweitzer et al.,2007,Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B)...there is no evidence in the literature that biofilms form branching _hollow_ tubes as we observe...Kaye et al...do not identify microbial bodies,a hallmark of biofilm....Kaye et al. did not address our immunological data,& controls. They did not address the phylogenetic analyses of sequence as reported by Organ et al.,2008...Nor did they explain the internal,or 'intracellular' structure we report for observed osteocytes...&finally,they did not state how the rounded structures we reported could persist /_free floating_/ in a hollow biofilm...the structures we observed did not exhibit the microcryst structure know to characterize framboids...We continue to test the hypothesis that original material is retained in fossil bone... While we welcome the skepticism of colleagues,we hope that the reviewers & readers hold them to the standards to which we are held.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/01/slime-versus-dinosaur/
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683

Schweitzer also states. "The idea that biofilms are completely & solely responsible for the origin or source of the structures we reported is not supported," she said by e-mail from a dinosaur dig in Montana.Microscopic views of bones can't explain why the fossil tissues reacted to the immune cells of chickens,for example,& the mammoth ones reacted with elephant cells,she says.

Kaye acknowledges his study does not refute the immune responses reported by Schweitzer's team. "They have single handedly pioneered the use of sophisticated chemical analysis & have created a critical bridge between biology & paleontology," he says.
▶0:00
soft tissue in dino & other fossils(notes)-nothing in science justifies millions of years agessoft tissue in dino & other fossils(notes)-nothing in science justifies millions of years ages
📺 soft tissue in dino & other fossils(notes)-nothing in science justifies millions of years ages
TruthIsLife7 📤 7 years ago 2010-12-08
(See notes part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ynXwAo9V_pY)
Dr. Kaye labeled Dr. Schweitzer's findings as biofilm. But,Kaye's paper refers to pores in the cells that are NOT consistent with mineral origins as well as admitting that there was soft tissue(osteocytes) in it.

Here's the REASON why Kaye "found" biofilm: "as Kaye examined more fossils,he was puzzled to find similar materials in nearly every bone.Unable to reconcile the notion that so much tissue could have survived for millions of years,he turned to Zbigniew Sawlowicz." http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/

He's basically saying that since so much soft tissue would contradict evolution,it couldn't possibly be real soft tissue no matter what the evidence. That's pretty severe bias.

Kaye admits,"We are not experts in the field. We are not disagreeing with the fact that their instruments detected protein."
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/355642

Dr. Schweitzer points out numerous flaws in Dr. Kaye's dissent:
"There really isn't a lot new here,although I really welcome that someone is attempting to look at & repeat the studies we conducted. There are really several errors in wording(& spelling & grammar) in the paper by Kaye et al. that seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work,our data & our interpretations.

"Something that is not fully appreciated by the outsider is that science is a process. One makes an observation,forms a testable hypothesis about the observation,gathers data,& the data either support or refute the hypothesis. It is then refined & retested. If the hypothesis is tested multiple times,it is strengthened,& eventually moves to become a theory,one of the strongest statements in science.

"If one chooses to challenge a hypothesis & the data put forth by another researcher to support it,one is under the obligation to
1. form a hypothesis that provides an alternative to the first;
2. reinterpret the original data presented in such a way that it __better supports__ the new hypothesis than the original,&
3. produce new data that,in addition to the original,more strongly supports the alternative hypothesis than the original.
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683

"While Kaye et al. address the morphology of the structures we observed,& find their own explanations for these,they do not address the considerable chemical & molecular data we put forth to support our hypothesis of endogeneity. We did propose biofilm production as a possible explanation for the material that we see,but we determined that based upon the data we had,microbial biofilms were not a parsimonious explanation for the data(see Schweitzer et al.,2007,Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B)...there is no evidence in the literature that biofilms form branching _hollow_ tubes as we observe...Kaye et al...do not identify microbial bodies,a hallmark of biofilm....Kaye et al. did not address our immunological data,& controls. They did not address the phylogenetic analyses of sequence as reported by Organ et al.,2008...Nor did they explain the internal,or 'intracellular' structure we report for observed osteocytes...&finally,they did not state how the rounded structures we reported could persist /_free floating_/ in a hollow biofilm...the structures we observed did not exhibit the microcryst structure know to characterize framboids...We continue to test the hypothesis that original material is retained in fossil bone... While we welcome the skepticism of colleagues,we hope that the reviewers & readers hold them to the standards to which we are held.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/01/slime-versus-dinosaur/
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683

Schweitzer also states. "The idea that biofilms are completely & solely responsible for the origin or source of the structures we reported is not supported," she said by e-mail from a dinosaur dig in Montana.Microscopic views of bones can't explain why the fossil tissues reacted to the immune cells of chickens,for example,& the mammoth ones reacted with elephant cells,she says.

Kaye acknowledges his study does not refute the immune responses reported by Schweitzer's team. "They have single handedly pioneered the use of sophisticated chemical analysis & have created a critical bridge between biology & paleontology," he says. http://usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-07-29-fossils_N.htm

There are also quite a few evidences that dinos lived with man. See my creation-soft tissue playlist.
100+ DATING METHODS POINT TO A YOUNG EARTH
1)(for laymen) http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

2)(more technical)
http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences24.html#wp3303729
&
http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences33.html#wp2534183

http://answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating

On the fossil order,see:
http://storage.amazingdiscoveries.org/assets/files/ADDownloads/Section%20PDFs/The%20Fossil%20Record.pdf
▶0:00
YouTube - Dinosaur to bird evolution 2 of 5YouTube - Dinosaur to bird evolution 2 of 5
📺 YouTube - Dinosaur to bird evolution 2 of 5
mrphoo67 📤 7 years ago 2010-07-02
Today's scientists are recreating dinosaurs through genetic engineering. Sounds like science fiction? Not any longer.

Through rapid advances in genetics, scientists are discovering the genetic traits of dinosaurs in the DNA of birds. They are showing that it is possible to bring back teeth, long tails and hands in place of wings. In Dinosaurs: Return to Life, learn why the dream of recreating the dinosaur genome is coming closer to reality.

Ever since Mary Higby Schweitzer peeked inside the fractured thighbone of a Tyrannosaurus rex, the introverted scientist's life hasn't been the same. Neither has the field of paleontology.


In 2004, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

An alternate hypothesis has been suggested that the "soft" tissues are in actual fact bacterial biofilms. Kaye TG, Gaugler G, Sawlowicz Z (2008) Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms.

Whilst certain organisations continue to parrot the phrase "no transitional fossils have ever been found" the list of species which possess transitional features continues to grow.

Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis

Every home should have the Discovery Channel
▶0:00
$200 vs $20,000 Spy Gadgets EBAY MYSTERY BOX Challenge Unboxing Haul!$200 vs $20,000 Spy Gadgets EBAY MYSTERY BOX Challenge Unboxing Haul!
📺 $200 vs $20,000 Spy Gadgets EBAY MYSTERY BOX Challenge Unboxing Haul!
Chad Wild Clay 📤 2 weeks ago 2018-04-07
watch: I Found a Secret Abandoned SAFE - https://goo.gl/mnPbCs --~--
This is an insane ebay mystery box of spy gadgets!
▶ My Instagram - https://instagram.com/chadwildclay/
▶ Chad Wild Clay Marathon - https://goo.gl/lCIh5f
▶ CWC Shirts & Backpacks - http://bit.ly/CHADmerch

After my Spy Gadgets in Real Life $20,000 EBAY MYSTERY BOX Challenge Unboxing Haul video tons of you commented to do another spy gear vs fruit ninja video! I watched Guava Juice do another ebay haul youtube video, Matthias unboxed some cool tech and strange amazon products to put to the test, Papa Jake built a huge box fort and opened a Fortnite ebay mystery box, and even Team Edge and Battle Universe did some fortnite and mystery videos, all of which inspired me to make this video. I also opened a gift from Lizzy, Carter and Stephen Sharer. I test and review a lot of kid friendly spy toys, spy tech and spy gadgets in real life (irl). It was a surprise comparing the cheap vs expensive ebay mystery box. The expensive opening challenge video can be seen here:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jFRaSb8RV3Y

Some of the fun toys and gadgets I unboxed are:
#1 - Roll In Voice Ball Recorder - https://amzn.to/2uT7k9l
#2 - Razor Turbo Jetts Shoe Heel Wheels - https://amzn.to/2GIJqim
#3 - Night Mission Goggles - https://amzn.to/2uZ03VG
#4 - Gambit Throwing Cards - http://bit.ly/2tonHoQ
#5 - Invisible Ink Pen - https://amzn.to/2GLsTtO
#6 - Micro Voice Disguiser - https://amzn.to/2IAxa3V
#7 - Lazer Trap Alarm - https://amzn.to/2GMcIgc
#8 - Micro Super Ear - https://amzn.to/2qiWG6v
#9 - Business Pen Spy Tool - http://bit.ly/2wFVlaE
#10 - Light Hand Laser Fingers - https://amzn.to/2H4pytf
#11 - Infrared Night Vision Scope - https://amzn.to/2qdM4pj

I'm Chad Wild Clay and you can hang with me here:
▶ http://twitter.com/chadwildclay
▶ https://instagram.com/chadwildclay
▶ http://youtube.com/user/chadwildclay
▶ http://plus.google.com/+chadwildclay
▶ http://facebook.com/chadwildclay
▶ https://open.spotify.com/artist/48TS8a0wo5yMUbcAsEQ7Zd

Help Translate my videos into another language so others can enjoy - http://youtube.com/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCwaNuezahYT3BOjfXsne2mg&tab=2

All original music performed, recorded and produced by Chad Wild Clay. Most royalty free background music is from Epidemic Sounds. Other royalty free music used is from NoCopyrightSounds. Details can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10F-_OtQafDEMMHNzyIRSGsPPyu7GY7cCBR1fhSHFpGE/edit?usp=sharing
▶0:00

📺 Dinosaur Protein Denial


Dinosaur Protein Denial by CMIcreationstation
For more details visit: http://creation.com/creation-magazine-live-episode-26

In this episode Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith discuss amino acids (constituents of proteins) found in both hadrosaur skin and a claw, and how evolutionists would have charged "contamination" if actual proteins had been found. However, dinosaur protein has been found in a partially fossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex leg bone!

Main article:
From Creation magazine 32(2) Dino protein denial
(http://creation.com/dino-protein-denial)

Related articles
• 'Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery' (http://creation.com/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery)
• Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! (http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-protein-even-more-confirmation)
• The real 'Jurassic Park' (http://creation.com/real-jurassic-park)
• Why don't they carbon-date dino fossils? (http://creation.com/why-dont-they-carbon-date-dino-fossils-+-a-powerful-plug-for-a-powerful-christmas-gift)
• Dinosaur proteins and blood vessels: are they a big deal? (http://creation.com/dino-proteins-and-blood-vessels-are-they-a-big-deal)
• Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend)

For more information on the creation/evolution issue visit: http://creation.com

Dinosaur Protein Denial by CMIcreationstationDinosaur Protein Denial by CMIcreationstationDinosaur Protein Denial by CMIcreationstation
2011-05-17
List 🔄01/1/22 👍0👎0 👁 0👀0 🔎 0