T-Rex blood and soft tissue find has now been confirmed!

Share this page!

Updated 6-2-2013 There is new evidence listed at bottom of page.
The video below explains the find:

Video

Video

Now notice the discoverer of this evidence said she was attacked for her findings. What this proves is that regardless of who you are or what you believe (she believes in evolution), if you find evidence that has the ability to put evolution into question “you” not your evidence will be attacked. Why? When an idea like the theory of evolution needs to be protected from all challengers, even if the evidence happens to be a good find against the idea. The only way to discredit the evidence is to discredit the discoverer of it first. Once done the evidence is basically debunked by default. That is conformism, which by the way, is not science. Protecting an idea from all challengers in this manner shows that the idea (evolution) is not what it is claimed to be. Here is another video that makes it more clear that if you find something that does not conform to evolution you will be attacked.

Truth can stand on it’s on merit and its evidence is able to stand up against all challengers without the need to use tactics of the destruction of a person’s reputation. Control through fear is not science, it’s a dictatorship. Which says: Conform or be destroyed. Evolutionist has this power because they “control” science. Absolute control equals absolute corruption. This makes one wonder just how much creation evidence has been found by evolutionists but they were reluctant to come forward for fear of being attacked and reputations destroyed. The pictures below are from the first find of T-Rex blood and soft tissue.

This evidence (the pictures above) is what the evolutionists were saying was a fluke but were unwilling to confirm this either way because they know that this supports a “young earth” and not an old one. How? They could maybe explain away one find or maybe two that certain conditions may have allowed this evidence to survive 80 million years. But since the discoverer is finding this same evidence in every fossil she finds there are no loop-hole explanation, no cop-out answers, and no special conditions excuse. This is because all the fossils seem to have this because there has not been one tested that does not have this evidence.

  • Fluke becomes empirical evidence:

And because these results are repeatable under the same conditions, what was considered a fluke now becomes “empirical evidence”. Empirical evidence that goes against the evolution time-line that evolutionist can no longer dodge. So what’s the best alternative for them concerning this evidence? Ignore that it even exists. Ignorance on purpose is not good scientific practice. But what else can one do when one considers God and truth to be a worse alternative? They continue to believe in what now has been put into question.

What happens when science is actually asked to prove something:

But now let’s look at what happens when people in science are actually challenged to prove a find to support their current claims. Here is a video where the Jack Horner was asked to do a test that would prove whether the whole fossil, tissue and all, was millions of years old. Listen to how he squirms out of it.

Video

Update: And because evidence like this and others against evolution are mounting. There is even a country that has now banned evolution from being taught. South Korea has decided to remove evolution from its schools in favor of the teachings of creation.

On the pages where comments can be left on this subject. Notice how the evolutionists counter this decision. It’s basically anyone whom dares do disagree with evolution is not worth the scum found at the bottom of a pound. What’s ironic about this tactic is that it’s not even scientific. Yet 99% of all evolutionists responding to this issue will use it.

  • New: Blood from a 10,000 year old Woolly Mammoth found,

Scientists in Siberia find a female Woolly Mammoth buried in the ice and were able to obtain a blood sample.

So blood found from two sets of dinosaur bones one dating as old as 86 million years. Blood found from a 10,000 year old Woolly Mammoth. That’s times now. So when you going to give it up evolutionists? Blood and tissue don;t last 86 million years.

Possibility to this problem?

That God created with age already added to everything. Why? According to what the Bible says, death did not happen until the first sin was committed. And the first sin was not committed until late in the day of the 6th day. And time minus death = eternity. So for 6 days creation was done under eternal laws instead of the laws we now observe. And for everything to be eternal nothing can age because aging results in death for all life. So if things don’t age, then age has to be added upon creation.

How different is eternity to our own time and laws?

Because eternity does not allow aging because aging results in death, life being born cannot happen either. This is because development requires aging and aging does not exist. Hence the need for creation of life because life cannot be born.

Does time exist in heaven, and if so how does time exist without the aging process?

Where we are time and aging exist as one process. Both moving forward together, one effecting the results of the other. In eternity they are separate. Time moves forward but age stays a constant. Which is the very reason all things have to be created with age because the age they are created with is the age that will remain. That is until our case which was until sin and everything changed.

rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

Time cannot be measured where time does not exist.

Dinosaur blood has been found more than 40 times & published. It was all hidden

Atheists cannot accept the truth that does not conform to their wanted reality.

Share this page!

 

 

 

YouTube

 

 

 

FaceBook Feed
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons
Good Fight Ministries
Good Fight Ministries

Joe Schimmel’s Testimony

Blessed Hope Chapel
Wed. May 22, 2019 – Wednesday Night Bible Study led by Pastor Joe Schimmel.
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Thank you for sharing Pastor Joe!!

Ark Encounter
Ark Encounter
Veterans receive free admission on Memorial Day (May 27)!

Veterans receive free admission on Memorial Day (May 27)! ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Ruthann Blizzard Michael Blizzard

Uh, that's not nearly enough manpower for a ship that size.

See ya'll next weekend! Can't wait!

Creation Research Society
Creation Research Society
The Role of Epigenetics in Adaptation, Part 1

The following Matters of Fact column by CRS board member Dr. Jean Lightner appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 2018.

Q.  Does epigenetics play a role in adaptation? 
A.  Physiologist: YES! Evolutionary biologist: Maybe…. 

Adaptation, in the sense that we will discuss, can be defined as changes which help an organism become better suited to its environment. It is related to one of the foundational characteristics of life: the ability to respond to the environment. Physiological adaptation relies on epigenetics, or modifications that can affect gene expression. This does not change the sequence of DNA, but allows genes to be up or down regulated to suit the needs of the organism (see Lightner, 2013). 

There are several known mechanisms of epigenetic regulation (Figure 1): 

1) histone modification (including acetylation, phosphorylation, and methylation) 

2) cytosine methylation in DNA 

3) various non-coding RNA molecules (miRNA, siRNA, piRNA, and lncRNA) 

These mechanisms vary in the timeframe over which they typically act, allowing for both rapid changes and more stable, long-term changes. 

Scientists had assumed that these types of changes could not be inherited by offspring. The basis for this was largely philosophical: the Modern Synthesis (aka Neo-Darwinism) was predicated on the idea that the environment could not direct phenotypic change. Instead, the source of phenotypic variation is claimed to be from random genetic mutations; natural selection then reduces or eliminates less fit variants. To support the conjecture that epigenetic changes are not heritable, some scientists pointed to the observation that DNA methylation patterns are reset in pathways leading to offspring (i.e., germ cell formation and fertilization). However, it is now recognized that the reset of DNA methylation isn’t always complete, and it is not the only mechanism involved in trans-generational epigenetic inheritance (Morgan et al., 1999; Rassoulzadegan et al., 2006). 

For several decades now, it has been known that epigenetic inheritance can provide a source of heritable variation. However, it is not yet clear how often it does so, and what role it plays in adaptation of populations. Research has increased on this important topic, but much remains to be learned. One recent review article identified a web of potential interactions. It also pointed out that understanding patterns of natural epigenetic variation, the causes of that variation, and the consequences of it are necessary to adequately address the role it may have in adaptation (Richards et al., 2017). 

Factors influencing epigenetic variation 

In some studies it appears that DNA methylation differences are associated with underlying genetic differences. This raises the possibility of genetic control of epigenetic variability. It is also possible that a stable epimutation (heritable epigenetic change) could be inherited along with the underlying genetic sequence, thus causing the correlation. It has also been noted that epigenetic changes can influence genetic variation, specifically as it relates to silencing transposable elements, whose movement can change the sequence of a gene or its promoter (Richards et al., 2017). 

Some epimutations appear to arise stochastically. If these are stable over multiple generations, then natural selection may affect the pattern of variation. It is also known that environmental factors can effect heritable epigenetic changes, but the pattern and extent of this is not well known. Significant work needs to be done across different species, especially wild plants and animals, before reasonable generalizations can be made (Balao et al. 2018; Richards et al., 2017). 

FIGURE 1. A chromosome is made up of DNA coiled around proteins, called histones. There are three basic mechanisms by which epigenetic changes can be made. First, the tail of the histone proteins can undergo several types of modification (A), including phosphorylation (Ph), methylation (Me), and acetylation (Ac), that can affect accessibility of specific genes. Secondly, cytosine residues in DNA can be methylated (red dot) or un– methylated (green dot), the details of which are represented in section B of the figure. This affects gene transcription (the copying of DNA to make mRNA). Finally, various microRNAs (C) can bind mRNA to prevent synthesis into proteins. All of these mechanisms play a role in changing gene expression without affecting the DNA sequence. (Illustration is from Gómez-Díaz et al., 2012, and is used herein according to the CC BY license. )

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org

The Role of Epigenetics in Adaptation, Part 1

The following Matters of Fact column by CRS board member Dr. Jean Lightner appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 2018.

Q. Does epigenetics play a role in adaptation?
A. Physiologist: YES! Evolutionary biologist: Maybe….

Adaptation, in the sense that we will discuss, can be defined as changes which help an organism become better suited to its environment. It is related to one of the foundational characteristics of life: the ability to respond to the environment. Physiological adaptation relies on epigenetics, or modifications that can affect gene expression. This does not change the sequence of DNA, but allows genes to be up or down regulated to suit the needs of the organism (see Lightner, 2013).

There are several known mechanisms of epigenetic regulation (Figure 1):

1) histone modification (including acetylation, phosphorylation, and methylation)

2) cytosine methylation in DNA

3) various non-coding RNA molecules (miRNA, siRNA, piRNA, and lncRNA)

These mechanisms vary in the timeframe over which they typically act, allowing for both rapid changes and more stable, long-term changes.

Scientists had assumed that these types of changes could not be inherited by offspring. The basis for this was largely philosophical: the Modern Synthesis (aka Neo-Darwinism) was predicated on the idea that the environment could not direct phenotypic change. Instead, the source of phenotypic variation is claimed to be from random genetic mutations; natural selection then reduces or eliminates less fit variants. To support the conjecture that epigenetic changes are not heritable, some scientists pointed to the observation that DNA methylation patterns are reset in pathways leading to offspring (i.e., germ cell formation and fertilization). However, it is now recognized that the reset of DNA methylation isn’t always complete, and it is not the only mechanism involved in trans-generational epigenetic inheritance (Morgan et al., 1999; Rassoulzadegan et al., 2006).

For several decades now, it has been known that epigenetic inheritance can provide a source of heritable variation. However, it is not yet clear how often it does so, and what role it plays in adaptation of populations. Research has increased on this important topic, but much remains to be learned. One recent review article identified a web of potential interactions. It also pointed out that understanding patterns of natural epigenetic variation, the causes of that variation, and the consequences of it are necessary to adequately address the role it may have in adaptation (Richards et al., 2017).

Factors influencing epigenetic variation

In some studies it appears that DNA methylation differences are associated with underlying genetic differences. This raises the possibility of genetic control of epigenetic variability. It is also possible that a stable epimutation (heritable epigenetic change) could be inherited along with the underlying genetic sequence, thus causing the correlation. It has also been noted that epigenetic changes can influence genetic variation, specifically as it relates to silencing transposable elements, whose movement can change the sequence of a gene or its promoter (Richards et al., 2017).

Some epimutations appear to arise stochastically. If these are stable over multiple generations, then natural selection may affect the pattern of variation. It is also known that environmental factors can effect heritable epigenetic changes, but the pattern and extent of this is not well known. Significant work needs to be done across different species, especially wild plants and animals, before reasonable generalizations can be made (Balao et al. 2018; Richards et al., 2017).

FIGURE 1. A chromosome is made up of DNA coiled around proteins, called histones. There are three basic mechanisms by which epigenetic changes can be made. First, the tail of the histone proteins can undergo several types of modification (A), including phosphorylation (Ph), methylation (Me), and acetylation (Ac), that can affect accessibility of specific genes. Secondly, cytosine residues in DNA can be methylated (red dot) or un– methylated (green dot), the details of which are represented in section B of the figure. This affects gene transcription (the copying of DNA to make mRNA). Finally, various microRNAs (C) can bind mRNA to prevent synthesis into proteins. All of these mechanisms play a role in changing gene expression without affecting the DNA sequence. (Illustration is from Gómez-Díaz et al., 2012, and is used herein according to the CC BY license. )

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org
... See MoreSee Less

Hidden History of Evolution
Hidden History of Evolution
~ Issac

~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Evolution is a lie, based on unsupported assumptions.

Science leads to God
Science leads to God
Had to stop the test, cant have evolution proven wrong. ~ Issac

Had to stop the test, can't have evolution proven wrong. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

180 Movie
180 Movie

Are you one of the over 49,500 views who’s watched “7 Reasons” on YouTube since its release a week ago?

We’ve been so encouraged to read the many online comments, such as this one from YouTube:

"This is THE first time I’ve ever cried (quietly flowing down my cheeks and dripping off my chin kinda tears), regarding the abortion I had 9 years ago. I’ve LITERALLY NEVER felt convicted, not once before…And after watching this.. well, yeh.. I’ve just sat here frowning, now my eyes have dried, and thinking to myself, “Wow, what IS happening to me?!”…I’m a feminist, pro-choice (I thought), equality, love and peace to all kinda person. I guess I better think again................. Mind = blown. Thank you for this video."

If you haven't watched and shared it yet, watch "7 Reasons" free on YouTube at 7ReasonsMovie.com
... See MoreSee Less

Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

Pray for Militant Atheist Page.
Pray for Militant Atheist Page.
n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Where is the evolution?
Where is the evolution?
Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
"The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
"The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

View more comments

Load more