Does the answer lie in the blood?
In March, 2005, anybody with an interest in the past, and in fossils in particular, was stunned by the news that scientists had discovered soft tissues preserved in the bones of Tyrannosaurus rex. The bones were apparently broken in the field to enable them to be lifted out by helicopter. The workers could never have dreamed that their single act of vandalism had the potential of turning paleontology on its head. Back in the lab, inspection by Dr Mary Schweitzer, revealed the presence of microscopic blood vessels that had been preserved, according to hallowed theory, for 65 million years! Some dehydrated blood cells had been found in dinosaur bones in 1997, but this latest sensational discovery sent a distinctly audible flutter among old-earth dovecotes. Let Carl Wieland, noted creationist, explain:
Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any skepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely "history".
Some of the tissues had retained such a degree of elasticity that they return to their original shape when stretched. As one would naturally expect, creationist movements picked up on the news immediately, and have been having a field day ever since. The reason why should be obvious; young earth creationists insist on interpreting the days mentioned in the first chapter of the Bible as literal twenty-four-hour periods of time, and claim that the account clearly reveals the earth is only about six thousand years old. They argue that belief in an old earth has pagan origins, being held by Hindus, Greeks and Romans, and must therefore be wrong. Some even call belief in an old earth a “doctrine of Balaam" and find
it hard to believe that other committed God-fearers and anti-evolutionists subscribe to what they consider a misreading of Genesis. You can hear Carl Wieland sighing with frustration when he adds,
So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there's something funny about the emperor's clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an "accepted" phenomenon that even "stretchy" soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we "know" that this specimen is "70 million years old".) See how it works?… I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.
This new evidence should not be shrugged off by old-earth creationists (such as myself) as just a bit of racy creationist sensationalism; it lays down yet another plank onto the creationist's persuasive platform, not to mention providing an excellent overture to a discussion of the earth's age. Do young-earth creationists have a point? Does the pattern of evidence, both biblical and geological, support their contentions? Those who take the Bible seriously need to consider the evidence carefully before drawing conclusions based on preconceived ideas. We suggest readers do a personal investigation by searching on Google; but don't draw your conclusions based on who yells the loudest. Consider the evidence.