Carl Wieland's "Squishosaur"

By Greg Moore

In a recent article, Carl Wieland issued a scathing attack of my paper, "Dinosaur Blood Revisited."1 Wieland is a young-earth creationist and joint CEO of Answers in Genesis International. As is the case with many of his articles, what "Squirming at the Squishosaur"2 lacks in substance, it more than makes up with innuendo and hyperbole.

What is most striking about the article is the tone. It is one thing to disagree on matters of science and faith, but Wieland appoints himself judge and jury, eager to condemn anyone who dares to challenge the young-earth paradigm. Apparently, in Wieland's view, if a person is not a young-earth creationist they are either a Bible compromiser or an atheist.

Wieland begins the article by denouncing the old-earth view. He states:

The ministry Reasons To Believe (RTB), propagating the views of 'progressive creationist' astronomer Hugh Ross, is totally committed to the millions of years philosophy. This is despite the fact that, sadly, this [philosophy] has to involve abandonment of any consistent, time-honoured, and intellectually honest approach to hermeneutics… In fact, it turns the words of the Lord Jesus on humanity's time of appearance upside down, and puts millions of years of bloodshed, suffering… extinction, thorns and cancer before Adam (the Curse before the Fall), and much, much more that is equally tragic.

This is known as "poisoning the well." Wieland hopes by casting the old-earth view in a negative light, readers will reject any claims old-earth creationists make. Of course, merely making prejudicial statements hardly counts as proof, so let's examine these issues.

Does old-earth creationism involve faulty hermeneutics? No. Many respected Christian leaders and scholars have affirmed that the old-earth interpretation does not compromise Scripture. This includes such prominent figures as John Ankerberg, Gleason Archer, James Montgomery Boice, William Lane Craig, Chuck Colson, Norman Geisler, Hank Hannegraff, Jack Hayford, Charles Hodge, Walter Kaiser, C. S. Lewis, J. P. Moreland, Pat Robertson, Francis Schaeffer, B. B. Warfield and many others.3

Does an ancient earth contradict the words of Jesus? No. This refers to Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6, "At the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Young-earth creationists claim if God created mankind at the beginning of creation, the earth cannot be billions of years old because mankind is only a few thousand years old. 4 However, Mark 10:6 refers to the creation of the first male and female in Genesis 1:27 and the context is the institution of marriage. Since the Bible states Adam and Eve were created at the end of the sixth creation "day," this passage has no bearing on the period of time that preceded Adam and Eve.5

Does animal death before Adam put the "curse before the Fall?" No. Young-earth creationists claim all death is the result of Adam and Eve's sin (known as the Fall). However, the Bible states death came to "all men" as a result of sin (Romans 5:12), not that all death is the result of sin. Only man sins and only man suffers spiritual death because of sin. It is also important to remember that eternal life was only available to Adam and Eve through the supernatural "tree of life." Since animals did not have access to the supernatural "tree," they had no promise of eternal life and no possible way to avoid death.6

Next, Wieland criticizes the source material for my papers. He states:

… This article ["Dinosaur Blood Revisted"] cites the RTB broadcast five times. Even more importantly, the original article, 'Dinosaur Blood?', by this same author acknowledges that its 'background' is an article by one Gary Hurd, an antitheistic social scientist, posted on an unsavoury atheist site; Moore's follow-up here largely follows Hurd as well. This is unfortunately not the first time that Ross or his minions have cited disreputable Christ-haters to attack biblical creationists.

Wieland suggests readers should disregard my papers because the people making the claims are making them simply out of self interest. This type of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact a person has a motivation to make a claim does not make the claim false. Claims should be judged on their merits, not the source of the claims. It is also hypocritical since Wieland frequently cites colleagues at Answers in Genesis and evolutionists to support his claims.

More disturbing, however, is Wieland's personal attack of Gary Hurd. Hurd is an evolutionist, an outspoken critic of young-earth creationism and Answers in Genesis in particular.7 Wieland may resent Hurd's views but that does not justify calling him a "disreputable Christ-hater." As Christians, we are commanded to show gentleness and respect to everyone, even to those who despise us.

I will now shift my attention to Wieland's comments on my paper. This is organized into two sections: dinosaur blood and dinosaur tissue. To clarify things, I do not address every comment Wieland makes and the order in which I address his comments may be different than they appear his article. Not wanting to be accused of misrepresenting anyone's views, I would encourage readers to read the original articles.

Dinosaur Blood

My Paper: [Young-earth creationists] claim this [tissue] discovery vindicates their long standing contention that what Schweitzer found in 1997 was actual dinosaur blood.

Wieland: This choice of wording is subtly but significantly prejudicial, to the point of being misleading. An uninformed reader might think I had written about blood still dripping onto the floor, yet that was nothing like what I said. … Fuz Rana employed similar tactics by saying that 'the young earth community is making the claim that what was found was an unfossilized T. rex femur that contained blood in it'. That sets up the listener nicely, so that anything other than flowing, gushing blood out of a totally fresh dino bone could easily be perceived as a creationist 'distortion'.

Wieland ignores the real issue and substitutes a straw man he can attack. No one has accused young-earth creationists of claiming blood was flowing from the bone. The issue is whether he and other young-earth creationists have claimed the T. rex bone contained actual dinosaur blood.

Wieland: … ["Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report"]8 was about the 1997 discovery, under the microscope, of red blood cells in a segment of unfossilized dinosaur bone. The article did state that the vessels were visible under the microscope, and that there was immunological evidence for the presence of the protein hemoglobin.

Wieland tries to give readers the impression that he never claimed the researchers found actual dinosaur blood. This seems rather disingenuous because the article clearly promotes the idea that T. rex bone contained real blood. This is obvious from the title. The article states the evidence suggests traces of real dinosaur blood were found. And, the article implies the T. rex bone was unfossilized and contained real red blood cells and hemoglobin-all to support the contention that actual blood was found.

Wieland: … my article actually quoted Schweitzer as saying that "some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized." So anyone reading the word 'unfossilized' in the next sentence would have been fully aware of how I was using the term. …

Wieland also tries to give readers the impression that he never claimed the T. rex bone was unfossilized. However, what he neglects to mention is his article directs readers to a sidebar titled, More on fresh dino bone, which states:

To claim that bone could remain intact for millions of years without being fossilized (mineralized) stretches credibility. The report here of red blood cells in an unfossilized section of dinosaur bone is not the first time such bone has been found. Biologist Dr Margaret Helder alerted readers of Creation magazine to documented finds of 'fresh', unfossilized dinosaur bone as far back as 1992.

Most readers would take this to mean that the T. rex bone was not fossilized. After all, the sidebar speaks of intact bone that has not been fossilized, refers to the T. rex bone as unfossilized bone, and compares the T. rex bone to Helder's finds of "fresh" bone. If that was not the intent of the sidebar, it is difficult to imagine what message Wieland was trying to communicate.

Wieland: This hemoglobin was associated with what I referred to as 'the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells'. And that is exactly the case. Cameron Tsujita … discussing claims these are blood cells, says that he "can't really think of what else they could be."

Interestingly, while Wieland denies giving readers the impression the bone contained actual dinosaur blood, he continues to insist the researchers found actual red blood cells. Of course, the validity of such an appeal depends on the qualifications of the expert. While I have no reason to question Dr. Tsujita's expertise, the real experts in this case-Schweitzer and the research team-deny this. Schweitzer states:

Clearly these structures are not functional cells. However, one possibility is that they represent diagenetic alteration of original blood remnants, such as complexes of hemoglobin breakdown products, a possibility supported by other data that demonstrate that organic components remain in these dinosaur tissues.9

Wieland is certainly entitled to his opinion about what the researchers found. But to claim "Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report!" is not about the discovery of dinosaur blood? The title alone raises questions about the reasonableness of that claim.

Dinosaur Tissue

Misconception 1

My Paper: Young-earth creationists maintain the T. rex bone contained fresh, pliable tissue. That is, when the bone was cracked open, the researchers found soft tissue. This is certainly the impression one gets from Wieland's ["Still Soft and Stretchy"10] article.

Wieland: … I deny that the article would give a normally discerning reader such an impression, especially when I said on the twelfth line of the main text that Schweitzer "used chemicals to dissolve the bony matrix, revealing the soft tissues still present." … Especially when there is no actual error to refute.

This is the same line of reasoning Wieland uses to defend his dinosaur blood article. While he uses descriptive terms that suggest the bone contained fresh tissue (e.g., still soft and stretchy, soft fibrous tissue, still elastic, fresh appearance, etc.), he blames the reader for any possible misunderstanding. Wieland did note in the article that the bone was treated with chemicals to dissolve the bony matrix. However, this is ambiguous in light of his other statements and readers can take this to mean the soft material was not visible until the bony matrix was removed.

The issue is not whether Wieland's statements in the article are erroneous or untruthful. It is the false impression his statements give readers about the discovery. Wieland sensationalizes the findings and editorializes from the research paper to put a young-earth spin on the discovery. Rather than digging in his heals and denying any culpability, he should simply acknowledge that his article might be misleading to some readers.

My Paper: [Schweitzer's] paper states when the researchers cracked open the bone, they noticed the hollow interior had not been filled with minerals so they took samples from the core of the bone. Schweitzer then soaked the samples in a solution of dilute acid for seven days to dissolve away the mineral component of the bone.

Wieland: … the demineralization seems to have been in a slightly alkaline solution, not acid. But the main demineralizer was the very effective chelating agent EDTA. … Many internet sites seem to have also been 'fuzzy' about this issue of what was used, so I won't be too hard on this mistake.

Wieland tries to score points with readers by pointing out a mistake. However, my paper stated the samples were soaked in a dilute acid. Notice I did not say the samples were soaked in an acidic solution. Since EDTA is an acronym for ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, this appears to be an accurate statement. Actually, to dissolve EDTA a base must be added (like NaOH) which makes the solution slightly alkaline.

My Paper: Wieland does mention that the bone material was treated later in [his] article. … However, the clear implication of this statement is that the material from the T. rex bone contained soft tissue but the researchers did not see it until the bony matrix was removed. This is not true. The soft tissue was a result of the demineralization and hydration process.

Wieland: … Remember that the correct use of the term 'soft tissue' is any tissue (body structure substance) other than bone. … But, let's go with Moore's description above of the 'clear implication' of my statement and see if it is 'not true'. Question: Did the bones contain actual soft tissue (e.g. blood vessels that had not been replaced by mineral?) Answer: Yes. Could the researchers see the soft tissue until the bony matrix was removed? Answer: No. So much for that. … How can demineralization produce soft tissue that was not already there? … If Moore should excuse his comment by saying that he merely meant that the tissue's softness was the result of the soaking, then he is really pushing the envelope of reasonableness.

Wieland tries to give readers the impression that "soft tissue" can only mean one thing. This is not true. "Soft tissue" can refer to tissue that is soft or tissue other than bone. Both are correct uses of the term. However, "soft tissue" is not a common term or something found in most dictionaries. Therefore, most readers would not be aware that the term has two meanings and would interpret it to mean tissue that is soft.

Wieland criticizes my use of the term. Based on theme of my paper and the context of the statement he refers to, I think it is fairly obvious I was referring to tissue that is soft. If my intent was to say the process produced soft-tissue (i.e., tissue other than bone), I would have phrased the sentence differently and hyphenated the words (as Schweitzer did in her paper). It also would have been an obviously absurd statement.

However, my use of the term is a "red herring." It is merely an attempt to divert attention from the original issue-namely, the impression his article gives readers about the discovery. Wieland claims his statements refer only to soft-tissue (i.e., tissue other than bone). If this is true, one can only wonder why his statements seem to suggest otherwise. Even the title, "Still Soft and Stretchy," gives readers the perception the original material was soft.

Also, note in Wieland's comment he states: "Question: Did the bones contain actual soft tissue (e.g. blood vessels that had not been replaced by mineral?)" Obviously, in this instance, Wieland felt the need to define his use of the term. Since he never defined the term in his original article, how can he deny that his statements might be confusing to readers?

Wieland: … Schweitzer's article says that the soft tissues were subjected to several cycles of dehydration/rehydration-without losing their elasticity! So they appear to have been elastic (soft and stretchy, not hard and brittle) in both the dry and wet state. Of course, Moore did not quote that part of the article.

Wieland implies that I intentionally omitted some critical information. However, the point of my statement was that it was after demineralization process that the material was soft. The fact the tissue was hydrated and dehydrated had no bearing on this issue. As a side note, Schweitzer states in her paper that the tissue retained its elastic character after several repeated cycles of dehydration/rehydration. This seems to indicate the tissue was elastic after each cycle, and/or after all of the cycles, not in both the dry and wet state as Wieland suggests.

My Paper: It is also noteworthy that Wieland's descriptions of the two photos (which are from the actual study) are strikingly different from Schweitzer's.

Wieland: Notice that emotive use of 'strikingly'. But why should it be noteworthy or surprising that a long-age-believer, especially one who saw how Creation magazine made good use of her 1997 red-cell discovery, should choose her words as cagily as she possibly can? Schweitzer has publicly expressed her disappointment about creationist mileage from her finds. … A moment's careful thought should suffice to realize that Schweitzer's descriptions are in no way inconsistent with those in our article. … Schweitzer's descriptions are correct, as are mine.

Wieland clearly flip-flops his position on this issue. First, he states Schweitzer's descriptions are different than his because she is a "long-age-believer" and wants to downplay the findings. Then, he states there is no real difference between his and her descriptions and both are correct. However, regardless of which explanation Wieland wants us to believe, both ignore the real issue of whether his descriptions add to the impression that the bone contained fresh tissue.

As stated in my paper, Schweitzer describes the material in the photos as "a demineralized fragment" and "demineralized bone" to indicate the photos are of the processed bone material. Compare this to Wieland's descriptions. He describes the material as "a tissue fragment that is still elastic" and "another instance of fresh appearance." This suggests the photos are of the original bone material, thus adding to the impression the bone contained soft material.

My Paper: … [Citing Wieland's statement regarding one of the photos] The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic [emphasis added]. It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years.

Wieland: Note that this emphasis is Moore's, not mine. … I would affirm this statement. Many long-agers have openly expressed their astonishment. E.g. Derek Briggs, a paleontologist at Yale University said it was a 'totally novel discovery,' while Dr Tsujita said such preservation is 'improbable but obviously not impossible.' Note that this is a veiled admission that he was surprised by such tissue preservation over alleged millions of years, but since preserved tissue has been found, to a long-ager, it's obviously proof that it can be preserved over such eons!

The reason the word "still" was emphasized in my quoting of Wieland is because that word adds to the impression the original material was soft (i.e., it had remained elastic for millions of years). The fact that researchers are astonished by the degree of preservation has no bearing on the issue of whether his paper gives readers a false impression about the discovery. Nor does it support the contention that the material could not be millions of years old. As stated later in my paper, this is a surprising discovery but not an inexplicable one.

Misconception 2

My Paper: Young earth creationists maintain the researchers discovered actual blood vessels and cells in the T. rex tissue. Again, this is the impression one gets from Wieland's article. … In fairness, the researchers do state in the research paper that they believe the T. rex tissue contains blood vessels and cells. However, a careful reading of the paper reveals that this is hopeful speculation, not a statement of fact.

Wieland: As will be seen, 'hopeful speculation' puts a substantial spin on the paper. The researchers' stated belief (not speculative, wild guess) is a very confident and reasonable conclusion from the observed facts. … The onus of proof is on those who would claim that they are not what they overwhelmingly appear to be. … Even the title of Schweitzer et al's paper in Science affirms the conviction of its evolutionist authors: it is not called, e.g., 'Unusual Structures Which Sort of Remind us of Blood Vessels and Cells'. It is in fact called 'Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex'-the title alone seems virtually sufficient to 'blow away' Moore's article!

Wieland accuses me of trying to downplay the findings by referring to the researchers' statement as a hopeful speculation. "Speculate" means to draw an inference based on inconclusive evidence or insufficient information. Therefore, I would define a "hopeful speculation" as a tentative conclusion the researchers hope is true. I'd hardly call this a "wild guess." The objects appear to be actual vessels and cells but the researchers are not certain that is what they are.

Wieland claims the burden of proof is on those who deny the objects are actual vessels and cells. This is fallacious. In the conclusion of the study, Schweitzer states that it is uncertain whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geological process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular level. Having stated that, the burden of proof is on Wieland to prove otherwise.

Does the title prove the researchers found actual vessels and cells? No. Schweitzer's paper was published in the journal Science. It is a research paper that presents the study methodology and findings for the purposes of peer review. Thus, the title merely identifies the subject of the research. It is neutral statement, not a statement of fact.

My Paper: … [Schweitzer's] paper states that complete demineralization of the T.rex material released vessels… Many of these vessels contained round microstructures that resembled blood cells and inside these they observed smaller objects that resembled nuclei. The researchers then subjected ostrich bones to the same process and the resulting vessels and contents were virtually identical to the T. rex specimen.

Wieland: The italics emphasizing the word 'resembled' (to try to downplay the issue) are in fact undone by Moore's own words, where he points out that the ostrich vessels and their contained red blood cells were for all practical purposes identical.

Again, Wieland accuses me of trying to downplay the findings. Schweitzer states the vessels and contents were similar in all respects to those from the ostrich bone. Once the structures were stained, they were virtually identical in overall morphology. "Virtually identical" means nearly, or almost but not quite. In other words, the structures were very similar but not identical. Therefore, it seems reasonable to say they resembled them.

Of course, the reason Wieland objects to my terminology is he wants to overstate the findings. He wants readers to believe the structures in the T. rex material are the original blood vessels and cells. However, it is important to keep in mind that the researchers did not reach that conclusion. While the structures have the appearance of the ostrich structures, it has not been determined exactly what they are. "Looking like" vessels and cells is not evidence that is what they are.

My Paper: … since no molecular studies have yet been done with the tissue, it is uncertain if it contains original organic material or if the material was replaced by mineralization or some other chemical process.

Wieland: The only way it can not contain any 'original organic material' is if it has been, as Moore states, 'replaced by mineralization'. But no magical mineralization process is known or conceivable which would result in soft, flexible tubes with all the appearance of the original blood vessels and showing red blood cells inside. … So I am hardly sticking my neck out by making the claim that there is no way that this soft stretchy tissue contains none of the original protein materials, i.e. there is no way that it has, instead, been replaced 'brick by brick' by some inorganic mineral. …

Wieland argues the structures must be the original organic material (i.e., vessels and cells) because otherwise there is no explanation for how they formed. Notice that he is not arguing on the basis of any evidence that these are the actual structures but merely from a lack of knowledge of the process that could have caused them. Of course, if such reasoning was valid, there would be no point to science-we'd merely assume that everything must conform to our current knowledge of the natural realm.

Wieland implies the structures must be the result of mineralization if they aren't the actual vessels and cells. This ignores the second part of my statement. As Schwietzer stated in the paper, the structures might be the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process. Not much is presently known about biogeochemical interactions at the microscopic and molecular level so it is premature to rule-out other possibilities until they are tested and shown to be false.

Wieland also states that he is "hardly sticking his neck out" to say the tissue contains none of the original protein materials. No one is making that claim. As I stated in my paper, it is likely the structures contain some of the original materials (i.e., biomolecules). However, it is important to note that this not what Wieland claimed in his article. He claimed the structures are the original vessels and cells.

My Paper: Therefore, it is very possible the objects are not intact blood vessels and cells but blood vessel and cell remnants - the degradation products of blood vessels and cells that have undergone chemical transformation.

Wieland: Atheist sites attacked our original announcement of the 1997 discovery by saying that we called them 'red cells' when in fact they were 'the remains of red cells'. But if I were to find a human finger in a block of cement, by definition it is the 'remains' of a finger, even when fresh, ten seconds after the concrete is poured. As time goes on, it will become more and more degraded, but it is still the 'remains' of a finger at all times. Say I find one such finger that is partially degraded after a few weeks, but still soft. Is it reasonable or not to describe the discovery as 'a human finger in cement that is still soft'? Of course it's reasonable! It would be nothing but the most excruciating, deliberate and devious hairsplitting for someone to attack the claim …

Wieland hopes by characterizing the criticism of his articles as atheist attacks, readers will disregard the issues that have been raised about the articles. This is simply another attempt to "poison the well." The origin or motivation for a claim is not evidence that claim is false. Wieland also glosses over the fact that many Christians have also raised questions about the accuracy of his articles.

Wieland also makes a false analogy. He starts and ends with what is obviously a finger. That is hardly the case here. We know the objects began as blood vessels and cells but we don't know with certainty the process they underwent. The structures are also microscopic and there are known instances where similar objects were not what they first appeared to be. It may be that the structures are actual vessels and cells. However, it is premature to make that claim until more research is done. To use Wieland's analogy, they might be a finger or merely a fingerprint.

My Paper: Eric Stokstad11 makes this very point: "Experts, and the team itself, say they won't be convinced that the original material has survived unaltered until further test results come in."

Wieland: Again, even to have lasted 4,000 years, one would expect some degree of alteration. But this is really beside the point; the astonishing nature of the preservation is already overwhelmingly clear, and totally unexpected by long-age thinkers.

Wieland simply ignores Stokstad's statement and states that no alteration (degradation) has occurred. This is not based on any evidence but something Wieland wants it to be true (i.e., wishful thinking). The fact researchers are surprised by the nature of the preservation has no bearing on the issue of whether these are the original vessels and cells.

Wieland's statement also raises a significant issue. According to the young-earth model, fossilization must occur at an extremely rapid pace because the entire fossil record is believed to be about 4,000 years old. While Wieland claims this discovery contradicts the old-earth model, he ignores the issues it raises about his own model. Due to the rapid fossilization the young-earth model requires, this bone should be completely fossilized according to that model.

My Paper: Stokstad also notes there are known instances where reworked material can have the appearance and resilience of the T. rex "tissues." Therefore, until more research is conducted, it is premature and misleading to claim the structures in the tissue are blood vessels and cells. They may be and they do resemble ostrich vessels and cells, but it is an open question at this time.

Wieland: … the Stokstad quote shows a misleading aspect of this part of the Moore/RTB article (dutifully taken from their favorite atheistic source, Hurd). It claims that Stokstad says 'that there are known instances where reworked material can have the appearance and resilience of the T. rex "tissues."' The unwitting reader might think that Stokstad was claiming that structures looking like the flexible blood vessels in the T. rex had been found in other fossils, when it said no such thing. Nothing in a fossil remotely resembling these dinosaur blood vessels in both appearance and resilience has ever been found, and Stokstad's article does not say otherwise.

Wieland's statement that the Stokstad quote is "dutifully taken from their favorite atheistic source" is simply another attempt to "poison the well." What possible connection is there between my use of the Stokstad article and Gary Hurd escapes me. Stokstad's article is readily available and appeared in the same issue of Science as Schweitzer's report, so it is hardly surprising that I would have seen the article.

More misleading, however, are Wieland's quotation marks around the Stokstad statement. My article did not quote Stokstad as saying that but said it was something noted in his article. The difference is subtle but significant. Wieland claims Stokstad never made that statement but I never stated he did. I stated the Stokstad article discusses cases where what appeared to be actual nucleated cells and resilient vessels turned out to be something different.

Wieland suggests my article downplays the uniqueness of the discovery. Nothing in my article suggests this is a routine discovery or that researchers have found identical structures in other dinosaur bones. However, it is erroneous to say that "nothing remotely resembling" these structures have been found before. The cases Stokstad discusses are similar in appearance and resilience although not identical. Schweitzer also describes cases that have some of the characteristics of this discovery.

Misconception 3

My Paper: Young-earth creationists claim the discovery of unfossilized bone with soft tissue and biomolecules proves dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago.

Wieland: Notice that neither my words nor those of my anatomist colleague Dr Menton claim that this (or indeed anything) can prove a young earth, but that it is powerfully, overwhelmingly consistent with it. Certainly it 'taxes one's imagination' less to believe that such structures have survived a few thousand years, as opposed to >65 million. Even the most rabid long-ager would surely have to agree with that simple proposition.

Wieland does not specifically state that the discovery proves dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago. However, since "prove" means to demonstrate as true, I see little difference between this and saying it is "powerfully, overwhelming consistent with it." I would also stand by my original statement because many young-earth creationists are making this claim based on their reading of his paper.

Wieland claims it taxes one's imagination to believe such structures could have survived for millions of years. It might if "age" is determined by the bone's appearance and contents. However, the age of a bone is determined by the location where it is found. In this case, the bone was found in the Hells Creek formation where minerals in the sediments have been dated to over 60 million years old. For those who question the reliability of radiometric dating, I recommend Roger Wiens' paper, "Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective."12

My Paper: As Schweitzer states in the paper: "The fossil record is capable of exceptional preservation including feathers, hair, color or color patterns, embryonic soft tissues, muscle tissue and/or internal organs, and cellular structure."

Wieland: … But most such instances (which all speak of rapid processes, incidentally) do not involve the tissue itself, or any remnant of it which is still flexible or even capable of hydration. …

The point Schweitzer makes is the degree of preservation can be quite remarkable. The examples she notes are not intended to be an exact comparison to this bone but an illustration of the types of features that can be preserved-in other words, the preservation is similar in principle but different in degree. The fact that nothing identical to this tissue has been found before does not prove that these are the original blood vessels and cells.

Wieland states Schwietzer's examples all speak of rapid processes. This reinforces the earlier point I made. The young-earth model requires rapid fossilization and, because they believe this bone is around 4,000 years old, it should be fossilized. Wieland seems to suggest that these rapid processes apply to Schweitzer's examples but not this bone. This is simply an attempt to defend the young-earth model (i.e., rapid fossilization) while glossing over the implications on this bone.

My Paper: Normally, during fossilization, hard materials are replaced with minerals and soft tissue is destroyed by bacteria that enter the bone. However, under certain circumstances, the inner part of the bone can be preserved. …

Wieland: Moore really misses the point. Obviously, there is no dispute with the fact that different degrees of preservation can occur depending on different environments, burial, etc. Look at the many fossils buried in the Flood; many are extremely mineralized, some less so, and some much less so, as in the case in point. The strongly mineralized ones do not present an argument for a young age or an old age. They could have been mineralized 600 million years ago, or a century ago … Once they are in effect 'turned to stone', they can last more or less indefinitely. But ones that are not well mineralized are not going to be anywhere near as protected from the forces of decay.

This is obvious handwaving. Wieland states he does not dispute the fact that the inner part of bone can be preserved under certain circumstance. Thus, the only point I could have possibly missed is his statement that incompletely fossilized bones are more subject to decay than those that have turned to stone. I'd hardly call that a remarkable revelation.

Wieland also suggests it is perfectly reasonable that some bones buried in the Flood (about 4,000 years ago by young-earth reckoning) would not be fossilized. Again, given the speed at which fossilization must occur in the young-earth model, it is extremely unlikely that any dinosaur bones would avoid the natural forces of mineralization and decay. It may seem that this is less of a problem at the young-earth timescale of thousands of years. However, it is the same process the old-earth model would predict, only compressed into a significantly shorter timeframe.

Wieland: As Dr Aw Swee Eng … confirmed to me personally, complex biomolecules such as proteins are thermodynamically destined to fall apart eventually … even were they to be protected from all outside influences …

Few would disagree with Dr. Eng's statement. However, the fact that complex biomolecules will "fall apart eventually" is hardly a confirmation that this bone must be of recent origin. As research has shown, biomolecules can survive for millions of years.13

Wieland and Eng are also missing the point. In the environment of the bone, this is not an issue of thermodynamics but kinetics. Thermodynamically-favored reactions can occur at imperceptible rates if the kinetic barrier is extremely high. A good example is a diamond. Graphite is a more thermodynamically stable state of carbon than a diamond. From a thermodynamic standpoint, a diamond should convert to graphite but the kinetic barrier is high enough that it won't.

My Paper: … Schweitzer explains that: "The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone … [this] combined with yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels."

Wieland: Before reading her explanations, it is important to note that she is totally philosophically committed to the millions-of-years age of the specimen; to her, it is a 'given'. So from that perspective, it is understandable for her to look for ways to 'explain' the evidence in front of her eyes. …

By presenting unfavorable information about Schweitzer, Wieland hopes readers will disregard her statement. It is obvious that Wieland is eager to accept Schweitzer's statements when they appear to support his view but quick to discard them as evolutionary bias when they don't. As an expert in the field of paleontology and the lead author of the research paper, Schweitzer is extremely well-qualified to offer her opinions about this issue.

My Paper: In speaking with Schweitzer, Rich Deem reports that she indicated the bones have a distinct odor that is characteristic of embalming fluids. Therefore, it is possible that the bones landed in some type of chemical "stew" that preserved the soft tissue inside the bone from decomposition.

Wieland: Hearsay evidence-via Deem, a notorious Rossite-of some alleged smell would seem to be a mark of desperation. Schweitzer failed to mention any detection of formaldehyde, for example, in her official paper … To date, there is just as much 'evidence' that the bones landed in an alien spacecraft which preserved the tissue.

Wieland has stated that he does not dispute the fact that different degrees of preservation can occur. Here, Schweitzer makes a reasonable observation about the burial environment that Wieland rejects simply because the information comes from Rich Deem. Deem's conversation with Schweitzer is referenced in his paper14 and is no less credible than Wieland's conversations with Dr. Eng and others. The fact that Deem is a Hugh Ross supporter and Schweitzer never made the statement in her paper has no bearing on the validity of her statement.

My Paper: Regarding the issue of whether biomolecules can survive for millions of years, it is very difficult to predict molecular stability because it is very dependent upon the conditions.

Wieland: It may be difficult to predict the degree of stability, but surely there is a limit at which credulity ceases. Evolutionist Bryan Sykes, confronted with the alleged discovery of DNA in a fossil magnolia 'millions of years old' indicated that from the known rate at which it breaks down in the lab, 'no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years'. But here it apparently was, so he said it was just as well that this chemical deduction was not known to the people who tried to extract the DNA. … One can grant that it would be hard to be dogmatic and to say that it is not possible to stretch that 10,000 years by a bit. The rate of 'falling apart' is not that precise. And DNA is more fragile than, say, hemoglobin or osteocalcin or collagen. But to stretch it by about four orders of magnitude (some 10,000 times)?

It is obvious Wieland has no reservations about citing evolutionists when it suites his purposes. The problem is this incident occurred over a decade ago. Since then, much more research has been conducted in the area of ancient DNA and DNA has been recovered that is much older 10,000 years. For example, recovered Neandertal DNA (mtDNA) dates back 40,000 years, perhaps 100,000 years. So, DNA is much more capable of surviving than previously thought.

Wieland compares the survival of DNA to that of other biomolecules. This is misleading. DNA is not simply "more fragile" than other biomolecules as Wieland contends, it is tremendously more fragile. As stated previously, research has shown that biomolecules such as proteins can survive for millions of years. However, given the complex structure of DNA, it is unlikely to remain intact for anywhere near that length of time.

More importantly, is the question of whether Sykes work is even applicable to this discovery. Known rates of DNA breakdown in the lab are not predictive of what would happen in the non-laboratory environment of the bone where molecules are adsorbed to a bone surface. This process protects otherwise fragile biomolecules. In addition, collagen and elastin (two components of blood vessels) possess extensive cross-linking (bonds linking the strands of molecules) which enhances molecular stability and makes them very resistant to breakdown.

My Paper: … In this case, it was an incomplete fossilization process-water did not gain access to the interior of the bone and water promotes the breakdown of biomolecules. …

Wieland: Indeed it does. Water will rapidly hydrolyze them, as well as supporting bacterial attack. But the converse does not follow, namely that the absence of water will permit the biomolecules to remain forever intact. …

No one claims the absence of water will permit biomolecules to survive intact indefinitely. However, if the interior of a bone is sealed to prevent the infiltration of outside agents (e.g., water and bacteria), biomolecules can survive for many millions of years. Schweitzer identified a number of factors that could contribute to the high degree of preservation of the material in this bone. This included the fact the bone matrix was extremely dense and intracrystalline. As she stated to Deem, the bone also seems to have been located in a rich chemical environment.

My Paper: … Blood vessels are also extremely durable. They are made up of endothelial cells that form a channel. This is surrounded by an elastin matrix, then basement membrane, then muscle fibers and finally a collagen matrix. These materials are very resistant to breakdown and have to undergo extensive degradation to totally breakdown. This can explain how some these vessels may have survived. They are probably not the original blood vessels but remnants of some of the blood vessel materials that retain some elasticity and resiliency.

Wieland: … it seems that on the one hand, we're told that they are very resistant to breakdown, presumably an argument being used to support the fact that they've been preserved. Then we're told that they are not preserved, i.e. 'not the original blood vessels'. So why is the argument of their toughness needed at all? Because it is obvious to all that any 'remnants' (remember my finger in the concrete example, it is always going to be a 'remnant' or 'the remains' of a finger, with varying degrees of preservation) that 'retain some elasticity and resiliency' are a powerful 'alert' to the public at large that maybe something is not quite right with the millions of years. So Moore needs something to reassure true believers in long ages.

The point of my statement is that blood vessels are extremely durable. Because of their layered construction, it is reasonable that some of the structure could have survived. Wieland suggests it is contradictory to say that part of the original structure may have survived but not the actual vessels. This is merely an attempt to expand the definition of "actual vessels" to justify his claims. To use his line of reasoning, it would be accurate to call a dinosaur skeleton an actual dinosaur because it was once part of the original creature.

Wieland: The fact is that some of the biomolecules had already degraded, as expected, and some had not. The astonishing thing was not that there had been degradation of biomolecules in that time, but that some had survived. But 'astonishing' becomes 'unbelievable' when the alleged timescale is >65 million years.

Wieland has consistently argued that the structures are the original blood vessels and cells. For example, in responding to Stokstad's statement he stated, "even to have lasted 4,000 years, one would expect some degree of alteration." The obvious implication of this statement is that no degradation had occurred. Here, Wieland makes a significant change in his position by stating degradation has occurred. It is also interesting to note that earlier Wieland argued that the astonishing and unexpected preservation of the "tissue" was evidence that the structures are the actual vessels and cells. This has now changed to the astonishment that some biomolecules have survived-again, a very different position.

Wieland: Ross said for the benefit of listeners: 'The difference is that the ostrich bones were young, the dinosaur bones old. Therefore they used a different treatment process. That's evidence in itself that the dinosaur bones must be old.' It is hard to restrain oneself from excess sarcasm in contemplating this amazing conclusion-a fossil bone from an extinct creature is 'old', and a freshly killed ostrich bone is 'young'. …

The point of Hugh Ross' statement is the ostrich bone required a more rigorous demineralization process to release the tissue. For the dinosaur bone, some of this process was unnecessary because it had occurred naturally. This indicates the dinosaur bone is older than the ostrich bone. Notice, Ross says it is evidence dinosaur bones must be old, not millions of years old. It is difficult to understand Wieland's need to criticize Ross' statement. Even by young-earth reckoning, the T. rex bone is several thousand years older than the ostrich bone.

My Paper: In explaining the discovery, Dr. Matthew Collins … states: "This may not be fossilization as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilization at a molecular level. My suspicion is this process has led to … a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material-a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterize, but which has preserved the structure."

Wieland: Let's see … earlier in the article we had unknown geochemical processes postulated. Here another long-ager puts up his 'suspicion' that these vessels have been converted into an unknown polymer which (by definition, in his belief system) resists degradation but, amazingly, preserves both the structure and the elasticity, appearance, transparency, etc. for millions of years. When Dr Collins finds what that wonderful substance is, he should invest in the company that is first to market it.

Mocking a claim does not make it false. Since Dr. Collins' expertise is in the area of ancient biomolecules, he is extremely well qualified to comment on this issue. Polymers are very long chain-like molecules. If a polymer is adsorbed to a surface, like the mineral matrix in this bone, it is very difficult to break the bonds. So, that would help to promote long term stability.

Conclusion

My Paper: This is a very exciting and surprising discovery but not an inexplicable one. Under the right conditions, biomolecules can survive for millions and millions of years.

Wieland: Notice incidentally how the emphasis has shifted from denying the idea that these are the actual tissues, i.e. the actual biomolecules, to now stating that they 'can survive'. Which is it? (If they are not the original biomolecules, they have not survived!) But despite the bravado in that phrase, the survival for millions of years has been assumed, not demonstrated. The only 'evidence' for it is the belief that specimens containing biomolecules are millions of years old.

Again, Wieland tries to blur the distinction between the "actual tissues" and the "actual biomolecules." While blood vessels and cells are composed of biomolecules, saying some biomolecules may have survived is very different than saying the actual vessels and cells have survived. As stated previously, it is possible these are the actual vessels and cells. However, it is also possible the structures are an artifact of some type of geochemical replacement process.

Wieland states there is no proof this bone is millions of years old. Again, the age of a bone is not determined by its appearance or contents, but the location where the bone was found. Various minerals in the sediments at that site have been dated to over 60 million years ago. Wieland may disagree with the date and the dating methods, but it is misleading to say the millions-of-years date is merely an assumption based on the old-earth belief.

My Paper: Therefore, in no way does this discovery demand a young-earth interpretation or prove that dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago.

Wieland: As pointed out earlier, this is attacking a straw man, and misrepresents our position. We do say that we have every reason to be excited about this as strongly reinforcing what God has long revealed in His Word about the timing of Creation Week …

Let's use Wieland's statement that the discovery is "powerfully, overwhelmingly consistent" with the young-earth model. On the surface, it may seem that a partially fossilized bone is more consistent with the idea that dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago. However, this ignores the fact that the young-earth model requires extremely rapid fossilization. Therefore, a partially fossilized dinosaur bone really isn't as consistent with young-earth model as Wieland would like readers to believe.

Wieland tries to give readers the impression that a young bone upholds Scripture while an old bone doesn't. Of course, this merely assumes that the Bible demands a young-earth interpretation. As stated previously, many Bible scholars disagree with that claim. But, this also raises a bigger issue. Is it reasonable to think that young-earth creationists are the only ones who are able to discern the truth of the God's word and His revelation in nature? No. Many old-earth creationists are born-again Christians with same spiritual gifts and same motivation to uphold the inerrancy of Scripture as their young-earth brothers.

My Paper: The Bible exhorts us to "test everything" (1 Thess 5:21). It does not say that we are to test only the things that we disagree with but everything.

Wieland: This is an odd statement in isolation-it is not possible to test everything. Unfortunately, RTB has a habit of wrenching passages out of context, and does so here again. In context, it is about testing purported prophetic utterances-the verse immediately preceding this is 'Do not despise prophecies'. The passage in general concerns our Christian walk, doctrine, etc. So when some strange new teaching comes along within the church (such as the old-earth dogma …) this should be thoroughly tested. It has been tested, and it falls dramatically short in the light of Scripture.

This is another obvious case of handwaving. Wieland claims Reasons To Believe has a "habit" of pulling passages out of content, yet he provides no evidence to substantiate this claim. Next, he states the verse has to do with the issue of testing of prophetic utterances. Then, he states the passage also has a general application, which is precisely how I had used the verse.

The point of 1 Thessalonians 5:21 is that Christians should exercise sound judgment in discerning between truth and falsehood. This is particularly true of non-essential doctrine (i.e., beliefs not specifically stated in the Bible as necessary for salvation) that can lead to needless division in the church. Since the age of the earth is not an essential doctrine, young-earth creationists need to test their model with the same rigor as they defend it.

Wieland refers to old-earth creationism as a strange new teaching. This is misleading. The debate over the length of the Genesis "days" dates back to the early church. There have always been proponents on both sides of the issue and for most of church history it has been a friendly debate. It wasn't until the creationist movement of the 1960s that young-earth creationists began to claim the Bible allows only one view.15 If anything is a strange new teaching, it is that Christians must hold to a young-earth view of the creation.

Does the old-earth model fall "dramatically short" of Scripture as Wieland claims? In truth, the only ones who have tested the model and found it to be inadequate biblically and scientifically are those who are dogmatically committed to the young-earth view. Readers concerned about this issue should examine the writings of the Christian leaders and scholars I cited earlier.16

My Paper: It is in this spirit that young-earth creationists need to examine their view of reality. Even if the structures in this T. rex tissue are determined to be actual blood vessels and cells, how does one find, or a handful of such finds, overturn thousands of old-earth evidences?

Wieland: Here is where we see the different directions from which both sides are coming. We want to try to always start with Scripture, which is the final authority. We don't see any number of finds as the reason to believe the Bible. Rather, we see things as either confirming or challenging the truth of the Bible. When the old-earth evidences are examined (and it is mostly bluff and bluster to talk of 'thousands', as if they were independent of each other) they invariably turn out to be based on axiomatic rejection of the Bible's account of creation in the first place. This was always true of long-age beliefs…

This is a common tactic Wieland uses. Whenever anyone questions the young-earth interpretation of scientific data, he erroneously claims young-earth creationists are the only ones who are looking at nature through the eyeglasses of the Bible. This merely assumes that the young-earth view is the only one that upholds Scripture. However, there is no requirement-biblical or doctrinal-that Christians must believe in a young earth.

Wieland states the old-earth view is based on a rejection of the Bible. This ignores the fact that the belief in long creation "days" has been considered a legitimate interpretation of Genesis 1 throughout church history. But more importantly, it makes an outrageous claim about the character of the Christians who hold the old-earth view. By definition, this would mean that many prominent Christians at significant seminaries, universities and ministries reject the Biblical creation account. Again, I would readers to check the credentials of the individuals who consider the old-earth view to be Scripturally sound.17

Wieland tries to make an issue of whether the evidences for an old earth independent or interrelated. Notice that he does not deny the fact that there are many evidences that point to an old earth, nor does he dispute them on the basis of any evidence. He simply tries to downplay the significance of them by suggesting they do not number in the thousands.

My Paper: … Science has many good reasons to believe the earth is ancient. …

Wieland: … Science is a methodology, a wonderful tool that has been very helpful to humanity, but one whose limitations and operation are often not well understood by a lot of anticreationists. Scientists are fallible human beings, whose interpretations of the evidence are strongly constrained by the paradigms of their culture and time. The history of the scientific enterprise is littered with the rejection of ideas … that were based on the same logic, i.e. 'most scientists believe …' or 'most of the evidence points to …'-there is huge resistance to ideas that challenge the dominant paradigm. As if scientific truth is arrived at by weighing up the number of arguments anyway.

Science is the study of God's creation. Scientists try to interpret the facts of nature and, yes, scientists are fallible and their interpretations can be wrong. However, the fact the history of science is littered with rejected ideas is not evidence that science is false, but that science is capable of detecting error. Contrary to Wieland's claims, scientific truth is a weighing of the evidence and theories/beliefs it will eventually stand or fall based on the facts of the creation. This is evidenced by the slow but steady erosion of Darwinian evolution.

Theology should operate in a similar way. The Bible is the inerrant word of God. Theologians interpret the facts of the Bible, yet theologians are fallible and their interpretations can be wrong. There are numerous examples of beliefs that were considered biblical truths (e.g., geocentrism, flat earthism, etc.) but were later abandoned as faulty interpretations of Scripture. The problem is young-earth creationists consider their interpretations of Scripture to be infallible. This is a perilous position to take.

My Paper: Thus, young-earth creationists need to examine all the evidence, not just selective evidences that can be construed to support their view.

Wieland: Sigh-another misrepresentation. Are Moore's readers really being asked to believe that we don't examine the evidence that opposes our viewpoint, as if we close our eyes to it? There are probably thousands of pages of this very website devoted to examining and dealing with/refuting such evidences, not to mention a book refuting Ross, which refutation could not have been accomplished without examining his claims! We do so because, like Paul, we seek to 'demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God' (2 Cor. 10:5).

Wieland seems to think that "examining the evidence" means to prove an opponent wrong. Even the passage he cites is about waging war (metaphorically) with those who stand in opposition to our beliefs. We must defend the essential doctrines of Christianity at any cost. However, the age of the earth is not an essential doctrine and our interpretations-both of God's word and His creation-need to be examined objectively.

The modern young-earth movement arose as a response to Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately, over the past several decades, the focus has changed from defending the Bible to defending the paradigm.18 Young-earth creationists may not close their eyes to the old-earth evidences, but many, like Wieland, close their minds to the possibility their model might be wrong. As Paul states later in 2 Corinthians 10, it is not wise to measure ourselves by ourselves and compare ourselves with ourselves (verse 12).

Wieland: … we would love to get hold of an actual sample of this (or similar) dino soft tissue, because we think it highly likely that carbon dating would show a 'radiocarbon age' of thousands of years, not the 'infinite age' that the Moore/RTB long-age scenario would have to predict. …

Wieland insinuates that researchers are being dishonest about the age of this T. rex tissue. He claims if he could test the material he could prove the tissue was young. Obviously, this is an easy claim to make since he has no way to substantiate this statement. There is no reason to doubt the age of this bone based on the radiometric dating of the sediments where it was found.

Wieland: … Evidently there is one rule for us and another for our opponents. But in reality, it simply demonstrates the way (historical) science operates. The weight one gives to various evidences, i.e. which ones are given credence over others, is always going to be a function of one's starting axioms or beliefs-spoken or unspoken, conscious or subliminal. If only RTB would realize that the key is to start with biblical axioms, not with secular ones that are, at their core, antibiblical.

Wieland suggests young-earth evidences are rejected because of a bias in science. This assumes that the young-earth evidences are valid and there is no other explanation for why they are rejected. However, science is not done in isolation. Researchers' interests may provide them a motive to support certain claims, but the claims stand or fall on their own merits. The young-earth evidences are rejected because they are not supported by the data.

Wieland's statement about Reasons To Believe is a blatant example of "poisoning the well." The statement has nothing to do with the claim being made. It is merely an attempt to give readers a false impression about the Reasons To Believe Ministry which exists to strengthen the faith of believers and help unbelievers overcome the barriers to a belief in God.

Wieland: More significantly, the Bible itself teaches that both nature and our minds are fallen, and therefore there will be a tendency for fallen man to reason in ways that reject biblically revealed realities (Romans 1:18-32). Whenever we elevate the reasoning of fallen mankind, with its axioms starting outside the Bible, above that of the Word of God itself (consider Ross's claim that 'nature' is a 67th book of the Bible), problems are inevitable. It is no wonder that once one compromises at one crucial point, one ends up in an increasing quagmire, having to pile towers of distortions upon distortions of the meaning of the biblical text in order to try to extricate oneself from the inevitable contradictions.

Wieland argues that human reasoning is fallen and we cannot trust what our senses tell us about the creation. Thus, we can only rely on what the Bible tells about the facts of the creation. Of course, Wieland assumes the young-earth interpretation of Scripture is correct. This is a lofty claim that borders on arrogance. As stated previously, while the Bible is infallible, our interpretations are not.

It is important to note what Paul states in Romans 1:19-20:

…since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

This passage tells us that everyone is capable of knowing God through His creation. Notice it states everyone is "without excuse." Since God is revealed through the creation and everyone is held accountable for accepting or rejecting that revelation, we must be able to trust what our senses tell us about creation. This revelation must be independent of our reading of Scripture since everyone is held accountable for responding to it, yet not everyone has access to the Bible.

Hugh Ross' reference to nature as the 67th book of the Bible is a figure of speech that describes the relationship between the Bible (special revelation) and the creation (general revelation). Christians may disagree about the relationship of the two revelations and the degree to which general revelation plays in the road to salvation, but few would question the theology behind it. To suggest Ross' statement is heretical or raises human reasoning above the Bible, is simply an attempt to impugn the character of Hugh Ross.

Concluding Comments

Are the structures in the T. rex tissue actual blood vessels and cells? It's too early to tell. If they are the original structures does this support one creation model over another? No. In spite of Wieland's allegations that this discovery provides powerful support for young-earth creationism, a partially fossilized bone raises the same questions regarding the young-earth and old-earth models.

Like a modern day Don Quixote, Wieland sets out to defend the Bible from the so-called enemies of science and old-earth creationism. The cause may be noble, but the enemy is imaginary. Science may not be a Christian enterprise, but that does not mean it is inherently evil. And, old-earth creationism is not intent on destroying the Bible, but defending it.

In criticizing other Christian's view of the creation, we would all be well advised to pay heed to Jesus' statement: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (Matthew 7:3)

References

  1. Greg Moore, "Dinosaur Blood Revisited," Reasons To Believe, April 21, 2005, <www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/dinosaur_blood_revisited.shtml> (May 20, 2005).
  2. Carl Wieland, "Squirming at the Squishosaur," Answers in Genesis, May 16, 2005, <www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0516squishosaur.asp> (May 20, 2005).
  3. "Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation," Reasons To Believe, <www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml> (May 22, 2005).
  4. Terry Mortenson, "But from the beginning of …the institution of marriage?" Answers in Genesis, November 1, 2004, <www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/110ankerberg _response.asp> (May 16, 2005).
  5. John Ankerberg and Norman Geisler, "Differing Views of the 'Days' of Genesis," Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 2005, <www.johnankerberg.com /Articles/science /SC0704W1.htm> (May 31, 2005); John Battle, "Examining Mark 10:6," Seattle RTB Chapter Newsletter, June 2004, <www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle/newsletters/200406.pdf> (May 27, 2005).
  6. Rev. Lee Irons, "Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?" 2002, <www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/animal _death_before _the_fall .shtml> (May 31, 2005); John C. Munday Jr., "Creature Mortality: From Creation of the Fall?" March 1992. <www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/creature _mortality.shtml> (May 31, 2005); Greg Moore, "No Animal Death Before the Fall: Doctrine or Dogma?" December 2002, <www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle /newsletters /200212 /200212.pdf> (May 31, 2005).
  7. Gary Hurd, Ph. D, "Answers in Genesis," <http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/answers _in_genesis.htm> (June 2, 2005).
  8. Carl Wieland, "Sensational dinosaur blood report," Creation 19(4), Sept-Nov 1997, pp.42-43, <www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp> (May 26, 2005).
  9. Mary Higby Schweitzer, John R. Horner, "Intravascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex," Annales de Palιontologie, Volume 85, Issue 3, July-Sept 1999, p. 189.
  10. Carl Wieland, "Still Soft and Stretchy," Answers in Genesis, March 25, 2005, <www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp> (March 29, 2005).
  11. Erik Stokstad, "Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects," Science, Vol. 307, Issue 5717, March 25, 2005, p. 1852.
  12. Roger Wiens, "Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective," The American Scientific Affiliation, First edition 1994; revised version 2002, <www.asa3.org/ASA/ resources/Wiens.html> (June 20, 2005).
  13. Mary Schweitzer, "The Future of Molecular Paleontology," March 14, 2002, <http:// collection .nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/palaeontolgia/03-03-14/2002_2/editor/r_and_p.htm> (March 29, 2005)
  14. Rich Deem, "Dinosaur Soft Tissue Found in T. rex Bones," March 29, 2005, <www.godandscience.org/yougearth/dinoblood.html> (March 29, 2005).
  15. Ronald Numbers, The Creationists (University of California Press, 1992)
  16. "Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation," Reasons To Believe, <www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml> (May 22, 2005).
  17. Ibid.
  18. Ronald Numbers, The Creationists (University of California Press, 1992)