From the Inbox: Dinosaur Blood and Creationist Contentions

Oh, the Drama

Tyrannosaurus rex, Palais de la Découverte, Paris

Tyrannosaurus rex, Palais de la Découverte, Paris (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This post has turned out to be somewhat meaty, and it is permeated with a fascination real-life stage drama – dinosaurs, Jurassic Park, a good YouTube video, all intertwined with religious controversy and persecution, and wrapped up at the end with some lessons-learned and a challenge to My Fellow Christians. I hope the reader will enjoy the story as much as I have.

For my Christian readers, please do not miss the “My Fellow Christians” section at the end…

A New Type of Post

How it began… On a semi-frequent basis I now receive a range of emails from well-meaning friends on a range of subjects. I’m often sent links to science related articles. Sometimes I am sent queries about various biblical topics. I generally appreciate any information-oriented feedback. I try to take each point raised quite seriously.

After doing this several times, I’ve decided such content would make for good blog posts. I’ll post such information from time to time, always omitting the sender’s name, any personal comments, and in a generally sanitized form. I can see no reason that such information and time investment be limited in distribution to the original sender. The more information to the more people, the better. That said, here we go.

Dino Blood

A friend recently sent an email with a comment regarding dinosaur fossil finds that intrigued me. It essentially said the following:

  • Researchers had recently found intact dinosaur skin and blood cells which had not been fossilized.
  • Researchers had concluded that the theory of fossilization rates was incorrect and needed revision.
  • A suggestion that perhaps the dinosaur may not really have died so long ago; i.e., suggesting that the dating of fossils may be wrong.
  • That the lead scientist was a Christian.

My immediate response was that this sounded somewhat fringe. I hadn’t encountered any such discussion in a range of books that would likely have included it. Dawkins, Venema, Collins, Falk, Ayala, etc… No one had mentioned such a thing. So it sounded somehow “off”.

But my curiosity got the better of me. I wasn’t sent a link, but I found that I had to know, as often proves to be the case. So a couple of days later I dug in. The results were interesting, to say the least.

What follows is all too typical of what I have found over and over again in researching Christian claims regarding science, biblical texts, history, etc.

What About Those Findings?

So, was this a not-quite fossilized T. Rex, perhaps mummified with soft tissue still intact? Did it perhaps imply a recent life and death, defying evolutionary timelines? Was Darwinism about to be overturned? Or was this a fringe creation science researcher trying to drum up headlines?

None of the above.

In an article from the Smithsonian Magazine in 2006, we find that Mary Schwietzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh made the finding. Yes, she is a professing Christian. And no, she is not fringe. And yes, she is a subscriber to Neo-Darwinian evolution. And no, she sees no reason to revise the dating schema for the T. Rex or revise evolutionary theory.

What’s going on?

The 2005 announcement pertained to a 65 million year old T. Rex fossil. Un-decomposed soft tissue structures were found inside a leg bone from the T. Rex, apparently having been hermetically sealed inside the unbroken bone. The first discovery of this kind occurred as early as 1991, also by Schweitzer. In the present case, the T. Rex specimen was determined to be both female and pregnant. However, the T. Rex was indeed fossilized, and it should not be confused with recent-event natural mummification.

Schweitzer affirms the original dating of the T. Rex at 65 million years of age, affirms that it was indeed fossilized, and sees no reason to alter the existing evolutionary theory on the basis of this finding. In fact, Schweitzer was able to go quite a bit farther and determine that the T. Rex was pregnant when it died specifically by utilizing evolutionary theory, comparing it’s chemical markers to those of its closest living relative – ostriches.

While it is easy to find web commentators claiming that Schweitzer found hemoglobin in the bone, it seems she actually found heme, which is a sub-component of hemoglobin… a product of decomposition. She also found cell-like structures, but the 2005 paper does not conclude that they were in fact blood cells. Nor were they living or active or reproducing in any sense. Husks perhaps, but husks without a definite conclusion of origin. In any case, the interesting finding remains that tissue found in the bone cavity was still flexible and not mineralized like a fossil. This was indeed a controversial finding, and one that has been seriously questioned by others in the field. This finding has yet to be reproduced by other researchers, but for the time being, it does look legitimate and is being peer reviewed and published in major journals. The question on researchers’ minds remains: what mechanism could possible have preserved soft tissue inside of the leg bone? (We now seem to have an answer to this, but I’m going to make the reader wait, as I did, until further down in this post!)

The Christian Response

But the machinations of Christian creationism put gouges in this interesting story of discovery. As it happens, there have been many that have looked at Schweitzer’s findings and found a sense of Biblical vindication. Assertions have been made that evolutionary theory cannot permit such a thing to happen. Creationists suppose that a paleontological fissure has opened, and that which falls through must land on a young earth when dinosaurs did not die out so long ago. Thus, my interlocutor was by no means concocting the possible implications of this finding… they are being pushed very strongly by creationist figureheads, and being made to sound quite compelling. Perhaps its all in who one trusts… but in this case, trusting the creationist camp of rookie researchers proves unwise.

Schweitzer – a Christian herself – feels that creationist attempts to utilize her findings in arguing for either a young earth or recent dinosaur existence are entirely mistaken:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”

A bit more:

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it.

Dubious claims have developed on creationist websites that, to my mind, appear to boil down to confusion over some critical details. Heme is not hemoglobin. Cell-like structures are not cells. Soft tissue is not meat. And so on.

But at bottom, the real question is whether the dinosaur remains have been misdated by four orders of magnitude. Is the T. Rex fossil 5,000 years old instead of 65,000,000? For this reason, I am glad that the essential question of dating was put to Schweitzer in a NOVA interview, and it was answered very candidly:

Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field? Carl Baker, Billings, Montana

A: Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.

Schweitzer’s resistance to creationist co-opting has resulted in a sort of persecution – from the Christian side of the fence. To quote a Discover magazine article:

Some creationists, noting Schweitzer’s evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. “It is high time that the ‘Scientific’ community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled,” reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. “It rips my guts out,” she says. “These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They’re not doing a very good job. It’s no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists.” She told one zealot, “You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I’d run.”

And again, from the Smithsonian article:

She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

So bad behavior from the Bible believers has resulted from a scientific find that doesn’t support a creationist agenda. This type of thing deserves some scruff-shaking, to be sure.

However, what I really want to ask the creationist community is this: if the principal investigator, who is also a Christian, tells you that the data does not mean what you think it means, would it not be wise to listen a bit more and talk a bit less? These sideliners are not subject matter experts in the field, but they propose to know better what the data mean, when they do not even understand what the data are.

Inigo says it best:

But Wait, There’s More

Potholer54 has a debunking video dedicated to the content of these findings, which I present for your edification. He has gone back and read several of the major technical papers associated with the scientific research, and here he reviews them in a fun but understandable manner. It is also very clear what message has been pushed by the creationist community on the basis of Schweitzer’s research. I would also recommend looking at other videos from Potholer. Some are educational “nutshell” pieces, while others focus on debunking. Well researched in general, I’ve enjoyed the channel.

Ouch. However, I will add that this video may require updating because of still further information as follows in the next section.

Papers cited in video:

  • “Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone” — Schweitzer, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 1997
  • Soft-tissue vessels and Cellular preservation in Tyrranosaurus Rex  Schweitzer et al., Science 2005
  • Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. canadensis  Schweitzer et al., Science, May 2009

But Wait, There’s Still More

Fresh off the presses – just a few days ago – we now have new findings from subsequent research by Schweitzer, who now believes she can explain how and why such preservation occurs. On November 26th, she published new results in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

“The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, ‘Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that’s not going to be there?’ and nobody looks,” she said.

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years…. Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

“The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,” Schweitzer said. “They basically act like formaldehyde.”


Answers like these can be found where the researchers are diligent and do not jump to premature conclusions.

Boiling it Down

As we boil down this story, several things are clear.

  • Schweitzer is not a fringe researcher nor a creationist. She is a good scientist doing good science; she is mainstream and not fringe.
  • Her work has opened a new vista on what is possible with fossilization that will require revision of prior understanding; i.e., the Jurassic Park notion of preservation is vaguely corroborated. Some soft structures apparently can be preserved inside of unbroken bones, rather than in ambered mosquitoes. And there is now a mechanism to describe this preservation… a high iron environment, coupled with unbroken and fossilized bones that create a hermetically sealed container, in the right type of rock layer, at the right depth.
  • This work has no trickle-down effect on the existing dating methods, since they were always based on dating rock layers and not the fossils themselves.
  • The principal researcher, a Christian, objects categorically to suggestion that this find indicates that the dinosaur died recently or that the earth is young.
  • This is science doing what science does: learning and growing. It turns out that a limited set of biological structures, if sealed within a bone just right, can survive almost indefinitely.
  • Yet the work has been obsconded with by people who do not understand what it does and does not mean. All “fringe” content, where it exists, is coming not from the principal researcher, but from the sidelines.
  • Finally, as with all such finds, this one remains provisional. And controversial. It will be interesting to see whether or not the results will be corroborated by others.

And if there is a lesson to all of this, perhaps it is a simple one: it is amazing what 30 minutes on Google can bring to light.

My Fellow Christians

My fellow Christians, as one who was formerly counted among you for some 35 years, and as one who held such convictions strongly, I understand the mindset that we have. And I understand our blind spots.

I thusly extend a challenge to my brothers and sisters regarding evidence, which we have always been adept at considering with noted selectivity. Regarding evidence that supports our views, we keep it on the table. Nay, still further – we trumpet such evidence, pass it around, and try where we can to cast doubt on distasteful scientific theories with it. Yet we pass over the contrary evidence. And when a piece of positive evidence turns on us, or simply fizzles like stale dinosaur blood, our memories demonstrate a half-life shorter than any isotope.

Let us have a final and resolute answer: does evidence matter, or not?

I must ask this, because the creationist camp has seized this data (the 1%) and wielded it to support their case, even as they ignore the vast troves of comparable data that stands against them (the 99%). And in a grand rug pull, this 1% data has proven to give no support to the creationist’s contentions. In fact, evolutionary theory acquired a fresh new bragging right in the process – it helped to determine the dino was both female and pregnant. But the creationists’ hand has been tipped: it has been admitted that evidence matters in principle. And the basic principle of evidence remains unaltered:

One should understand what the data are before deciding what the data mean.

But why should the consideration of evidence stop with Schweitzer’s intriguing find? If we are to admit that fossil and blood evidence matters, then we should consider the entire range of such evidences, and not just the points of data we like. A complete consideration of evidence would include (as a start):

  • The entire fossil record (there are tons of transitional species)
  • The entire geological record (we’ve never found a fossil in the wrong layer)
  • The entirety of genomic evidence (it produces the same tree of descent as the fossils)

My friends, the creationists do not argue from the totality. They attempt to find exceptions, and then claim that the text of Genesis wins by default. Foul. Very, very much a foul. But the figureheads of the creationist movement make their bread and butter by it.

The challenge stated again: decide whether evidence matters or not, and stick to it. Either follow the evidence – the sum weight of all the evidence – or else refuse it categorically, even in defense of your views. Selective neglect remains the one mortal sin where data is concerned. So let there be no evidential schizophrenia. No flip-flopping. No inconstancy of resolve. No half-minded engagement. No beatific smiling away of the more troubling facts.

Instead, steel your minds to serious consideration of the following rather disquieting propositions.

My fellow Christians: it was God’s idea that creation should tell us its age.

If you will accept that God made this world as it is, then there is no avoiding the summary conclusions that follow. God positively loves evidence and natural history. God made trees to have rings. He need not have done so. Fossils must have been God’s idea. God made the ice caps to have seasonal layers. God made the earth to carry age-marking isotopes. This creation yearns everywhere to tell us its age: ancient. And if God made the earth and the cosmos, these annals could come from only one author. The very rocks do indeed cry out, and ear-stopping will not do.

My fellow Christians, God does not need our help.

If we will propose that the God who made this world is the same God who wrote Genesis, then whence the discrepancies – uncountable and ever growing in number? God does not need our help. We should find nothing whatever to be done in reconciling the Book of Genesis and the Book of Creation, if indeed they share an author. There should be no discrepancies to reconcile. We should not find ourselves desperate to clutch at what few datapoints seem to support our case. All data should do so, as easily as falling out of your chair. It doesn’t. Creation may indeed tell of the glory of the creator, but it does not tell of the glory of the Genesis account.

My fellow Christians, God is not testing our faith, and there is no conspiracy.

If science constitutes a grand conspiracy against Christianity, then advocates will have to explain sturdy Christian gentlemen like Alister McGrath, Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, etc. The majority of Christians working in the sciences of biology, geology, paleontology, etc., are part of the conspiracy. Creationists comprise the narrowest slice of practicing Christian scientists. The conspiracy, if there is one, seems to run much the other direction… The data harvested from the earth and the cosmos all points to something very old, something evolving. None of these theories fell from the sky, but rather, all grew from the chorus song of the swelling evidence.  Such earthen voices must be traced back to a single Choir Master. If there is a conspiracy, God would have to be in on it.

My fellow Christians, we have no reason to believe God wrote Genesis.

Please consider that Genesis was written by an unnamed penman, at an unspecified date, and describes a world without mention of dinosaurs, bacteria, a round earth, a sun-centered solar system, stars larger than our sun, a vast sprawling cosmos, etc., etc., etc. Indeed, the Bible as a whole imagines no world whatever beyond the provincial realm of the desert. Please consider that Genesis beckons to us from a time of ignorance and illiteracy, and that there are many other creation myths written at the same grade level – only they were written before ours. Genesis has an abysmal batting average, and I for one believe that God could probably manage one at least a touch over 500 if he really wanted to.

My fellow Christians, nobody concludes a young earth from the evidence itself… you have to believe in the text of Genesis for that.

If the Book of Nature testified of its youth, we would have Hindu and Buddhist scientists from the far side of the world calculating an odd 6 thousand year age directly from the evidence. They wouldn’t need hints from the Bible – much less an absolute commitment to it – in order to find this conclusion. (And indeed, it would not prove the Bible even if they did.) Math is math everywhere. The rules of addition are obtained by all cultures because they are true. The understanding of a round earth likewise. And so it would be with age. But the Book of Nature does not so testify. It is theology, and not objective evidence, that leads to the youthful conclusion.

My fellow Christians, please realize that we are “doing it again.”

Please consider how the church dealt with Galileo, and how ridiculous we now see the whole debacle concerning the sun-centered solar system. Please consider the accusations of conspiracy, collusion, satanic influence, and other bogus reasons that were leveled in that dark epoch, and recognize that we are indeed doing it all over again in the present.

Finally, please consider reading a Christian scientist on the subject of biological evolution. Please consider dispelling the ignorance that we do indeed revel in…

  • Falk, Darrel R. Coming to Peace with Science. Intervarsity Press, 2004.
  • Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,  2006

May dogma die to truth, wherever it errs.




  1. Excellent stuff. I really don’t understand how or why American Christians got so insane over evolution. I went to all Catholic schools and there was never any controversy. Science was fact, the OT was an analogy. Period.

    The archaeological equivalent of all this oogity boogity is Ron Wyatt who “claimed” to have found chariot wheels on the bottom of the Dead Sea.


  2. A thoroughly engrossing and enjoyable read. Thank you. And I loved the video.


    • Thanks Ark. I have really enjoyed all the videos from Potholer, just found him the other day for the first time. The only confusing thing is that he has two different channels going on YouTube.


  3. Muuullions of years! 🙂

    Great post, I enjoyed it very much and learned a few things.


  4. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Bris, I’ve created what I believe to be a good, debunking website, but although I love doing biblical research, and do it rather well I believe, you have one thing I lack, the patience to dig deeply into scientific research and expose the truth, and I applaud you for that, and to prove it, I will likely steal from you – hey, like the scorpion, it’s what I do —

    And yes, of course I’ll give credit, that’s also what I do. In fact, I’ve already steered a young-earth creationist to this article, but whether or not Laurie shows up, remains to be seen.


    • Arch,

      Very good, and very cool. I really need to spend more time digging one your site. I’m still doing a lot of conversations with friends at the moment, and that has kept me occupied. I sense that may have begun to wane, but we’ll see. I appreciate your feedback – and any information dissemination is just peachy with me. The more and broader the better.

      I love Potholer… have you ever seen his stuff before? He was new to me. Then again, a lot of things are. 🙂


      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        I’m not familiar with his work, but I’ll check it out – meanwhile, here’s a Christmas present for all who appreciate such things:


        • Arch,

          I hadn’t seen that one before… pretty humorous and pretty well done.

          Its all kinda different for us this year. First holiday season in the aftermath. Still adjusting to a lot of things. Going pretty well overall, but its sort of strange… having to figure out what all we’re doing, and why, and when, etc.

          I will say this, however: I have a very different ‘take’ on friends/relatives of mine that have been like the happy-go-lucky carolers in this video. They were pretty patient with a lot of likely condescension from us over the years. Its humbling… for people who thought they were doing the humble thing already. 🙂

          Thanks for sharing, I got a laugh – particularly when that yellow cover popped out from under the wrapping paper.


  5. Susan Burns says:

    I love your writing style.
    Since I have never met a YEC (that I know of) I am continually amazed that there is such a great need for debunkers.


    • Thanks Susan, I really appreciate that. Its a labor, but one of love.

      I’m equally amazed when people haven’t met YEC folks… I grew up in that, and all the people I knew thought the same. Its a strange thing. Over time, I realized the world was quite old and that the days of Genesis could have meant a number of things, but maintained a remnant belief in a fairly literal Genesis reading regarding human origins. It wasn’t till the last 18 months that I learned the much simpler bottom line to the situation.

      And as I have broadcast this information for the benefit of my friends and family (and new online friends as well), the fundamentalist viewpoint has reared itself like a dormant dragon.

      I think it comes to this… Religion is based upon the foundational premise that knowledge comes from authorities. Revelation is knowledge, that came to certain vessel figures, and that was passed on by the chain of authorities throughout church history, etc. Hence, when scientists present knowledge, they are treated as competing authorities of the same type. But they aren’t offering “received revelation”. Still, if you believe that all knowledge simply comes to the common man by authority, religious folk tend to think that it really does just boil down to which authority you will choose to believe. They don’t get that one type of knowledge is verifiable and the other isn’t. They just see white coat authorities versus black robe authorities.

      Its hard to crack that egg, if that’s all you’ve ever been told, and you’ve been told that knowledge simply boils down to what you’ve been told. Debunking is great, but the real issue is this authority assumption.

      Its hard to have serious dialogue with YEC folks sometimes. Most of the time.


    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      Susan, you have truly led a sheltered life – I have a gift for you, if you can call it that:


      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Ray “Banana Man” Comfort glosses over many things, he neglects to mention that Einstein remarked, “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

        As regards Sir Isaac Newton, he was a devout but unorthodox Christian and, unusually for a member of the Cambridge faculty, he refused to take holy orders in the Church of England, perhaps because he privately rejected the doctrine of trinitarianism. He also noticed the irregularities in the orbits of the planets (which, over time, correct themselves), and believed that comets were angels, sent by his god, to correct those orbits. He was also a life-long virgin, believing that all women were nasty – though a brilliant mind, one has to winnow his belief system, and allow the chaff to blow away – unless,of course, you’re a nasty woman and share his belief.

        Further, even if Comfort were correct, that the Universe required a creator (which Krause and others have proven it doesn’t), of the thousands of gods Humankind has created, there is nothing to indicate that that creator was the one to whom Comfort et al subscribe.

        Of course, Kirk Cameron’s testimony is purely anecdotal, therefore subjective and totally unreliable.

        Cameron, a has-been actor, says there are no transitional forms – I beg your pardon?! What am I?!!!!! Hear what he said about my family tree (which we used to roost in) – note that I don’t say ANYthing about HIS!

        The Atheist lady has a VERY annoying voice, but neither she nor I can do anything about that.

        Interesting that Comfort uses as his closing argument, a man transported from a hundred years ago, into the present, viewing a modern TV, and thereby confirming the statement of Arthur C. Clark, a confirmed atheist, who said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

        If you can manage to wade through that, this is MUCH shorter, I promise:


        • The banana. The first time I saw this one (a while ago), I about spit my drink all over the screen. Sometimes I honestly wonder what is wrong with his mind. And I wanted to give him a coconut and ask him to explain its resistance to human access.


          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            His god doesn’t want you to have it – shellfish, pork, kids stewed in their mother’s milk, coconuts – it’s on the list – maybe you missed the memo.


      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        And last, but certainly not least, if you still retain any interest in Comfort’s ten commandments, at least consider this alternative:


      • Funny coincidence, but I was just starting into the Comfort/Cameron debate this AM before work. I’ve watched many debates with real scholars, and I was sort of turned off by the whole amateur-hour tenor it took. I likely will finish it though, as I find the fact of Comfort’s following to be rather disturbing, and its good to be informed about folks like him. Cameron, well, at least he’s got his looks.


      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        And finally, I’d like to leave you with my own personal favorite, and what I believe to be the only commandment you’ll ever need. Each episode, Jerry Springer closed his show with it: “Be good to yourself, and each other.

        Do we really need more than that?


      • Susan Burns says:

        After watching Kirk Cameron it is abundantly clear that I am not the sheltered one. How can a person grow up in today’s society and be so insulated? These religious people clearly do not understand how convoluted their logic becomes without the cover of magic. They are so insulated they have no idea they are embarrassing themselves.


  6. archaeopteryx1 says:

    “Cameron, well, at least he’s got his looks.”

    The only eternally true statement: “This, too, shall pass.


  7. I also wrote a post debunking the claims about having found dino blood. At most, they identified some heme bits,which are mere fragments of the hemoglobin molecule. Meanwhile full blood cells consist not only of hemoglobin but much else besides. So, they found some heme. That’s all folks.

    Liked by 1 person


  1. […] have ranged widely. It is hard to call out a favorite, though I would have to include the posts on dinosaur blood, the New Testament timeline, Justin Martyr, and Pontius Pilate as strong […]


SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Michael Seidel, writer

Science fiction, fantasy, mystery and what-not

cas d'intérêt

Reflections of a Francophile

Two Wheels Across Texas

My Quest to ride through all 254 Texas Counties

She Seeks Nonfiction

A skeptic's quest for books, science, & humanism

Uncommon Sense

I don’t want to start a class war; it started a long time ago and, unfortunately, we lost.

%d bloggers like this: