The Dinosaur Delusion--Biologicals Found that Invalidates Evolution

ARTICLE (THE JUST SO EVOUTIONARY BS STORY)
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer | November 26, 2013 07:01pm ET
...... The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.
...... The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent Trex unearthed in Montana.
"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible," Schweitzer told LiveScience.
......"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. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.
Iron lady
...... 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."
....MY RESPONSES TO THE CLAIMS GIVEN IN THE ARTICLE
OCCUMS RAZOR: The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.
...... So according to the article—for 300 years—science taught that fossils, which have to be millions of years old, could not and would not have any biological materials left. According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, all fossils are “rocks,” even the bone materials are gone.
However, now today Evolutionists know differently but they keep sticking to their millions of years MANTRA story.
...... The History of dinosaur artifacts like cave paintings and pottery, proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that men living even a few thousand years ago must have “put their eyes” on these creatures.
Furthermore, FREE RADICALS, antioxidents and mary Schweitzer’S THEORY WHERE IS THE LOGIC?
......Free Radicals Medical Definition:
an especially reactive atom or group of atoms that has one or more unpaired electrons; especially : one that is produced in the body by natural biological processes or introduced from outside (as in tobacco smoke, toxins, or pollutants) and that can damage cells, proteins, and DNA by altering their chemical structure.
......Anti-Oxidents Definition:
a substance that inhibits oxidation, especially one used to counteract the deterioration of stored food products.
a substance such as vitamin C or E that removes potentially damaging oxidizing agents in a living organism.
So the Article claims that iron in the blood can preserve the tissues like a type of formaldehyde
...... Now I have to break one of my rules not to use evidence from a Creationist Scientist because no one else dare talk about it. The man in the video is Mark Armitage
Lets Watch the Video https://youtu.be/iN04I8HuFGw
Why was Mark Armitage fired?
Do “evolutionists” seem to care about following the evidence where it leads?
Do “scientists” in general have a bias?
What is wrong with Mary Schweitzer’s theory of “Free Radical Iron” acting like a tissue preservative?
ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM VIDEOS
https://studio.youtube.com/video/uZ0Fg2Jju0Y/edit
https://studio.youtube.com/video/Ld_3cCjM0SU/edit
Why won’t scientists allow a Carbon 14 test to be done?
Why—is the previous “science belief” of 1 Million Years max for biological materials thrown out—instead of realizing that perhaps the Dinosaurs in question are NOT older than 1 Million Years?
What happens to Scientists that don’t toe the Evolutionary Fairy Tale?
A GOOD HELPING OF EVOLUTIONARY BIAS ANYONE.
THIS IS WHY I WILL NEVER BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION—EVERYTHING—EVEN SCIENCE IS PC.