Dinosaurs are Young. YES. ALL Dinosaurs are YOUNG.

Dinosaurs are proven young in now a vast variety of ways. Pretty much, any scientific angle you approach dinosaurs from you are going to find piles, and piles, and piles, and more piles on top of piles of evidence that dinosaurs are not just young…… but very, very, very young. All dinosaurs. In these journals, we are going to take a basic look at merely the tip-of-the-iceberg of that evidence. Though the top-spokespeople for the academic / evolution community assure me that all this evidence is “nonsense” and probably “stuff I shouldn’t be looking at”…… I disagree, and lay it in your hands  to decide.
In fact, the evidence for dinosaurs being young has built up to a point where many Christians and also those in Basic, Real-World, Practical Application Sciences call them, “Missionary Lizards.”

1) Dinosaur Soft Tissue, Blood, Blood Vessels, Veins….. and even DNA

First, and probably the most obvious, is dinosaur soft-tissue. Dinosaur soft-tissue is now found all over the globe…… and has been growing in finds for decades. In fact, even the Archaeopteryx (which many in the evolution circles claimed was the “absolute evidence dinosaurs turned into birds”) has now been discovered to have soft-tissue in it (meaning it’s young too). Beneath is the first find to have made national news, though certainly not the first time soft-tissue has been found in dinosaurs bones.

These actual and real images of T-Rex soft tissue, blood and blood vessels shown above were discovered by a team in Montana led by Jack Horner (the original Jurassic Park movie’s technical advisor). And, Jack Horner is also the same man who promoted the idea that “dinosaurs turned into birds” to the evolution community. What is interesting about this is that Jack Horner, who himself believed (at least at that time) that dinosaurs were truly millions and millions of years old — received much heat and anger from the evolutionary academics……  This rage of angry letters and such appears based solely and entirely on the fact that he dared release the soft-tissue data to the public.

Darwinism: the New Myths of the Modern Age.

In fact, these hazy issues within and seeming to surround the academic community (particularly within the narrow margins of those dependent on -or- grant funded to promote the theology and beliefs of Darwinism; which of course are well-recorded to have been started by Darwin himself in 1859 — a man who had many, many, many “theories” in his life, one degree in Religion/Theology, and no scientific background of any known type ) are quite real from my view.  Though those in the practical application sciences & mathematics (those who actually build things, engineer, design, make the medical fields possible from physicians to pharmaceuticals, to nearly every field of development and advancement on Earth…… etc… etc… etc…. ) don’t seem “under-the-gun” — if you will — to bow on their knees before Darwinism (or any other Philosophical or Theological writings from the mid-1800s for that matter); but, on the flip side of the coin, the academic community can seem to some an entirely different beast altogether. So, when you hear evolutionary theory spokespeople boast and throw around numbers like “99% of our — quote unquote “scientists” — hold firmly” to the beliefs of evolutionism during campaigns to (interesting and strangely) so often to mock, belittle or smear anyone holding hard evidence in their hand against what they’re promoting — note that that “99%” they are referencing are “academic scientists” — not practical application people in the field, or real world technology and development. (LAYMAN’S TERMS: When they say 99% of “scientists” support evolution, they are talking about university professors and others generally grant funded in the evolutionary sciences, or paid to teach it —- they are NOT talking about those that need stuff to work in the “private sector”).
And — that statement (above) is not meant to insult the academic community. To the absolute contrary, my heart cries out both to and for the academic community and their sciences…… Some of the most heart-breaking conversations I have are from those who reach out (often to have private conversations) in the academic community (specifically the hard-core science end). From heads of microbiology departments, to geology, to paleontology, obviously chemistry……. and of course genetics…… etc.. etc… etc… And — from my end — it is a little frustrating to me personally (just as I am sure it is to them) when I hear professor, after professor, after professor — from pretty much every possible sector of the life sciences — privately tell me, (in some form or another) “I think everyone in my field understands that evolution never happened, even if it certainly can’t be spoken aloud.”

How could my heart not sink for the men and women in these university positions…….. like a return to the days when segments of the science community had to pitch the politics of cigarettes being healthy…….. and the famous frauds Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man as real Monkey-Men “Missing Links”.
So, in short, when I hear men and women from the universities — from Ivy Leagues, to State Universities, to Community Colleges, in now every possible flavor and spectrum of the life sciences over the years, ask me not to publicly use their names because it could cost them their careers, their reputation, and the food on their family’s tables…… Yes, I take them seriously. And, following suit with that, I take numbers like 99% of “scientists” (university academics) support evolution about equally as seriously as I took Saddam Hussein’s claimed “fair and unbiased” election results.

The evolution segments of the academic community’s initial claims about the now global finds of dinosaur soft tissue were that: “Even though it looks like dinosaur blood veins, vessels and tissue…. It must be biofilm that developed after-the-fact.”

These arguments by Evolution supporters and the Darwin theological crowd lasted until about 2011………………..

Then, in 2011, ten leading universities and institutes including Harvard, the University of Manchester, and the University of Pennsylvania published in PLoS One, a peer-reviewed journal, that they had verified that presumed dinosaur material, and I quote their findings, “it is indeed original biological tissue from a dinosaur.”

So, following this finding, the evolution segments of the academic community, changed their story once again. Now apparently, if I understand them correctly, dinosaurs tissue  can mysteriously survive millions and millions of years. And, they are working long and hard on a battery of theories and new ideas to support what they seem to need pretty badly to be true……… Have you ever been in one of those uncomfortable conversations with someone that just won’t admit the blatantly obvious despite being surrounded by their own evidence to the contrary……. Yep….. That is where this could easily seem to be at in regard to dinosaurs….. At evolution’s university level, no-less.
Here’s their reality — from my view — that most may not realize: They lose the dinosaurs, they’ve lost their evolution theory. Those handful large lizards from the ancient world have been the Darwin theory’s greatest sales-pitch and marketing tool…… When one looks at the actual data, it is not just the claimed “missing links” that are “missing”……. This problem only gets worse when you start asking: What led to the monkeys (primates)? And, accordingly, it really gets brutal and ugly for Darwin if one were to probe further: So, what led to those giant dinosaurs? Where is the evidence for that?

Bottom-line: How do we know that soft tissue found in dinosaur bones now all around the globe is young?

– the short-lived Carbon 14 everywhere including in dinosaur bones
– the 521-year half-life of DNA that helps date the actual age of fossils containing dinosaurian genetic material, and
– the mostly left-handed amino acids that should be equally right and left handed if they were “Jurassic”, and
– the research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological molecules could survive.

2) Carbon 14 now found Everywhere…… Including Dinosaurs.

Accordingly, Carbon 14 used to seem as if it where the “evidence tool” for those who didn’t snap to and nod along with Charles Darwin’s theories, views, opinions……  and their updates, modern morphologies, and plastic monkey-men displays that came along with them. Now, at the point we are at today, many within the sciences of all flavors (even academia) seem to shy away from it (Carbon Dating) at greater and greater distances. It is true some do still sing the praises of the “precision of Carbon 14 Dating”, along with other dating methods such as radiometric dating — and, they are absolutely welcome to that opinion and view if it tickles them right — but, that certainly has not been the results and findings of my research.
And, the other types of longer dating tests — such as Radiometric dating and Potassium–argon dating —- actually produce numbers that are more “off-target” than carbon dating could ever dream. Here is what I would encourage anyone to look into on their own, C-14 Dating seems to consistently spit out numbers and dates all over the place (a topic that certainly deserves more than I can give it in the context of this particular article)…….. None-the-less, here is the long and short of this, Carbon 14 may pump out numbers all over the map when dating something (like is seen in the C-14 dates of dinosaur bone below) — however — on the flip side of the coin, it absolutely demonstrates that something cannot be millions of years old simply by the sheer virtue of having C-14 in it at all.
Dinosaurs generally date in the rages of between 20 thousand and 40 thousand (C-14 test years) from present day…….. just like Mammoths and other claimed “ice-age” animals also date in these same ranges. This is generally thought to be because the atmosphere (including its carbon levels, such as C-14) were different prior to the global flood. Many of the plants and animals found underneath the ground — like a mixed bag of billions of dead things that ended in trauma as entire buried ecological systems intertwined with sea shells, clams and fish — many of the enormous creatures and massive plants buried right under our feet required an entirely different atmosphere and ecological systems to exist at all. Long story short, different atmosphere in the past equals giant numbers on your C-14 test for stuff you pull out of the ground.

In the instance of Jack Horner and Bob Enyart: Jack Horner, Jurassic Park’s original technical guy, has refused even to this very day to accept Bob Enyart’s offer to pay Jack $25,000 plus all expenses to carbon date his famous “dino soft-tissue” T-Rex discovery in Montana…… simply letting the cards fall where they may. Jack Horner stated on a recorded audio — after Bob Enyart had increased the amount several times from $10,000 in order to get the basic C-14 testing done —  Jack stated that it didn’t have anything to do with the amount of money, and that no amount of money would get the C-14 test done……. as doing the test (his words), “that wouldn’t help us.” These replies seem a bit odd as Jack Horner is holding a T-Rex chock-full of bloody soft tissues and stretchy blood vessels.  Mary Schweitzer — who worked with Jack Horner on the T-Rex and technically made the soft tissue discovery — is reported to have privately done a C-14 test……. Then, later reported she stated that she couldn’t remember the results.
However, I respect both of them greatly for even releasing the discovery at all….. And, one can only imagine (and clearly read about) the levels of literal nightmare carnage from the Darwin crowd they have both been drug through following releasing any part of the data publicly.
And, at this point, the C-14 data from Jack Horner’s T-Rex — though it would be nice — really isn’t terribly relevant at this point. As seen above, C-14 results are all over the place when it comes to dinosaur bones of nearly all types, shapes and sorts.
The Evolution / Darwinism community initially claimed that “all dinosaur C-14 results come from Creationists!” A statement which, as a side note, not only turns out to be incorrect, but is an extremely hard to believe defense mechanism…….  Are they actually telling me that all science finds and discoveries do NOT need to be examined from their view, especially of this nature and magnitude? 

Summary on Carbon Dating of Dinosaur Bones

Whatever the case, the Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones “issue” for the evolution segments of the academic world seems to have spread any way that you look at it. It is no longer limited to an array of private organizations (many with vastly different views one from the other) who have carbon dated 100s and 100s of pieces of dinosaur bone at both university labs and private labs all across the United States, but in 2012 the Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore gave C-14 dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens.

All C-14 dates on this entire variety of tested dinosaurs ranged from 22,000 to 39,000 years, identical to the predictions made in advance of such tests by both private researchers in the U.S. and Creation Science Organizations.