Soft tissues in Triceratops horn

by Mark Armitage
(California State University Northridge)

See my published article (yes, young earth creationists DO publish their young earth findings in reputable international journals...) on soft bone in a Triceratops horn fossil collected at the world famous Hell Creek Formation in MT last year:

Soft tissues in a highly vascular horn, exposed to water, mud and plant roots, and who knows how many billions of microbes does NOT stay soft and stretchy for 65 million years.

Face it folks - the earth is young and evolution is a fairy tale for grownups.

Mark H. Armitage, M.S., Ed.S

Comments for Soft tissues in Triceratops horn

Click here to add your own comments

Jun 25, 2015
Yes infrared article is the one
by: Anonymous

Hi, Paul - yes the paper you found on infrared is the one I was referring to. There is incomplete covering of the putative iron "nanocrystals" on the vessels so the preservation claimed by her is unsupported by her micrographs. She is also not even discussing the soft fibrillar BONE tissues - she is sticking only to Blood vessels (because that is where the iron is). So maybe backpedaling is a bit strong but as I say - the tissues I found never come in contact with the iron so how can they be so well preserved? Mark

Jun 25, 2015
Of interest to you?
by: Paul Pavao

Lower down I mentioned a Smithsonian article I have not researched, and which I will probably not research now because of my health. I am having to narrow my focus.

Here's the Smithsonian article, which says that scientists will probably be finding a lot of soft tissue in ancient fossils. I don't think the article suggests a mechanism for the soft tissue being preserved millions of years, but that is the point of the article:

Jun 25, 2015
MSA 2014 Paper
by: JoeCoder

Hello Mark. It looks like this is the paper you are referring to?

The paper says:

"Fe-catalyzed, non-enzymatic crosslink pathways were explicitly identified and tested on modern, demineralized chicken type I collagen; subsequent analyses of the treated tissues indicated that both pathways could have contributed to vessel preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, or other species"

I don't see how this indicates Mary Schweitzer "is now backpedaling the 'iron preserve' hypothesis" ? It sounds like she still supports it?

From previous reading, I'm skeptical of soft tissue being able to be preserved for so long, but I do not have enough background in chemistry to follow much of the paper.

Jun 17, 2015
Wow! Ignored by Google!
by: Paul

The MSA exists and has a web site at Finding that URL through Google was an adventure. The site is not on page 1 or 2 of Google results for "microscopy society of america." Wow.

It all seems very official and scientific, but non-members are not going to find the article.

A Number of 2014 articles from her are at this search:

Jun 17, 2015
to JoeCoder
by: Anonymous

MSA= Microscopy Society of America. You can find her paper in the proceedings of last summer's annual meeting.

Jun 17, 2015
New article on soft tissue
by: Paul

I have not had a chance to research this article to see the paper it is based on, but the Smithsonian magazine article seemed to be of interest to this thread:

Jun 17, 2015
To Paul
by: Anonymous

Sounds good - I assumed you were not a believer and I did not want to offend in any way. So yes, I will pray for you. Get better soon.

Jun 16, 2015
Link to Schweitzer 2014 MSA paper?
by: JoeCoder

Hello Mark Armitage. You previously wrote:

"Read Mary's MSA 2014 paper (Hartford, CT) from this summer where she is now backpedaling the 'iron preserve' hypothesis."

Can you link me to this paper. I can't find it and I'm not even sure what MSA stands for?

Edited by webmaster to correct 2104 to 2014.

Jun 11, 2015
Thanks Mark
by: Paul (Webmaster)

I have to ask. "Thinking happy thoughts"? Usually I get a kind word like that from unbelievers. Believers usually say, "I'll pray for you."

I have no objection to you saying what you said. I really appreciate it, in fact, but it sure aroused my curiousity. Are you perhaps under the impression I am an unbeliever? I am a full-fledged, sold-out, going-all-the-way follower of Jesus. I have given him my life, he is my King, I am empowered by his grace, a leader in my church. I have followed Jesus long enough for him to root through all the cellars of my soul and to be disgusted with myself hundreds of times. I have experienced the immense power of the "reckoning" of Romans 6:11 in obedience to the one that made it possible for us to be dead to sin and alive to God in King Jesus.

The only thing I don't believe is that the early chapters of Genesis are historically accurate, at least not precisely so, and I believe in an old earth and evolution.

Otherwise, I'm going all the way for Jesu, even through two very unusual cancers and the lingering, very painful after effects of the secend one.

So thank you for the happy thoughts (sincerely), but if you are avoiding Christian terminology on purpose, you do not have to with me.

May 27, 2015
Hope you feel better!
by: Anonymous

Hi, Paul - feel free to delete this but I just read your post about your health. So sorry to hear about your struggles and I am thinking happy thoughts for you. Hope you get back to 100% soon.
With regards,
mark armitage

May 27, 2015
This is spam comment from someone who can't find a legitimate job
by: stallone

The following comment is just another evil person spamming us. I removed his link.

I didn't get the proper idea of what the issue your blog is being generated. I like to see much information about those soft tissues in your next update. But on my part I will do the research paper writing company and try to answer you as soon as possible.

May 05, 2015
by: Paul (Webmaster)

Sometimes it's hard to get to the spam comments quickly, Mark. That really frustrates me because I find spam annoying.

I am probably going to require comments on this site to be approved before they go up, which is sad because of my lifestyle and health. Sometimes with travel or an extended hospital stay it takes days to get to managing web site comments. I have had two periods, each 3-4 weeks, in which I did not even pick up my phone, much less my computer. I mostly didn't eat during those weeks, either. One bout like that after the marrow transplant for leukemia (early 2012), and another a couple months ago when I didn't recover from the fourth round of chemo treatment for lymphoma.

In 2003 I ran a 2-hour marathon. In 2006, I ran 50 kilometers around a small mountain in Alabama. That took over 7 hours, just under double the time of the winner. Now, I'm trying to get back to being able to run the quarter-mile length of the road I live on. Right now, my longest run is to the third tree after the fire hydrant that is in the neighbor's yard three houses down ... lol.

May 04, 2015
Why did the spam filter fail?
by: Mark Armitage

Hey Paul - looks like you missed the comment made today by a british paper mill...
feel free to delete this one along with that one :-)

Apr 18, 2015
by: Paul


Those weren't encouraging words. Well, they were, but they weren't directed at you. The wording was directed to you, but really the words were meant to deceive me into thinking he read the thread when in fact he had no idea what the subject was. Maurice's post doesn't actually state the topic in his comment. The comment was just an opportunity to post a link. I delete all comments like that. I get a lot of them.

I'm sure there are lots of people who would love to encourage you. I support a couple missionaries in Africa who swear up and down that they've studied enough to prove me wrong on evolution. I alway laugh because they have no time for anything like that, I no longer have time for something like that, either.

Anyway, they would probably give you real kudos and encouragement, not the fake stuff Maurice wrote.

Apr 18, 2015
RE: Fantastic article
by: armitage

Hello, Maurice and many thanks for your post.

I appreciate the encouraging words, because I am up against million dollar labs with million dollar budgets trying to run my own rag-tag equipment to get out the truth about soft tissues in dinosaur remains which are everywhere. I also produced a video showing how anyone can take a dinosaur bone and release the soft tissues from it:

Anyone can do this!

Stay in touch!!
mark armitage

Apr 13, 2015
Armitage and dinosaur soft tissues
by: armitage

And if you Google "Armitage Triceratops" this page is #1.

We went back to Hell Creek last summer and found soft tissues in Triceratops FRILL and Condyle (look it up, please). Our new papers are in press...
We are going back to Hell Creek this summer to dig up a juvenile T. rex - I am predicting we will (again) find soft tissues...

Yes, the silence is deafening.
Mark Armitage

Apr 13, 2015
by: Paul (Webmaster)

I got a spam comment here I needed to delete, so I looked at this thread again. I did a little research on the internet, and the responses to Mark are, uh, pitiful. While this one issue seems definitive to Mr. (Dr.?) Armitage, it just doesn't have anywhere near the weight to override the evidence for evolution, at least to me.

Nonetheless, on this issue, right now it appears Mark Armitage has the last word. Funny, this page is #2 on Google for "Armitage soft tissue." A news article is first, and the rest of the first page is almost all repeats of the news article. Even has no mention of him.

That is indeed a lot of silence.

Apr 01, 2015
Please be serious!
by: Anonymous

Science is the victim here. No one in their right mind could believe soft tissue could last millions of years but to the atheist evolution is all they have so it has to be defended despite how insane the story gets!
Not only is there soft tissue and blood in many of the remains at Hell's Creek and other sites around the world but according to Jack the Dino Hunter they still stink of death!
They are thousands , not millions of years old.
Most of the fossils were "dated" more than 70 years prior to the discovery of radioactivity , they simply made them up . Of the evolutionists I have met very few , far less than 1 percent, have any idea how the process of radiometric dating is used , it's 3 unknowable assumptions and the fact that more dates are tossed because they don't "fit" than are kept. Evolution has made a mockery of science and is an unending string of outright frauds from Piltdown Man to Piltdown Bird. It is faith versus faith , evolution has no scientific defence.

Mar 18, 2015
Soft Tissues in Dino Bone ARE real
by: Anonymous

Hi JulieK - yes it is incredible that soft tissues are still found in dinosaur bones - buy they ARE there. In fact we just went back to Hell Creek and found soft tissues in Triceratops Frill and in the Condyle bone (a big bone at the base of the skull). I am making the prediction that soft tissues in dinosaur remains are the NORM and not the exception. We plan to go back to Hell Creek in May of 2015 to search for more.
Mark Armitage

Feb 24, 2015
soft tissues last millions of years????
by: Mark Armitage

REALLY? Just because you say so?

I repeat: "Soft tissues in a highly vascular horn, exposed to water, mud and plant roots, and who knows how many billions of microbes does NOT stay soft and stretchy for 65 million years."

Scientists have already published studies of tissue and protein decay and it happens FAST.

The half-life of DNA is published at 500 years.

GO DIG UP THE PET YOU BURIED IN THE BACK YARD and see how much soft tissue remains are left.....

Feb 24, 2015
re construction
by: Mike killy

The soft tissue will remain in its state for even millions of years. That is the reason why scientists use the soft tissue for the research purpose. They can re create an organism by using its soft tissue. Ryu: Beverly Diamonds Reviews

Nov 15, 2014
Monoclonal Antibodies
by: John

Mr. Armitage,
I was looking for your contact information to ask you some questions about your research, but after reading your post I am pretty certain that I won’t get a serious answer.
Is this the new Scientist? Smack talking your peers?
There must be a textbook somewhere about how to vastly oversimplify processes in order to make them appear silly.
When you say a Scientist is back peddling, what do you mean? A hypothesis is a guess. If you are not wrong a good portion of the time, then you are fooling yourself.
In your paper "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" you explain the reasons that your soft tissue samples should not be considered biofilm and go on to explain how Schweitzer’s work showed binding of antibodies to support the presence of collagen. Why do you think that this was important in Schweitzer’s work and why do you think that it should have been important in yours?

Aug 26, 2014
Blood is not a preservative
by: Mark Armitage

1. Mary Schweitzer only proved that you can take some soft blood vessels from a living organism, place them into a bucket in an air-conditioned lab and soak them in gallons of broken red blood cells that was treated with an anti-coagulant and it doesn't break down very much over 2 years. Keeping soft blood vessels soaking in blood in an air-conditioned lab is NOTHING like exposing unprotected dino tissues to the freeze/thaw cycle of the Badlands of MT, to rain, to plant roots to fungi, to bacteria, to protists, to insects, flies, maggots, ants, mice, rats ETC ETC. It is amazing that anything survived even for 6,000 YEARS in MT - let alone the MILLIONS of supposed years you folks MUST have for your evolutionary fairy tale. 2. ANY chemist will school you on the oxidative properties of iron (it rusts out cars back east, remember? 3. EVERYBODY knows that if you go dig up a pet that you buried in the back yard 20 years ago NOTHING will remain. 4. Read Mary's MSA 2104 paper (Hartford, CT) from this summer where she is now backpedaling the "iron preserve" hypothesis.

Aug 26, 2014
Dr. Mary Schweitzer
by: Paul (Webmaster)

Dr. Mary Schweitzer is the person who first discovered red blood cells in preserved dinosaur bones. She was the first because no one else was brash enough to destroy a fossil--or portion of a fossil--to look for what might be found inside.

Dr. Schweitzer did what young earthers hate to do: she researched her research to get an accurate explanation. The only explanation that young earthers care about is "evolution is false."

Here's the results of her research. I'd say this case is put to rest.

Jul 30, 2014
Saying something doesn't make it true
by: Soft Tissue Softer Science

Congratulations on finding soft tissue in the triceratops horn. Further evidence that soft tissue can persist in ancient material. HOWEVER, merely saying that soft tissue cannot be millions of years old doesn't make it so. This is a leap that you cannot make by the simple finding of this tissue. Do you have any EVIDENCE that the tissue is only a few thousand years old? Or did you just make that conclusion because it fits your theory of Genesis? Did you actually do an EXPERIMENT to determine how long soft tissue can persist in the identical conditions you found?

Sep 21, 2013
Not me
by: Paul Pavao (Webmaster)

I don't post or not post anything here. I do delete the occasional comment, but that is rare and only for really rude or really foolish comments or spam.

If you tried to post an image, either you did something wrong or the software failed. Feel free to try again. If it doesn't work, email me or leave me a comment here and I will find out why it didn't work.

You posted a link to your article, and even the abstract has all the photos from the article.

Aug 14, 2013
Triceratops photo
by: Mark A

Hi, again - just wondering why you did not post the electron microscope photo I took of SOFT dinosaur bone cells (osteocytes) on my evidence page?? Are you afraid to post my published findings in the event that your readers will be swayed by my laboratory RESEARCH?


Aug 14, 2013
Age of the Earth
by: Mark A

Hi, Paul and thanks. I don't know that I have said anywhere that I think the Earth is 7,000 years old - I would be comfortable with 10,000 to 20,000 years - but still it is quite young compared to what my evolutionary colleagues would claim. If you don't have deep time - you can't have frogs changing into men - except for in Disney movies. Radiohalos and soft dino tissues (my 2 examples of why the Earth is young) are only two of many evidences for a young Earth - please encourage your readers to study the creationist side, like I did as a trained evolutionist. The evidence changed my mind.

Aug 14, 2013
Sorry for delay
by: Paul Pavao (Webmaster)

First, Mark, let me apologize for the delay in approving your submission. I moved to a new house over the first weekend of August, and I could barely get to my computer, much less actually deal with the emails that came in.

The delay was not purposeful.

Second, I looked up your link, and I looked up the journal it was published in. I was unable to find any responses to your article, so it can at least stand here to see if there will be any responses.

It's pretty weird to get what seems to be a legitimate post from a creationist--with a degree at that. (I did read that you believe the world to be 7,000 years old.)

I have never seen that before, not on my site, nor on any other. Congratulations.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Creation Argument Invitation.