Posted on 09/29/2009 10:10:39 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The most popular dinosaur is probably Tyrannosaurus rex, a Latin term that loosely translates as “king lizard.” Based on evolutionary assumptions, scientists have long held that these dinosaurs lived for “only” 3 million years, approximately 68 to 65 million years ago. A fossil looking remarkably like a small version of T. rex, however, has been located in a much lower rock layer.[1] Using the evolutionary dates assigned to the relevant strata, this adds 60 million years to the T. rex timeline. If the evolutionary interpretation was this wrong about one creature, can it be trusted on the rest of the fossil record?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Evolution can’t explain a cell.
Fixed it.
The fossil record doesn’t say the first word about the antiquities of dinosaur types, that’s all based on assumptions.
Stop the presses. New discovery proves old ASSUMPTIONS are incorrect. Who ever heard of such a thing?
ping!
Nothing like having a minor problem in evolutionary theory cause much bigger problems for your Young Earth theory.
You would be wrong.
No “evolutionary assumption” is required to date fossils.
Oh my gosh, how so simple an argument ends the debate.
irreducible complexity
checkmate darwin...
Still doesn’t explain how Jesus and Moses managed to ride those huge suckers.
“Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so they must have been intentionally designed, as is, by an intelligent entity.
But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.”
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/
You might want to update your talking points.
Plants and animals have two different types of cells. I learned this in biology in 1999. Plants have a rectangular box shape, humans have a round shape.
How could all the parts of a cell have evolved the way they did, to work in synchronicity with everything else?
There is no scientific way to date fossils.Even if RC dating and heavy metal isotope dating schemes actually worked which they don’t, rc dating is useful only to around 50K years and the others wouldn’t apply to fossils since there’s no way to claim you’d ever find lead, uranium, strontium, or rubidium or any such in fossil remains.
Name one.
Nice try. The Bible never once indicates that dinos were ever domesticated. Indeed, the Bible seems to indicate quite the opposite...namely, that even those humans who were considered mighty were quite terrified of what are almost certainly descriptions of dinosaurs:
Job 40
15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;
The willows by the brook surround him.
23 Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;
Job 41
1 “Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,
Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?
2 Can you put a reed through his nose,
Or pierce his jaw with a hook?
3 Will he make many supplications to you?
Will he speak softly to you?
4 Will he make a covenant with you?
Will you take him as a servant forever?
5 Will you play with him as with a bird,
Or will you leash him for your maidens?
6 Will your companions make a banquet of him?
Will they apportion him among the merchants?
7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons,
Or his head with fishing spears?
8 Lay your hand on him;
Remember the battle—
Never do it again!
9 Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false;
Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him?
10 No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.
Who then is able to stand against Me?
Thanks for the ping!
Yet, every knight errant in the early feudal/monarchical times thought he had to go out and “kill a dragon” to prove himself.
I need a vacation. Aside from museums, where can I go to see the geological column?
Why loosely translate when the correct translation sounds so much better? "Tyrant lizard king." And it's hardly a "Latin term." Tyrannus exists in Latin, but it's a borrowing from Greek. Saurus does not--at least, I cannot find it in Lewis & Short or the Vulgate. It's a modern latinization of σαυρος. It would be better to say Tyrannosaurus is a Greek term, and rex is Latin.
Did you just fall off the turnip wagon? If radiological or any other form of dating provides results that are inconsistent with the grand scheme of evolutionary “history”, the results will be dismissed as “inconclusive” or “subject to error.” If the dating provides results that are consistent with the grand scheme of evolutionary “history,” they will be cited as “experimental evidence” of that history.
When you see two mitochondria come together and form a complex system, let us know. Let us know when it forms a more complex, then more complex then more complex and then be able to reproduce both male and female or hermophroditically.
When you can show me that, I’ll update my talking points. Until then I’ll rely on Socratic Deduction and the brain that God gave me.
Thank you.
Niagara Falls.
Try not to drown.
Wrong.
Evolutionary theory is hundreds of years older than radiometric dating and doesn’t depend on it.
You may try again to name another assumption of evolution that determines fossil dating.
You were defending Wendy in post #6.
You were going to give me evolutionary assumptions used to date T. Rex.
You gave radiometric dating as an evolutionary assumption.
Radiometric dating is not an assumption of evolutionary theory since it wasn’t discovered until the 20th century.
Or are you trying to say Darwin wrote Origins in 1959?
You may continue.
Thanks, can you get close enough to see the fossils and are all ages represented? Is there a museum on site with specimens? I went to North rim of Grand Canyon once, but didn’t have time to hike that day, will have to go back sometime.
Bang A Gong.
Here’s the last line in the article:
“See? Just like it says in Genesis! The End!”
More pablum from the creation rationalization sites.
The sole purpose for ID’s support of “irreducible complexity” is to discourage or eliminate further research into the earlier development, yes, the evolution, of the organism.
ID in all of its forms is no more than a poorly designed Trojan horse for creationism.
Oh, so NOW scientists believe they have ALL the fossils. Got it.
Apologetics Central.
(Covering ignorance with pure BS 24/7)
Is that what you got out of the article?
Patton: “The poor basterds have us surrounded”
You’re being baited into helping start a flame war.
Naaaah....
You’re gonna need that; when you go to HELL for eternity! (But only because God loves you.)
I'm so glad Noah saved a few, though.
Your "science" can be as wrong as someone else's religion says it is (and by extension, you along with it), but you cannot respond in kind and expect to keep your account.
Indeed.
Science/Evolution - free speech
Creationism - agree speech only.
(or else!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.