Posted on 07/17/2009 9:28:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
A set of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex teeth was found in a rock layer that it had no business being in, according to evolutionary interpretations. Discovered in Hyogo, Japan, the teeth came from a 15-foot-tall dinosaur entombed in early Cretaceous rock, supposedly deposited 140 million years ago.
The problem is that T. rex dinosaurs of this large size are not supposed to have evolved until about 30 million years later. Thus, what is “known” about dinosaurs must undergo drastic revision.[1] Haruo Saegusa, a curator at the Museum of Nature and Human Activities, recently told JapanToday, ‘‘If the dinosaur belongs to the same era of the strata [early Cretaceous], the tyrannosaurus could have started to grow larger much earlier than previously thought.’’[2] The thought seems to be that merely adjusting evolutionary development backward will be enough to make the fossil fit the strata.
But the very concept of strata representing “eras” does not come from the strata themselves. That concept began with eighteenth-century French naturalist Georges Cuvier, and it has been in vogue ever since, despite the fact that it causes more problems for interpreting rock strata than it solves, and stands in stark contrast to scriptural history. Young-earth creation geologists have long held that most sedimentary strata—including the Cretaceous layer in which these teeth were found—resulted from waterborne deposits during Noah’s Flood that may harbor fossils from a particular local environment, but do not represent a particular “era.”
The assignment of a certain number of “millions of years” to a rock formation does not derive from the strata either. It is another assumption that is used to prescribe what constitutes “valid” interpretations.
Radioisotope dating is used to bolster the vast time spans ascribed to the geologic record. However, geologist John Woodmorappe cogently revealed that the radio dates are actually hand-picked to coincide with the dates already assigned from the geologic column diagram. ICR’s RATE research also conclusively demonstrated with independent lines of evidence that radioactive decay rates, widely used to bolster deep time, were dramatically accelerated in the past.[4]
Many other natural processes—like the recession rate of the moon, the decay of earth’s magnetic field, or the diffusion of helium from zircon crystals in granite—can be used, along with some basic assumptions, to measure the age of the earth, but these methods give maximum dates that are incompatible with evolutionary time spans.
Thus, the nineteenth-century strata/age/era correlation is in serious trouble. However, an oversized T. rex found in the “wrong age” and the “wrong time” doesn’t surprise creation scientists. If the rock that these T. rex fossil teeth was found in was indeed deposited during the year-long Noahic Flood, then it is easy to explain why a large dinosaur is found mixed in with smaller ones.
There never was an “era of smaller T-rex dinosaurs,” but there was an unimaginably massive Flood that wiped out whole environments, layering and sorting sediments and fossilizing the creatures buried therein.
References (for ref. links, go to original--GGG)
1. For recent examples of drastic evolutionary revisions, see Sherwin, F. The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue. ICR News. Posted on icr.org June 1, 2005, accessed June 25, 2009; Thomas, B. Data Derails Dinosaur Dominance Idea. ICR News. Posted on icr.org September 18, 2008, accessed June 25, 2009; Thomas, B. Dinosaur Fossil Erases 40 Million Years. ICR News. Posted on icr.org June 23, 2008, accessed June 25, 2009. 2. Teeth of tyrannosaurus ancestor dating back 140 mil years found in Hyogo. JapanToday. Posted on japantoday.com June 20, 2009, accessed June 24, 2009. 3. Woodmorappe, J. 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 27-49. 4. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE). Posted on icr.org.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
You’ll have to point me explicitly to the ones where fossilization is observed rather than the 15,000 plus that are theorized.
I accept that you have observed and documented this process. Well done.
Did you observe and document that such was the case in the matter of the fossil we are actually discussing? If not, what proof do you offer that the process you have so observed and documented applies to this case?
By the way, whatever credentials you may possess, and I'm sure they are many and distinguished, I hereby grant a certificate of distinguished achievement in ad hominem.
Ah ha so then you must have access to a time machine - fascinating!
In fact, the rat terriers are the ones held under pressure to remain that far away phenotypically from the coyote, or wolf, based on amount of food available and competition for same.
Any dog breed, however deviated (via inbreeding or selective breeding) to get the desired phenotype, will in fact over genetrations revert back to the coyote wolf phenotype. The time factor depending on the degree of deviation originally as the starting point.
If you are looking for a simple yes or no answer you don't understand the concept. Time is only a secondary variable. You probably meant "given a sufficient number of iterations".
The Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable or variable set. The answer to your question then becomes both not probable and not impossible.
Check the definition of ‘ad hominem’
When it’s the truth, it’s not.
Better:
I compared the facts with what they said, and found that they had “augmented” the truth.
Of course, you liberals always augment the truth as necessary.
I would have to search one of my older books for the 1% figure. It has been years since I read that statement.
Keep in mind I am not discounting all scientific findings, so don’t throw me into that wagon. Science has and will make great discoveries in disease control/prevention and many other areas.
But for someone to say that we can say how old a rock or fossil truly is by scientific means is just not true. There are too many ‘scientific assumptions’ thrown into that mix.
Uncertainty is accounted for in the +/- tolerance of the dates given. It is accepted scientific practice to be extremely conservative and give the widest margin of error when citing an age.
The thing you have to accept is that time is relatively linear and time related coefficients are fairly constant. The the result is that quantification of time is mathematically derived and mathematically repeatable and reproducible.
We’re not referring here to merely the ‘time assumptions’ arrived at.
We are referring to the assumptions of the decay rate of the parent isotopes, the amount of parent or daughter elements in the sample have not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay, and also the initial conditions of the rock sample.
If these three assumptions are made, which they are in radiometric dating, it is impossible to accurately estimate the age of rocks. Hence the false ages ascribed to rocks that are known to be 200 years being dated 4.5 million years.
No, science is about learning something and then applying what's learned.
It's not just that we've learned something new about dinos, rather we've all learned something new about evolution as well.
(Well some of us have that opportunity, but most here already know it's myriad weaknesses).
And the real cretins parade their ignorance as science and call names. BTW, I wasn’t talking to you, and I don’t care to unless your IQ is higher than mine which I doubt very much.
As “reported” in the Creationist “journal”.
A set of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex teeth was found in a rock layer that it had no business being in
The ACTUAL headline of the article in Japan Today
Teeth of tyrannosaurus ancestor dating back 140 mil years found in Hyogo
But but but wouldn’t that make the problem even MORE damning for evolution/dating/liberalism?
I mean if a t-rex wasn’t supposed to be this young, now you’re saying the t-rex fore-fahters are this young?
It’s not “just” your observation but mine and indeed most peoples as well.
So why should we be held hostage by a few people with multiple God hang-ups? Who gave liberals the keys to science anyway?
Uh no. The original point of the creationist propaganda was that T Rex teeth were found in a strata too old for them. It makes PERFECT sense for T Rex ancestors teeth to be in an older layer. THATS what the Japanese article was about.
exactly...and if you presented the evidence, you'll see the precise same crap you see here...welllll, it was an ancestor"...or "the evidence is contaminated", pretty much any and everything to discount the evidence...you see frankly, when you're in the grip of a cult, you have no hope of recognizing the truth.
Oh OK.
So then, what’s 30 million years or so...
give or take?
BINGO!
“I stand corrected, there is a third possibility: Heads I win, tails you lose, and whether heads or tails you still lose.
You are certainly willing to consider any number of theories about this issue, except, perhaps that you might be wrong”.
Now cue the endless projections.
from the queen of “g!ood men”
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.