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.
And the only way that is going to occur is through the heavy hand of government regulation and that is NO conservative position to take. No one can call themselves conservative and advocate for that kind of hard line government control of anything.
That sort of advocacy for government control is exactly what earns the evos the label of liberal, whether you guys see it or care to admit it to yourselves or not.
Private schools and home schools do not have that kind of government regulation in what they teach and they consistently outperform the public school sector in every area, on standardized test scores and SAT/ACT scores.
The public schools with their government enforced monopoly of evolution only have yet to demonstrate their academic advantage over the unregulated private schools and home schools.
You have nothing on which to base your contention that "high, hard-nosed and uncompromising standards of intellectual and academic integrity in all subjects" confers any advantage.
If you make contentions with absolutely no basis in fact like that, when all the evidence points in the other direction, why, then, should we take your word for it when you try to tell us things about science? By making statements like that about education in the presence of contrary data, you've demonstrated that your judgment is under question. If you can't get that right, why should we trust what you have to say in other areas?
Well DUH, we have to respond to all the myriad lawsuits from liberals knocking themselves over to remove God from our society in general so yeah...if liberals hi-jack the judicial system it doesn't leave normal people too much alternative!
And remember there was a time in this country when God was welcomed in science class and science in general.
(guess what I DO believe that a Creator was involved in the beginning of the Universe ).
Then why bend over backwards to exclude Him from His own creation???
Thanks for the ping!
Creation is RELIGION NOT SCIENCE. Period.
When you get Creation “back in the schools” will it be the Christian Bible version only, or will you fight to get the Chinese, African, Mayan, Hindu, etc etc etc Creation myths taught as well?
Well, if you don’t want everybody’s creation account taught, then don’t teach ANYBODY’S. Evolution included.
Evolution is the creation account of the secular humanist and atheist. Why should theirs get priority just because they think they have better evidence for it? That’s simply a matter of opinion.
“Well, if you don’t want everybody’s creation account taught, then don’t teach ANYBODY’S. Evolution included.”
—Considering that the class is “science class”, why not just teach what the leading theories are among scientists? That’s how science progresses. People learn and understand what the theories are so they can be improved upon, replaced, or disproven.
“Evolution is the creation account of the secular humanist and atheist.”
—And the vast majority of Christian scientists, and probably most Christians period worldwide, (including likely most Christians in America, depending on what poll one believes).
“Why should theirs get priority just because they think they have better evidence for it? That’s simply a matter of opinion.”
—Imagine that - giving priority to a theory believed by the vast majority of scientists - in science class. Next people will start going to historians to decide what to teach in history class, and to mathematicians for what to teach in math class, etc.
Evolution is the creation account of the secular humanist and the atheist. It’s a no God, no intelligence, naturalistic creation account.
Secular humanists and atheists have no other option for an explanation of how the universe and life came into existence.
Just because some who call themselves Christians choose to believe it, doesn’t affect that at all. People are free to believe what they want.
“Evolution is the creation account of the secular humanist and the atheist. It’s a no God, no intelligence, naturalistic creation account.”
—There’s nothing in the theory that says there’s no God or intelligence, and it’s believed by the vast majority of Christian scientists and probably most Christians worldwide, and the co-founder of Darwinism (Wallace) himself wasn’t an atheist. So what sense does it make to say it’s an atheist theory? It’s an utterly empty groundless claim.
No evolution is a scientific theory, thats the basic difference. When you can come up with a creation theory that has some basis in science, you can try and get it accepted and taught as such. Until then creation belongs in the classes on religion.
If origins is a religious issue, then teach origins and evolution in religion classes as well.
The ToE being labeled as a scientific theory is not enough justification to oppose the wishes of the majority of the parents and use the judiciary to strong arm the theory into a the position of being the only option taught in schools, no matter how much evidence you think that there is to support it.
Think about it Einstein. If we're talking about getting creation *back in the public schools* then obviously it's the creation account from the Bible, or you don't know you're history very well.
Funny how when someone says they believe in creation, they're immediately crammed into the YEC, geocentrist, flat-earther, moon landing is a hoax box created by the evos, but when someone proposes having creation taught in public schools, all of a sudden, there's a bazillion brands of creationism to choose from.
Perhaps you can explain to me how this country was able to produce such a plethora of scientists and make such incredible strides in science and technology for all those years that creation was taught in schools across this nation. How was science able to make such great strides before the ToE was introduced and virtually all the scientists, who essentially laid the very foundations of modern science, believed the creation account of the Bible?
And show us how teaching evolution only in public schools has improved our science ranking and educational standing in the world.
Seeing how the article puts forth no facts to support its claims, there is nothing to dispute. Just another ICR non-science bloat.
Where does science say that?
And for comparison, let's look at the scientific and educational standing of countries that teach theistic creation.
Select one:
A. The earth is less than 10,000 years old
B. The earth is between 10K and 1 million years old
C. The earth is more than 1 million years old.
But it's not creation being taught in the schools that the evolutionists (”there is no such thing as Darwinism, evolutionist!”,)find objectionable, it's any doctrine except their creation doctrine.
Will we have to scrub geology, astrophysics, palentology, archaeology, etc. of any reference to a date prior to an actual observed event?
Look at homeschooling, which is by and large Christian.
Most of them teach evolution along with creation and ID, something the liberals and you evos want to deny public school children around the country.
SAT/ACT homeschoolers:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200105070.asp
Standardized test scores homeschoolers:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
But of course your personal beliefs are your affair so long as you don't mention them in front of a class.
If creation is not to be taught then let's get it out of the classroom now.
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.