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.
So, you don't know. OK. Are you a YEC'er or OEC'er?
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.
Huh? When, for instance, conservative Texas textbook activists Mel and Norma Gabler used to appear before the State Board of Education and other panels complaining that American history textbooks devoted more space to discussing Marlyn Monroe than to George Washington, was that "the heavy hand of government regulation?"
Obviously not. It was concerned citizens demanding that state textbooks address the important substance of their proper topics, instead of being watered down with politically correct or popular pap and pablum.
Unfortunately The Gablers, and other activists like them, would then turn around and argue that biology texts be watered down in exactly the same way in respect of their antievolutionary views.
This is the inconsistency and hypocrisy to which I refer. Conservatives can hardly be persuasive in demanding that social science texts conform to strong academic standards while they simultaneously demand lax standards for biology texts.
The two movements are very much parallel in their aims.
Both anthropomorphic global warming econuts, and Darwin Derangement Syndrome antievolutionists, want the same thing. They both want textbooks and curricula to effectively lie to students about the current status of professional scientific debate.
Econuts want curricula to present the AGW view as having scientifically prevailed, when it has not; when in truth competing views about the causes and nature of global warming remain strong and viable, and have advocates producing relevant, original and ongoing research substantively advancing such views. They want this objective truth suppressed and replaced with a lie.
Antievolutionists want curricula to pretend that evolution has not prevailed in scientific debate, and to present antievolutionary views as viable scientific alternatives, when (at least to date) they are not, and when no antievolutionists are producing relevant, original and ongoing research substantively advancing such views. They want this objective truth suppressed and replaced with a lie.
It claims that naturalistic explanations are enough to account for the variety of life we see today.
Yup, that’s excluding God. He’s become unnecessary.
I think the view you express here is more deistic (the world, at least once created, is autonomous and independent wrt God) than theistic (God does not merely create the world, but sustains it as well).
It also strikes me as unbiblical.
It is asserted, for instance, in the Book of Amos that "God creates the wind." The verb is the same used in Genesis of creation ex nihilo.
It is certainly possible that the authors of that line believed, assuming the distinction even occurred to them, that God makes the wind to blow by direct miracle rather than by natural causes. But if you believe The Bible to be inspired by God -- I don't happen to, but if you do -- then obviously God knows that the wind is made by natural, or "secondary," causation, and not by direct miracle. Yet He was satisfied with it's causation being attributed to His immediate action nevertheless.
IOW, God Himself disagrees with you that naturalistic explanations exclude God. (Although, if it makes you feel better, scientific atheists certainly concur with your premise.)
Even a child gets that algore has more in common with the evolutionists than he does the creationists. A small child.
Like I said, what’s next...algore the evangelist?
You mean to tell me you don't see how algore is like an evangelist (of the smug, smarmy, ignorant, demagogic, unscrupulous, in-it-for-the-limos "televangelist" variety)?
Yes, but a televangelist for secular humanism...you mean you can't grasp THAT!?
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.