You're referring to the creation "scientists," right? The ones who dismiss all geological and paleontological data developed since the 18th century? Because the scientists in the article cited are neither panicking nor dismissing anything.
Hmm, the original article cited by the ICR hac writer has expired, and every other footnote in the article goes to another ICR article. Interesting. Almost as if the publishing of the ICR article was timed to take place after the source material was no longer accessible.
Fortunately, we have Google. Here is a copy of the article on Breitbart, and here is an illuminating quote:
The dinosaur, whose teeth were exhumed from strata dating back 140 million to 136 million years ago in the city, is estimated to have been about 5 meters long, said the Museum of Nature and Human Activities, Hyogo. The size is much larger than other 1- to 3-meter-long dinosaurs found in similarly old stratum at home and abroad, the museum said. Since the era of the strata is tens of millions of years earlier than the age of the over 10-meter-long tyrannosaurus, the creature was in the course of evolution to tyrannosaurus, it added. Haruo Saegusa, a curator at the museum, said, "If the dinosaur belongs to the same era of the strata, the tyrannosaurus could have started to grow larger much earlier than previously thought."
It appears that Brian Thomas failed to understand what he was writing about, or perhaps is knowingly promulgating a misunderstanding. The fossils found do not belong to T. rex, and do not force T. rex to be "adjusted." Instead, they are an ancestor of T. rex. All they demonstrate is that T. rex's ancestors had reached a certain size earlier than previously believed. This is a new data point, but not a challenge to the model. (We're still waiting for the T. rex with a bunny rabbit in its stomach.)
With his misunderstanding of the fossils corrected, we see there really is no reason to challenge the prevailing wisdom regarding the geologic column. That's just as well, because Thomas also cites RATE's disastrous web of assumptions and impossibilities, and picking that apart strand by strand would take some time.
But as long as these ICR psudoscientists keep barfing up fantastic hairballs of ignorance, there will allways be cannon fodder for FR.
Exactly. A sterling example of creationist "research" here.
Brian Thomas definitively identifies these isolated teeth as belonging to the species, "Tyrannosaurus rex," even thought the simple, reptilian teeth of carnivorous dinosaurs are not sufficiently distinct to make species, or often even generic, designations. Thomas (ICR "Science Writer," with the caps in the original, and no "a" preceding, so presumably the official science writer there) is apparently too ignorant to know this, even though dinosaurs are a primary topic of writing and "research" at ICR.
(To ignorance and incompetence, we can most likely add hypocrisy: Not bothering to check just now, but who would lay a bet that Thomas hasn't derided "evolutionists" in print for the 80 year old misidentification of the "Nebraska Man" pig tooth?)
But it rapidly gets even worse. He goes on to describe this (supposed) T.rex as of a "large size," even though (as the news article he quotes actually states!) it's only about half the size of a T. rex.
Everything he writes about dinosaurs in this ICR piece is wrong, even ignoring his inability to accurately read the short news article which is his source. For instance Thomas says the dinosaur was "15-foot-tall," when the article actually has it "estimated to have been about 5 meters [about 16'] long.
Then Thomas peppers the rest of the article with appeals to long debunked young earth arguments like, "the recession rate of the moon, the decay of earth’s magnetic field, or the diffusion of helium from zircon crystals in granite."
Perhaps even more revealing than Thomas', and the ICR's, shoddy, slapdash work and utterly embarrassing performance in this article, is that not one of the FR creationists posting here is the slightest bit ashamed or taken aback, but instead are obviously pleased with and proud of this piece. That tells you all you really need to know about antievolutionism.