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 ...
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.
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.