Skip to comments.T. Rex Teeth Take a Bite Out of Evolution
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. 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. 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 strataincluding the Cretaceous layer in which these teeth were foundresulted from waterborne deposits during Noahs 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. ICRs 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.
Many other natural processeslike the recession rate of the moon, the decay of earths magnetic field, or the diffusion of helium from zircon crystals in granitecan 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 doesnt 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.
For more Creationists Answers to the DINO question, see the following links (to include a discussion of Dinos with blood vessels, blood, and various other soft tissue still intact!):
i hope we get the name calling done with quickly on this thread so I can continue to hear some intelligent discussion of this interesting issue...great post
Here we go...
That didn’t take long. Twelve seconds.
Put your flame retardant pants on, cause the evos are ready to pounce... :)
Shows how some scientists make important conclusions based on a very small bit of data. Then when some data comes along that doesn’t fit in with their conclusions, they panic or dismiss the data.
It wouldn’t occur to you to actually contest the article and disprove it, now would it?
Or are spitwads just that much easier?
So we learn something new about dinosaurs. That’s what science is all about, learning.
Isn't that like being Al Qaida's bikini inspector?
I remember once talking to an evolutionist and asked, “what sort of evidence, if any, would make you doubt your assumptions?”
(note that the evolutionist was caught in a trap: if they answered “nothing” then they can’t say that their beliefs are held onto b/c of evidence....but out of a mere faith which is not open to evidentiary critique)
the evolutionist offered this: finding a T Rex bone in a layer or otherwise showing that it dropped to the ground only recently. I then asked, ok, what if it is in the “wrong” layer going the other direction, ie, it is in a layer of strata which actually precedes the T Rex? They said, of course, same issue. If the T Rex is ever in the wrong strata, whether too old or too young, then that would be a knockdown against the whole dating system.
so here we are.
i dont however intend to fwd this story to the evolutionist as i know that they are really not going to consider this evidence...which brings us back to the point: no amount of evidence will ever cause evolutionists to doubt for one second the rectitude of their position. But that’s the very definition of ideology.
Have you noticed that most of the time the evos can’t contest with facts. For example, I still haven’t seen an inteligent evo answer to the irreducibly complex systems, that’s why they resort to name calling and drive by posts.
re: complexity, I saw Richard Dawkins on British tv saw that evolution is sooooooo awesome, because it gives “the illusion of design”.
How’s that for brilliant, deep, philosophical and unbiased hard-headed thinking?
The announcer didn’t think to ask him,”how do you know it’s an illusion?”.
Who says they are T. Rex teeth anyway? That sounds like the very first unsubstantiated assumption in an article that piles them on one on top of another, until it becomes a pile of pishtosh.
“For more Creationists Answers to the DINO question, see the following links (to include a discussion of Dinos with blood vessels, blood, and various other soft tissue still intact!): “
You “Creation Science” and prevaricationists continue to Misrepresent the facts in this dino soft tissue story. I’m predicting you are lying about this one too before I read the story. If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize profusely...
Now to read Mr. Brian Thomas, M.S.’s B.S.
I have a 250 MYo favosite coral that was fully embedded in 650 MYo limestone.
But we'll never let the facts mess up a good fairy story...
M.B.S. Of “BS” to be exact..
Yeah, I know. The earth is only 6000 years old and was created in 6 days.
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.