Here's why: 
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.
Wow a mysoginist on top of everything else eh xcrement?
Step away from shiny reflecty thingy before you reply.
Here's why:
Otherwise the dating of fossils by the age of the rocks and the dating of the rocks by the type of fossils found in them would be WRONG!
Exactly. I'm betting the evos will say that there's other "processes" that could result in fossils being surrounded by rocks older than the ones they initially walked on, and they probably have some fancy-schmancy names to explain the failure of what should be a simple theory. If the dinosaur lived during a time, it should be dated to that time - it's not that complicated!! How many "do-overs" to the evos think they get, anyway?
Creationists stick to their guns, and are proven correct with each new discovery, while evolutionism slowly withers away. The "discrepancy" in ages is obviously evidence of a younger earth with dinosaurs living concurrently with more modern species.
If Tyrannosaurs walked the earth for so long (like 50 million years), how come they didn't evolve into something else? Right there, simple common sense destroys evolutionism in its tracks.
Yet gubmint skools still teach this nonsense in place of the purely rational discipline of creation science. It's time for Christians to take (peaceful but aggressive) measures to change this.
“Well then allow me to extrapolate a little more with this idea. The earth is 4.5 billion years old according to radio isotope dating - right?
—Yes, but not from any radiometric dating of earth rocks. No earth rocks have been found that are that old. The 4.5 million year date comes from date of the oldest meteorites and lunar samples. It’s possible that no earth rocks are left that are that old, they may have all weathered away or have been melted down since the formation of earth.
“But the rocks on the earth vary from millions, to hundreds of millions to a much as 3.5 billion - right? And these differently aged rocks all combined through accretion to make the earth - right?”
—No, there likely are no rocks left from the accretion stage. The “age” of a rock is the amount of time since it became, well, rock - from when it cooled from lava/magma. Rocks don’t just vary from millions to billions of years old, but from TODAY to billions of years old. There are rocks forming - right now. And rock is being melted down right now. So there’s a continual process of rock being melted down and being made. Because the earth is so geologically active, it’s to be expected that we’d find rocks of many different ages on earth - except for the very oldest rocks, where it’s best to look elsewhere.
The teeth are not of a T-rex. The teeth are not even of a tyrannosaurus. As the original article says, it is believed to be an “ancestor” of the tyrannosaurus:
“The fossilized teeth of a carnivorous dinosaur that is believed be an ancestor of the greatest of its kind, tyrannosaurus, were found in Tamba, Hyogo Prefecture, museum officials said Saturday.”
I realize it would be too much to ask for ICR to do research on an article they are commenting on (which would help them to realize that tyrannosaurus didn’t appear at all until about 68.5 million years ago, which would make it rather difficult for them to appear at any size 110 million years ago) - but is it even too much to ask for them to at least READ the article they are commenting on?
Ummm, have you thought about you’re the one that demands eveyone is related to monkeys and people are nothing more than great apes?
You did this all through the Bush years didn’t you?
Poor poor lib. thinking no one knows who you are.
That shiny reflecty thingy....really...step away...!
Well then maybe you should discuss this w/ DevNet (see post 54) and get one or both of your stories corrected. And then explain all the age-dating anomolies found w/ the recent Mount St. Helens eruption.
Oooh - and please don’t forget to explain how all the layering that represents just one volcanic eruption differs from all other layering worldwide where each layer represents much longer time spans.
Is anyone else getting dizzy from all this circular logic?
What do you care, the Universe ( or is it only the Earth?) are only 6,000 years old anyway, right? /s
I really think you should get professional help for your ‘broken record’ problem..
Because they didn't exist for 50 million years, they were around for a few million years just before all the non-Avian dinosaurs, and most other species, became extinct. When something is dead it stops evolving.
the shiny thingy...slowly back away.
Surely there’s a deprogrammer in your area?
I don’t have any idea how old the earth is...what I DO know though is you sure as hell don’t either and no one gave you liberals the keys to science or appointed you gate-keepers of what is or isn’t acceptable.
IF ANYTHING the liberal NEA, ACLU track record speaks for itself!
I’m not a liberal. I’m to the right of Attila the Hun. I just happen to have a background in Science and know bullsh#t when I see it.
Apparently not. Conservatives don’t sue opponents into silence, they beat them with the truth and ideas. Not so for evolution. Or pretty much for that matter any anti-God biased indoctrination in failed liberal gubmint schools.
I’m sorry but the NEA, ACLU and liberal professors simply aren’t on the conservative side, no matter how you try to spin it.
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.
No. I haven't noticed that.
Specifically, as to the ID argument that "irreducibly complex systems" (systems in which each part is functionally crucial such that no part can be removed) cannot possibly be assembled in stepwise, incremental fashion, with each intervening step useful and functional in itself -- this has been cogently disproved and debunked many, many times in print. Two or three dozen examples are linked HERE.
You seem to have this backward.
Evolutionary theory got into textbooks solely because it first succeeded in the open marketplace of scientific ideas; because it withstood and continues to withstand the withering process of scientific review.
It is creationists and IDers who demand that their ideas be included in science textbooks and curricula on what amounts to a basis of intellectual affirmative action; i.e. in the absence of those ideas having first prevailed in professional scientific debate, indeed despite the near universal refusal of creationists and IDers to even SUBMIT their ideas to such scrutiny (instead sticking to popular books, seminars and the like).
As an "evolutionist" I would actually insist -- were it to be the case at some future date that evolutionary theory were to fail in science, and some other more successful theory (creationistic or otherwise) replace it -- that evolution then be EXCLUDED from curricula, and that the new theory be added to curricula.
We "evolutionists" support evolution not because we support evolution, but because we support science, and the chips fall where they may.
Curricula ought, so far as in accord with sound and effective heuristics, to accurately and objectively reflect the actual content of science. (By actual content I mean those theories, principles and other ideas actually utilized and implicated by working scientists in the ongoing production of original research. I.e. not just "what scientists believe," but what they do.)
To present in curricula ideas which have NOT earned standing in science as though there were part of science is to lie to students. It's the lying we object to.
How about taking a very risky step and reading “A case for a Creator” and “A case for Christ” by Lee Strobel and then getting back to me.
I guess Global Warming is a settled science since scientists tell us so and itis being taught in public schools?
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.