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.
And your advanced degree in fossil dating is exactly what?
Land of the lost?
How so? Are you willing to bet your soul on radiometric dating?
It must be, cause they sure do it all the time.
Great another you are going to hell for science post.
That didn’t take long.
God doesn't wear a Timex.
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.
His is the Rolex “Cosmo 1”
But as long as these ICR psudoscientists keep barfing up fantastic hairballs of ignorance, there will allways be cannon fodder for FR.
Not my point at all. I just question carbon dating and radiometric dating.
When science tells me a rock that is known to be 200 years old from a volcanic eruption is 4.5 million years old according to radiometric dating, I have a problem with that. No one can seem to explain this fact.
Not to mention when a president tells me a stimulus package will limit unemployment...
*Are you willing to bet your soul on radiometric dating?*
That is a scare tactic. You are trying to scare people with the threat of punishment in hell if they have a different opinion than yours.
As a debate tactic it is a very cheap one.
Are you telling me that it is wrong to study the facts? That it is wrong to purchase and read books on issues?
That it is wrong to question?
Science does that everyday.
Most of the Cretins wouldn’t recognize science if it bit them on the a##.
*When science tells me a rock that is known to be 200 years old from a volcanic eruption is 4.5 million years old according to radiometric dating*
It isn’t like their is an energy to matter convert making new rock under the volcano. You seam to be expecting that the molten rock gets its age reset the moment it breaches the surface when that isn’t the case.
Oh, and the IDers would allow evidence that doesn’t fit their Theory (ie ToC) to be trumpeted?
It’s not cheap. It’s fact.
Radiometric, along with carbon dating is flawed.
The truth is we have no reliable way of looking at matter and telling it’s exact age.
It isn’t a fact that using radiometric dating will doom your soul to hell.
You didn’t say that radiometric dating was simply wrong, you came out and strongly implied that using it would send you straight to hell.
You seem to have missed the point.
Radiometric dating estimated it to be 4.5 million years old, when in fact it was 200. This is the ‘most reliable’ way of estimating age we have.
That’s not what I implied.
I implied that it is flawed and why would someone rely on an assumption, at best.
Well, in a manner of speaking, maybe he/she was speaking the Truth.
How so you ask?
OK, let’s say something is discovered, and carbon dating or radiometric dating accurately proves that the IDer’s theories are nothing but hooey, can you imagine the ear shattering whineing and moaning....?
That, my Friend, would be Hell!
Therefore, in using radiometric dating or carbon dating would, indirectly, send you straight to Hell.