Skip to comments.T. Rex Teeth Take a Bite Out of Evolution
Posted on 07/17/2009 9:28:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
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.
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.