Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

T. Rex Cousin Evolved 60 Million Years Too Early
ICR News ^ | September 29, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Japan; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: alllies; atheist; belongsinreligion; bible; biblicalcreation; bollocks; catastrophism; catholic; charismatic; china; christian; creation; dinosaurs; dontbelievethis; evangelical; evolution; intelligentdesign; jurassic; lies; noahsark; notasciencetopic; paleontology; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; totalcrap; yec

1 posted on 09/29/2009 10:10:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution can’t explain a cell.


2 posted on 09/29/2009 10:11:56 AM PDT by wastedyears (The best aid we could ever give Africa would be thousands of rifles to throw out their own dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Let along the trillions of cells needed to make a functioning T. rex!
3 posted on 09/29/2009 10:14:51 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
"T. Rex Cousin Evolved 60 Million Years Too Early"

Gee...I hate that I missed that one.../sarc.

(I feel a new sequel to "Jurassic Park" coming on....)
4 posted on 09/29/2009 10:16:14 AM PDT by FrankR ( We're up to "reverse discrimination"...what's next, "reverse SLAVERY"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Based on evolutionary assumptions the fossil record, scientists have long held that these dinosaurs lived for “only” 3 million years, approximately 68 to 65 million years ago.

Fixed it.

5 posted on 09/29/2009 10:20:41 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

The fossil record doesn’t say the first word about the antiquities of dinosaur types, that’s all based on assumptions.


6 posted on 09/29/2009 10:23:59 AM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Stop the presses. New discovery proves old ASSUMPTIONS are incorrect. Who ever heard of such a thing?


7 posted on 09/29/2009 10:24:20 AM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

ping!


8 posted on 09/29/2009 10:25:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
T. Rex Cousin Evolved 60 Million Years Too Early

Nothing like having a minor problem in evolutionary theory cause much bigger problems for your Young Earth theory.

9 posted on 09/29/2009 10:25:25 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

You would be wrong.

No “evolutionary assumption” is required to date fossils.


10 posted on 09/29/2009 10:27:32 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
No “evolutionary assumption” is required to date fossils.

You would be wrong.
11 posted on 09/29/2009 10:30:24 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Oh my gosh, how so simple an argument ends the debate.

irreducible complexity

checkmate darwin...


12 posted on 09/29/2009 10:31:08 AM PDT by panzerkamphwageneinz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Still doesn’t explain how Jesus and Moses managed to ride those huge suckers.


13 posted on 09/29/2009 10:39:11 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Evolution can’t explain a cell

Don't get out much, eh?

Sure it can - "The Endosymbiotic Theory":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory


14 posted on 09/29/2009 10:39:18 AM PDT by canuck_conservative (Obama - The "Big Owe")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: panzerkamphwageneinz

“Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so they must have been intentionally designed, as is, by an intelligent entity.

But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.”

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/

You might want to update your talking points.


15 posted on 09/29/2009 10:42:38 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Plants and animals have two different types of cells. I learned this in biology in 1999. Plants have a rectangular box shape, humans have a round shape.

How could all the parts of a cell have evolved the way they did, to work in synchronicity with everything else?


16 posted on 09/29/2009 11:07:17 AM PDT by wastedyears (The best aid we could ever give Africa would be thousands of rifles to throw out their own dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

There is no scientific way to date fossils.Even if RC dating and heavy metal isotope dating schemes actually worked which they don’t, rc dating is useful only to around 50K years and the others wouldn’t apply to fossils since there’s no way to claim you’d ever find lead, uranium, strontium, or rubidium or any such in fossil remains.


17 posted on 09/29/2009 11:14:58 AM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Name one.


18 posted on 09/29/2009 11:19:02 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE; metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; ...

Nice try. The Bible never once indicates that dinos were ever domesticated. Indeed, the Bible seems to indicate quite the opposite...namely, that even those humans who were considered mighty were quite terrified of what are almost certainly descriptions of dinosaurs:

Job 40

15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.

16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.

17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.

18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.

19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.

20 Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.

21 He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.

22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;
The willows by the brook surround him.

23 Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;

Job 41

1 “Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,
Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?

2 Can you put a reed through his nose,
Or pierce his jaw with a hook?

3 Will he make many supplications to you?
Will he speak softly to you?

4 Will he make a covenant with you?
Will you take him as a servant forever?

5 Will you play with him as with a bird,
Or will you leash him for your maidens?

6 Will your companions make a banquet of him?
Will they apportion him among the merchants?

7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons,
Or his head with fishing spears?

8 Lay your hand on him;
Remember the battle—
Never do it again!

9 Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false;
Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him?

10 No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.
Who then is able to stand against Me?


19 posted on 09/29/2009 11:19:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


20 posted on 09/29/2009 11:20:00 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Yet, every knight errant in the early feudal/monarchical times thought he had to go out and “kill a dragon” to prove himself.


21 posted on 09/29/2009 11:25:12 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, save Bowman for later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

I need a vacation. Aside from museums, where can I go to see the geological column?


22 posted on 09/29/2009 11:31:14 AM PDT by beefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The most popular dinosaur is probably Tyrannosaurus rex, a Latin term that loosely translates as “king lizard.”

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.

23 posted on 09/29/2009 11:40:48 AM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Just to bad that we don't have a few of these things around today, we could feed them Democrats.
24 posted on 09/29/2009 11:43:17 AM PDT by ANGGAPO (Leyte Gulf Beach Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

25 posted on 09/29/2009 12:01:46 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

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.


26 posted on 09/29/2009 12:15:51 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

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.


27 posted on 09/29/2009 12:18:11 PM PDT by panzerkamphwageneinz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: beefree

Niagara Falls.

Try not to drown.


28 posted on 09/29/2009 12:20:25 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

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.


29 posted on 09/29/2009 12:21:31 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
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.


Somehow you got off track or misread something.
30 posted on 09/29/2009 12:25:12 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

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.


31 posted on 09/29/2009 12:36:50 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

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.


32 posted on 09/29/2009 12:45:08 PM PDT by beefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Bang A Gong.


33 posted on 09/29/2009 6:07:39 PM PDT by PalmettoMason (Barack Hussein 0bama--- Half Honkey.....ALL Donkey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Here’s the last line in the article:

“See? Just like it says in Genesis! The End!”

More pablum from the creation rationalization sites.


34 posted on 09/29/2009 7:11:23 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

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.


35 posted on 09/29/2009 7:11:26 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Oh, so NOW scientists believe they have ALL the fossils. Got it.


36 posted on 09/29/2009 7:13:31 PM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Apologetics Central.

(Covering ignorance with pure BS 24/7)


37 posted on 09/30/2009 3:53:44 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
Oh, so NOW scientists believe they have ALL the fossils. Got it.

Is that what you got out of the article?

38 posted on 09/30/2009 4:10:10 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Patton: “The poor basterds have us surrounded”


39 posted on 09/30/2009 4:35:51 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

You’re being baited into helping start a flame war.


40 posted on 09/30/2009 6:12:15 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Naaaah....


41 posted on 09/30/2009 6:28:40 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

42 posted on 09/30/2009 7:39:15 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

You’re gonna need that; when you go to HELL for eternity! (But only because God loves you.)


43 posted on 09/30/2009 7:47:58 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
If the vast majority of tyrannosauroid fossils were deposited during the one-year Flood of Noah

I'm so glad Noah saved a few, though.


44 posted on 09/30/2009 8:07:31 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
One of those will only protect you for so long, and you don't get to use your own flame thrower.

Your "science" can be as wrong as someone else's religion says it is (and by extension, you along with it), but you cannot respond in kind and expect to keep your account.

45 posted on 09/30/2009 8:07:40 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Indeed.
Science/Evolution - free speech
Creationism - agree speech only.
(or else!)


46 posted on 09/30/2009 8:39:06 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson