T-Rex bone discovery supports a young earth


#1

On Bob Sungenis’ web site he has this news story posted. Does soft tissue really support a young earth? (AgapePress) - The president of Answers in Genesis says the recent discovery of a dinosaur bone in Montana supports the biblical creationist theory of a young Earth.

According to an article published in last month’s Science magazine, in 2003 scientists found a Tyrannosaurus Rex thigh bone during an archaeological dig. The research team had to break the bone in pieces in order to fit it into a helicopter, and when they did so, they discovered the fossil contained well-preserved soft tissues, including blood vessels.

Ken Ham, president of the creationist group Answers in Genesis (AiG), says this important find supports the biblical view of the Earth’s timeline. “The reason this is such startling news is because you just wouldn’t expect soft tissue and cells like this in a bone supposedly 70 million years old,” he says.

The general consensus among scientists prior to the find was that such soft tissue could not survive for tens of millions of years. Now, the dinosaur remains have many evolutionists scrambling to accommodate their evolutionist ideas about origins.

But what AiG scientists would say about the find, Ham observes, “is that it’s totally consistent with the fact that these bones aren’t that old and probably date back to the time of the flood just a few thousand years ago.” However, he doubts evolutionists will give consideration to the possibility that the T-Rex bones are only thousands rather than millions of years old.

“Nothing has been found, nothing in observational science, that contradicts what the Bible says,” the AIG spokesman contends, “but over and over, it does contradict the ideas of evolutionists.”

Still, because evolutionists’ beliefs about the past are so entrenched, he predicts they will just look for ways to explain away the contradictory evidence.

“Instead of questioning their beliefs they just come up with secondary and tertiary explanations,” Ham says. “‘Well, given enough time …’ or ‘Well, we think there is a process somewhere’ or ‘Well, even though we don’t know why’ – In other words they’ll do anything but question their beliefs.”

Ham is convinced proponents of the theory of evolution will not allow the Montana find to change their minds. Even though, he contends, the recent discovery supports the young Earth theory of origins, he believes evolutionists will say anything rather than admit that the biblical account of creation is true.

Top


#2
  1. Citation for article in Science
  2. If possible copy of article.
  3. Must have been a darn small helicoptor if a bone from T-Rex wouldn’t fit.
  4. Give me a break!

#3

The article:

sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;307/5717/1952

The main text of the abstract:

Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.

Christian comment taking into account the young earth proponents views and the scientific findings:

reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/dinosaur_blood_revisited.shtml

Basically that site shows how the young earth proponents have distorted the picture to fit their own picture.


#4

They purposely broke the bones? I thought that palentologist wanted the bones to remain whole.


#5

Very interesting find, indeed.
Still, I remain an Old-Earth, Progressive Creationist.
I see no reason so far to believe in an earth less than
10,000 years old !!!
Love, Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)


#6

[quote=Jaypeeto4]Very interesting find, indeed.
Still, I remain an Old-Earth, Progressive Creationist.
I see no reason so far to believe in an earth less than
10,000 years old !!!
Love, Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
[/quote]

I suppose that might work. I wondered once if God, in creating the Grand Canyon, could not have created it like it is. Did He have to created it as flatland, and wait for water and wear to make it what we see now?


#7

Asteroids links are interesting. The second one has less scientific jargon for those of us that are easily confused.:slight_smile:


#8

seems really interesting , I’m curiuos to know if this is going to go anywhere.


#9

Dealt with by Gary Hurd at Talk Origins and Pandas Thumb shortly after it was published (April/May 2005)

Dino Blood Redux at TalkOrigins

another version at PandasThumb.org

Dino Blood Redux at PandasThumb

Excerpt:

However, alternatives do exist, as has been pointed out in the accompanying perspective article in Science written by Eric Stokstad, “Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects” (Science, vol. 307:1852).

Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material – likely collagen – had not survived.

In short, there are known instances where reworked material can have the appearance of the ‘tissues’ reported by Schweitzer et al. …

…the main article has left many people with the false impression that the recovered tissues were in a soft pliable state when first exposed. This is not true. All of the fossil material was rehydrated during the same process that removed the mineral components of the bone. They were then buffered, and also some were fixed. The related press reports have created the impression that there are large features with the characteristics of fresh tissue. This is not true. The structures examined are a few millimeters across at most. The last, and rather irritating aspect of this research is not from the Science article, or the supporting material, but from the press interviews given by Schweitzer which repeatedly hint at the recovery of DNA, and even of cloning.

More including responses to AnswersInGenesis and other creationists “interpretations” of the finds at PandasThumb or TalkOrigins

Conclusion: The motivation to read and write about dinosaurs comes merely from my interest and, as I see it, obligation to expose fallacious manipulation of science by creationists. I chose to train in anthropology because I am interested in people and our nearest kin. I found that to best understand my interests in human evolution and culture, I needed to learn a modicum of the physical and biological sciences. This modicum at least enables me to carefully read articles such as Schweitzer’s. This was the only basis of my only writing about the paleontology of dinosaurs. In my opinion, this obligation to refute ‘false teaching’ is a general one shared by all scientists, and in the case of the earlier research by Schweitzer, I personally encouraged her to face this obligation. Nor was I the first to have done so. She declined in 2003 saying to me that it would be best for her career to simply ignore the massive distortion of her work stemming largely from the Answers in Genesis Ministry, Inc.

Another 2004 article on same subject

Dino Blood and a Young Earth also by Gary Hurd

Phil P


#10

[quote=MrS]I suppose that might work. I wondered once if God, in creating the Grand Canyon, could not have created it like it is. Did He have to created it as flatland, and wait for water and wear to make it what we see now?
[/quote]

No, of course not. But God likes using nature; it’s certainly how the world is run today.


#11

[quote=rwoehmke]1. Citation for article in Science
2. If possible copy of article.
3. Must have been a darn small helicoptor if a bone from T-Rex wouldn’t fit.
4. Give me a break!
[/quote]

Would that be a black helicopter ?

http://bestsmileys.com/fun/1.gif


#12

i dont know why so many Catholics believe in Evolution. Its a ridiculous theory with no evidence. Darwin said in “Origin of Species” that if his theory was true scientists should find innumerable intermediate species (missing links). Well, in the 150 years since his theory zero have been found, neither missing links from ape to human or from anything to anything else. VARIATION does exist and God created this. For example, my mom is the oldest of 13 kids. The tallest is around 6 feet while the shortest is 5 foot. Skin color ranges from very dark Portugee (my mom is half Portugese) to very fair skin (my mom is half German). This is ONLY variation, not evolution. This is what we see on planet earth. In Genesis GOD tells us that He created animals and plants to reproduce “after their kind.” That means that each kind of animal will never reproduce another kind of animal. A dog will never give birth to a bird or a banana. A white moth may give birth to a black moth but never to a fig newton. There are limits to Variation and these limits never include evolving to a separate kind of animal.

by the way i am a Catholic myself. No Church teaching says we must believe evolution. In fact we MUST believe that the human soul was specially created by GOD. But if we believe the BIBLE then we will reject Evolution, the Fairy Tale For Grownups.


#13

316 << i dont know why so many Catholics believe in Evolution. Its a ridiculous theory with no evidence. >>

You don’t want to go there. Please examine each of the sentences you have written above, and then read this

Index to Creationist Claims

Each of your sentences are dealt with in this Index. I’ll deal with one: transitional fossils, you said:

316 << Darwin said in “Origin of Species” that if his theory was true scientists should find innumerable intermediate species (missing links). Well, in the 150 years since his theory zero have been found, neither missing links from ape to human or from anything to anything else. >>

In short we have: whales with feet and legs (Ambulocetus, etc), dinosaurs with feathers (Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, etc), snakes with legs (Pachyrhachis, etc), and fish with fingers (Acanthostega, etc). Many of these were found in the 1990s. Here is a statement from paleontologist Robert Carroll:

“During the past 20 years, our knowledge of fossil vertebrates has increased immensely. Entirely new groups of jawless fish, sharks, amphibians, and dinosaurs have been discovered, and the major transitions between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and dinosaurs and birds have been thoroughly studied. Evidence from both paleontology and molecular biology provides much new information on the initial radiation of both birds and placental mammals.” (Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution [1988], page xiii preface).

How could he say this if there were none to study? Here are a few more:

Dinosaur (Reptile)-to-Bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps: represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among others

Reptile-to-Mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops

And a few hominid species and molecular genetics evidence we need to deal with…

And your response to these is???

Everybody chant with me…

No…more…evolution…threads
No…more…evolution…threads

Phil P


#14

316 << by the way i am a Catholic myself. No Church teaching says we must believe evolution. >>

By the way, that is true. And no Church teaching says we must believe the earth is a sphere, the earth rotates and revolves around the sun, the earth is old, and the other well established facts of science like macroevolution. See Catechism paragraphs 159, 283-284 and tell me what you think they mean.

No…more…evolution…threads.
No…more…evolution…threads.

OK maybe one more before 2006 is upon us.

Phil P


#15

[quote=PhilVaz]316 << i dont know why so many Catholics believe in Evolution. Its a ridiculous theory with no evidence. >>

You don’t want to go there. Please examine each of the sentences you have written above, and then read this

Index to Creationist Claims

Phil P
[/quote]

Very good post Phil.

Down with crackpottery such as intelligent design!!

  • Kathie :bowdown:

#16

[quote=three-sixteen]i dont know why so many Catholics believe in Evolution. Its a ridiculous theory with no evidence.
[/quote]

Well thank you for pointing this out. I can’t believe how silly I’ve been. After studying evolution for 9.81 minutes you have seen what I have been unable to see after studying evolutionary biology and human palaeontology for decades. Congratulations. You must be one smart cookie. After you’ve pointed this out, there is nothing left to me but to give up science and take up flower arranging (with apologies to any keen flower-arrangers reading this).

Darwin said in “Origin of Species” that if his theory was true scientists should find innumerable intermediate species (missing links). Well, in the 150 years since his theory zero have been found, neither missing links from ape to human or from anything to anything else.

First, you need to understand that humans ARE apes in every anatomical, phsiological and molecularmeaning of the word. Humans, chimps (common and bonobo), gorillas, orang-utans and the four groups of gibbon and all their extinct ancestors form a monophyletic group (ie a group descended from a single ancestral species).

As for there being no intermediate forms between the stem ape, something like Dryopithecus, for example, and Homo sapiens, perhaps you would like to take each of these in turn and explain them:

[list]
*]Sahelanthropus tchadensis
*]Orrorin tugensis
*]Ardipithecus ramidus
*]Australopithecus afarensis
*]Australopihecus africanus
*]Australopithecus boisei
*]Homo habilis
*]Homo erectus
*]Homo ergaster
*]Homo antecessor
*]Homo heidelbergensis
[/list]Alec
evolutionpages.com


#17

Well, Alec,

Flower arranging would be intelligent design … :stuck_out_tongue: :dancing: :bounce: :whacky:


#18

[quote=jessejames]On Bob Sungenis’ web site …
[/quote]

Then it must be true. :rolleyes:

Three words for you -

Pot
Kettle
Black

Questioning their beliefs is what scientists do every day. Of course, actual evidence is useful in the enterprise. :thumbsup:


#19

[quote=zian]Well, Alec,

Flower arranging would be intelligent design …
[/quote]

Wouldn’t that depend on how the flowers were arranged?:wink:

Peace

Tim


#20

[quote=three-sixteen]i dont know why so many Catholics believe in Evolution. Its a ridiculous theory with no evidence. Darwin said in “Origin of Species” that if his theory was true scientists should find innumerable intermediate species (missing links). Well, in the 150 years since his theory zero have been found, neither missing links from ape to human or from anything to anything else…
[/quote]

Also see this detailed 42 page review:
Wood and Richmond, *Human Evolution: Taxonomy and Paleobiology, *J Anat 197, 19 - 60 (2000) in which they discuss the hominin clade, a monophylectic clade containing all species, both extant (there’s only one) and extinct, more closely related to Homo Sapiens than to Pan.

Alec
evolutionpages.com


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.