T Rex found in Montana raises doubt to 70 million years of extinction
no matter what method of scientific reasoning we use, if there is tangible evidence directly contradicting a theory (or parts of a theory), then the theory (or that part of the theory) must be discarded or reworked to acknowledge the data.
recently, a tyrannosaurus rex was found in montana that had “flexible blood vessels”. for us laymen, this scientific term may not mean very much. but essentially, this means that the bones of the dinosaur hadnt fossilized as fully as it should have if it had died approximately 70 million years ago (the theoretical date by many scientists for the extinction of dinosaurs). however, this evidence seems to actively deny the theory that dinosaurs went extinct that long ago.
what are we then to do?
certainly, this doesnt mean that the earth is 6000 years old as many scientists on the other side of the debate claim, but it does show that the darwinian time table might need to be revised a little (by a little i mean by millions of years). you see, the evidence indicates that dinosaurs didnt go extinct millions of years ago. there are many problems that have constantly plagued the dating of dinosauric fossils, yet the theoretical timeperiod held by darwinians remains intact. shouldnt a humble scientist be more than ready to throw their own theory out (or part of the theory out) when the evidence demonstrates something different?
while i believe that the earth is only about 6000 years old, i am more than willing to throw that theory out if the evidence were to conclude differently. with that said, i must grant to the darwinians that there is “evidence” that would seem to indicate millions of years of earth history. i know that much of this evidence (from the little research i have done in the area) isnt always as clear cut as it would seem. so this evidence doesnt prove or disprove darwinian timelines. in the same way, this new discovery of the relatively “new” fossils of a T rex doesnt prove a young earth, but it does seem to add doubt to the theory that all dinosaurs went extinct 70 millions years ago. isnt it possible that they didnt? what does the evidence say?
for more information on this finding, check out:
http://www.icr.org/article/2033/
Filed under: Christianity, Religion, Science | Tagged: darwinian evolution, young earth
This came out in 2005 (If I’m not mistaken). Last year I printed out the article from the journal, Science, and gave it to my naturalist co-worker (we’ve had many a colorful debate on evolution and the age of the earth and related topics).
He thought I was pulling his leg when I first told him about the incident. I had to show him on the Science website and even then all he could muster was “There has to be a rational explanation”.
That is a ‘rational explanation’ that fits his preconception that dinos lived millions of years ago. Very faith-based his view was, I thought…
laz
you are right about the article coming out in 2005. which is relatively recent, but als0 it was new to me.
as far as the coworker having “faith”, i think actually it wasnt faith at all. you see, faith is hope in things unseen. we cant see George Washington but we have reason to believe he existed. we cant see the history over the last 6000 yrs but we believe it occurred. scientific theories on both sides of the question of creation lack observable evidence. this makes both faith.
however, blindly believing isnt faith. you see, unseen things doesnt mean “no evidence and irrational”. many things that we cant see are still logical. we shouldnt believe just because. we should have rational faith. so your coworker had blind faith, but i think it is better (for us as well) to have rational faith.
shalom
peter
Well obviously he tells me all the time, that he doesn’t have faith but reason. He has reason to believe that the earth is billions of years old (at least he thinks he does) as did I when I believed what most scientists tell us.
I agree with you completely that both sides are faith-based. In fact when I bring this up in discussion I’m usually accused of insanity.
Naturalists cannot prove that Something outside of nature does not exits just like you and I cannot prove that God does exist, it must be accepted by faith.
exactly. i spend a far amount of time talking about this in part 1.0 of my book i am writing. the draft is at http://merehumanity.wordpress.com.