<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Jurassic Park

This story was published over the weekend:

Reexamination of T. rex Verifies Disputed Biochemical Remains

Keep in mind as I move along this comes from a Darwinian evolutionary website that wants nothing to do with those hill billy creationists.

Whether or not the remains of a tyrannosaurus found in Montana a number of years ago contained the remnants of red blood cells and soft tissue has been an on-going dispute among teams of paleontologists for awhile now. Reputations were squarely on the line as charges of mishandling the material were leveled against the group who made the discovery. How could blood cells and soft tissue be recovered from a fossilized bone 70 million years old?

Well, in spite of the naysayers and cruel mockery by academics, the disputed remains have been verified to contain what the researchers originally claimed: red blood cells and soft tissue. So much so that they have been able to examine protein from the samples, and a full article will be available in the Journal of Proteome Research.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, whose team originally identified the samples in the T. rex, thought sandstone was the likely preservative to keep soft tissue from fossilizing over millions of years. So, with that hypothesis in mind, and working with Jack Horner's Museum of the Rockies field crews, a hadrosaur was located in sandstone. Lo and behold, when they began to examine the remains what should be found but the remnants of soft tissue and red blood cells.

Now, the evolutionary, long age conventional wisdom refuses to acknowledge the fact, that just maybe, these animals aren't millions of years old. That just maybe they lived in the past just thousands of years ago and were wiped out by fast, catastrophic burial by a flood. No. Rather, the conventional wisdom embraces what would otherwise be the improbably, that soft tissue can be preserved over millions and millions of years in sandstone.

One interesting footnote. When Schweitzer first published her findings and her and her team were under heavy scrutiny and mockery from the academic peer reviewers, creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, noted how the discovery confirms what is to be expected if we believe an earth that is young as scripture teaches. Long agers, particularly Hugh Ross's "apologetic" team at Reasons to Believe, ridiculed the creationists as reading way too much into the discovery and in some cases implied they were making stuff up about what was originally reported by Schweitzer and her team. I wonder now if they have re-thought their conclusions about all of this?

I never cease to be amused when Bible critics have to eat a big plate of crow, or I guess in this case, fried dinosaur.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Blogger The Squirrel said...

So now soft tissue and blood have been found in 2 dinosaur specimens? A T. Rex and a Hadrosaur? Wow!

I must admit that I have much more respect for the materialistic evolutionists then I do for Hugh Ross and his ilk.

~Squirrel

8:08 AM, August 05, 2009  
OpenID lyndao said...

"Long agers, particularly Hugh Ross's "apologetic" team at Reasons to Believe, ridiculed the creationists ... I wonder now if they have re-thought their conclusions about all of this?"
Unfortunately, I don't think the Hugh Ross "Christians" (and I know one such person) will change their views at all, but will continue to cling stubbornly to their ideas. But then Jesus said that, for those who rejected Moses and the prophets, they wouldn't believe even if someone rose from the dead. (Luke 16:31).

I agree, the materialistic evolutionists are more consistent in their beliefs than the Hugh Ross group.

10:57 AM, August 05, 2009  
Blogger donsands said...

"Now, the evolutionary, long age conventional wisdom refuses to acknowledge the fact, that just maybe, these animals aren't millions of years old. That just maybe they lived in the past just thousands of years ago and were wiped out by fast, catastrophic burial by a flood. No. Rather, the conventional wisdom embraces what would otherwise be the improbably, that soft tissue can be preserved over millions and millions of years in sandstone."

That beared repeating I thought.

Thanks for the post. It's good stuff for the fight.

1:33 PM, August 06, 2009  
Blogger Jay said...

As much as the soft tissue is an anomaly, I still can't think that the dinosaurs were killed in the Flood. If that's true, then how come we don't find fossils of contemporary animals along with them? if the fossil record was created during the Flood, why does it mostly contain animals that are extinct, when two of each animal should have been on the ark, thus leaving the rest to become fossilized?

Also, is one not a good Christian if he or she believes in Old Earth creationism, or that God created the Earth with an apparent age that is older than its actual age?

9:57 PM, August 06, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Jay,
From what I understand of the fossil record, and this is even from secular sources, just about 5 percent of it is large, land dwelling vertebrates. The remaining 95 percent is sea dwelling creatures, particularly fish and soft tissued, non-vertebrates.

Dinosaurs for example are found in different areas of the world, but for the most part are located in large quantities in Argentina, Montana, and the Gobi desert in China. Which means their habitats may have been isolated or confined to certain areas in the pre-flood world, which may be the reason why they aren't found with mammals, or at least modern day mammals we are familiar with. That is Kurt Wise's position who received his doctorate at Harvard under Stephen J. Gould. He currently teaches at Southern Seminary.

I would check Answers in Genesis website to look for some specific articles on the subject. Interestingly, of the fossils we do find, the good majority are also creatures that exist now in our modern day. Squid, fish, even whales.

As to whether or not a person who holds to an old earth position can be saved is beside the point. I would never say they are not. I am convinced of Hugh Ross's basic Christian orthodoxy. The real issue is how much are we going to allow humanistic convention to shape how we understand the historical record of the Bible. A couple of articles I would point you to:

Philosophical Naturalism and the age of the earth and Jesus, Evangelical scholars, and the age of the earth

Both of these articles lay out the importance of this issue when it comes to the authority of scripture.

I also addressed old earth creationism in a series of brief MP3 lectures if you are interested. They can be found HERE

11:26 AM, August 08, 2009  
Blogger Jay said...

Thanks for the resources and the reply. I hope to get a chance to listen to your lectures soon.

9:46 PM, August 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home