Kentucky Fried T-Rex

While I was waiting for my doctor’s appointment on Friday, I read an interesting blurb in a recent edition of Newsweek magazine. A fuller, on-line article is here:

T-rex analysis supports dino-bird link.

The story really began in 1997 when a group of dinosaur diggers discovered what appeared to be traces of red blood cells in fossilized T-rex bone. Evolutionists and long age creationists alike have been skeptical of the find, because the thought of 68 million year old fresh bone marrow does not play well to the mind-set of gradual, uniformitarianism for the earth’s history. Tissue millions of years old should be completely fossilized. The researchers played down their discovery and were quite dismissive of it until “further study could be performed.”

Biblical creationists, however, correctly saw such a find as telling evidence that dinosaurs are not millions of years old and fitted perfectly with a biblical, worldwide flood. Yet, they were condescendingly patted on the head, and even old earth creationists, like the Reasons to Believe crowd, embarrassed by young earth ideas, attempted to dismiss the significance of the find by publishing a web article mocking the creationists and pooh-poohing the soft tissue as being only mistaken for soft tissue and really just remnants of blood cells.

Well, the soft tissue was much more than just remnants of blood cells, because the gist of the Newsweek article is to inform the world that protein sequencing was done on the tissue and now we know Dinosaurs are related to chickens. Well, not quite. There is a 58% similarity between the T-rex and the chicken; but similarity between organisms is not uncommon. Many biological lifeforms share similarities which is something to expect from a creator creating life to exist in a specific biosphere.

At any rate, the part of the article which caught my attention was the response by the evolutionists who claim that we now need to re-think how long protein and DNA can stay viable. In other words, they are refusing to give up their presuppositions of slow, gradual uniformitarianism and entertain wild-eyed speculative opinions as to how a fossil can have unfossilized parts after millions of years.

It’s a perfect illustration of how entirely different presuppositions that shape entirely different world views can look at the same evidence and draw opposite conclusions. The question, though, is which world view better explains the evidence? That dinosaurs lived only thousands of years ago and were killed in a catastrophic flood known as Noah’s flood as Genesis records? Or there is some unknown reason that defies all rationality as to why soft tissue is still present in a dinosaur bone 68 millions years of age? Which one sounds more plausible?

5 thoughts on “Kentucky Fried T-Rex

  1. Good post Fred. I didn’t know about Hugh Ross’s article. I just talked to Ross on a radio show where he was defending his long age view. He tried to claiming that church and reformation fathers supported him or at least didn’t really have an opinion on the matter. So I called in and start quoting Luther and Calvin which certainly make him change subjects fast since it’s clear that those 2, along with most early church fathers, supported a young earth.

  2. Hey Matt,Thanks for the comment. I was a tad annoyed with the author of the Reasons article I linked because he was a bit dishonest with his evaluation of Wieland’s original 97 article. He wrote as if Wieland and other creationists were intentionally misquoting Horner and Schweitzer to prove a young earth. If you read Wieland’s report, he is more than cautious with his statements and citations, and the main point he raised was to demonstrate how long agers will hold to their presuppositions in spite of overwhelming contradictory evidence suggesting their presuppositions are mistaken. The Reasons apologists are all the time guilty of this sort of mishandling of the discussion.

  3. It’s very sad that they refuse to change their pressuposition. That’s why it’s only worth pointing out the inconsistency of their world view then stopping witnessing as soon as we detect a hint of that stubborness.

  4. I have been lurking on your blog the past few weeks. I landed here while I was seeking a reconciliation of the various resurrection accounts in the Gospels. I really appreciate the quality and reasonableness of your posts.In respect to this post… these random bits of “evidence” that supposedly support a world-wide flood really trouble me. Why? Because such arguments are pure dogma and they are a great stumbling block to scientifically educated people who seek the kingdom of God.What qualifies you to judge the age of DNA or “intelligent design” vs. evolution? From what I can discern, you do not have any real education on the topic of biology or evolution. You have not dedicated your life to understanding DNA sequences, astronomy, geology, or archeology.I recently read “The Language of God” by Francis Collins. Collins was head of the human genome project, and he is very clear that the DNA evidence strongly supports the theory of evolution and the old-earth point of view. Arguing that evolution is only a theory is like arguing that gravity is only a theory (which is also true). Francis Collins seems much more qualified to comment on the subject than you.I also recently read Walt Brown’s book on “creation science”. The man’s references were outdated, his arguments were specious and incoherent, and his theory is so ridiculous from a scientific point-of-view that I was dismayed. Is this the best argument Christians have to offer for intelligent design? It is my experience that most people making intelligent design arguments are ignorant of science and lack any modicum of intellectual honesty when it comes to the topic.I recently saw Pat Robertson demonstrate love of his neighbors by telling a secular school system in Pennsylvania that they would be punished by God for “kicking him out” of the classroom. Oddly, he doesn’t prophecy against the other 95% of Americans who are fornicators as demonstrated in a recent poll. Intelligent Designers make Christians look like dishonest fools because they selectively acknowledge evidence that supports their position and dogmatically disclaim evidence that is contrary to their position.So I just ask the intelligent design proponents… please do not try to pretend that you understand science enough to argue that science supports your idea. If you do, please acknowledge that the overwhelming bulk of the evidence is contrary to your position and that people vastly more expert than yourself on the age of the earth and the DNA sciences disagree with your position, using the best evidence that they have available.I know, you have the authority of scripture when you argue for a global flood and a 10,000 year old earth. But perhaps your interpretation is wrong. Was the Pope right when he used scripture to claim that the sun revolved around the earth? The scriptures are extraordinarily difficult to interpret.And this is my complaint. How can I believe the important evangelical Gospel message from a Christian, if I can use intelligent design arguments to empirically prove that said Christian is interpreting scripture wrong, ignorant, and dogmatic?I hope, that as a Calvinist, you do not just write off the potentially non-elect skeptic like myself who perpetually struggles with these and similar questions. I was brainwashed as a child, but I still have trouble with literal interpretation of scripture.

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s