T-Rex bone discovery supports a young earth

[hecd2]

wildleafblower:

Thanks Steve for the info.

This is what is confusing me. Look at the year of this article:

**Dig pulls up five T. rex specimens
C-rex could be even bigger than Sue
Oct. 10, 2000 ** - BBC

*The discovery of five Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons during a single summer dig in the United States could mean these creatures were more common than previously believed, according to the leader of the project.

One of the huge, carnivorous dinosaurs could also be the largest specimen ever found.

Jack Horner, head of palaeontology at the Museum of the Rockies in Montana, US, described his team’s finds as very unusual.

“On average, a T. rex is discovered once every 10 years,” he told BBC News Online. “To find five in one summer in one area is very surprising.”

Only 20 confirmed T. rex skeletons have been uncovered to date.

Horner, who acted as adviser to Steven Spielberg on the Jurassic Park films, is not willing to be drawn into immediate conclusions about the scientific significance of the discoveries.

Dinosaur evolution

But he concedes that it might mean the huge beasts were more common than previously believed.

The remains were found between June and September this year in the Fort Peck Reservoir area of Hell Creek, Montana*. The area is a famous dinosaur hunting ground.

It has rocks that cross what is known as the K-T boundary, the layer where dinosaurs vanish from the geological record about 65 million years ago.

Horner and his team are involved in a five-year survey of the dinosaurs, mammals, invertebrates and fossil plants found in the region.

But they deliberately set out to look for creatures that lived long before the mass extinction - well below the K-T boundary.

Largest ever

“Most people have been interested in the extinction of dinosaurs, but I’m more interested in how they lived and evolved,” he said.

Most of the Tyrannosaurus remains have not yet been fully uncovered. Parts of three skeletons and most of a fourth have been removed so far. The rest will be extracted next summer.

There is great excitement about one of the specimens in particular. This was discovered by Horner’s wife, Celeste, in July.

The skeleton is only partially intact, but the jaw and a few cervical ribs removed late in the digging season seem to indicate that C-rex (as it has been dubbed) could be the largest T. rex ever found - bigger even than Sue, which drew huge crowds to the Field Museum in Chicago when it was put on full public display for the first time in May.

crystalinks.com/dinosaurs2.html
Is the T-Rex bone in our current topic of discussion one of the bones mentioned in the article? If so, then the date of excavation appears to be between June and September 2000 or in the summer of 2001.

I’m not trying to be a pest or contrary, I’m curious. thx

OK Wild, The story is this: The specimen that Schweitzer investigated is known formally as MOR-1125 (Museum of the Rockies 1125) and informally as B-rex or ‘Bob’. Why Bob? Because it was discovered by Bob Harmon of teh Museum.

It is indeed one of the five T rex specimens discovered in 2000. The story of its discovery is this:
‘Named for discoverer, Bob Harmon. Field crew chief Bob Harmon had gone out dino hunting and hiked his way into a steep box canyon. He stopped on the cliffside to have lunch and plot his exit route. Looking up from his sandwich, he noticed a perfect T-rex metatarsal embedded in the cliffside just out of reach. He hiked several miles round trip to the nearest satellite camp and retrieved a folding chair. From that precarious perch, he was able to dig out the bone. The site was quarried for 3 summers by a crew skilled in using rock-climbing harnesses and jackhammers, and has produced the oldest, yet best preserved T-rex ever found’
See this on the museum site:
muse.museum.montana.edu/paleo/2003/skeletons/skeletons.html

So the specimen was found in 2000. It was not fully excavated until 2003. The year of excavation is also confirmed by the supporting news article in Science:
Stokstad, Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects, Science 307, 1852

It then took Schweitzer et al until 7 Dec 2004 to do the work and write the paper and submit it to Science. The paper was then refereed and, rather quickly, accepted for publication on 26 January 2005. It was finally published in the 25 March 2005 edition of Science. Sometimes the wheels of science grind slowly (but effectively).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

interresting thread

If these bones can survive thousands of years, then why can’t they last longer?

Dino could have been a bog body – an human or animal that sunk into a bog that is chilled and not exposed to oxygen or to other elements.

It seems to me, a body stored in mud, absence of oxygen, sealed off to other decaying elements like worms that is chilled not shaken could last longer than needed for the evolutionists.

 

[Vir_Dei]

The Saints of the old believed in the creation story. Sure, they also believed in other things - such as the world being flat, but nevertheless, we believe they are in Heaven right now. If it was good enough for them to get into Heaven, then I think I’ll go ahead and believe in the creation story.

 

[wildleafblower]

hecd2:

OK Wild, The story is this: The specimen that Schweitzer investigated is known formally as MOR-1125 (Museum of the Rockies 1125) and informally as B-rex or ‘Bob’. Why Bob? Because it was discovered by Bob Harmon of teh Museum.

It is indeed one of the five T rex specimens discovered in 2000. The story of its discovery is this:
‘Named for discoverer, Bob Harmon. Field crew chief Bob Harmon had gone out dino hunting and hiked his way into a steep box canyon. He stopped on the cliffside to have lunch and plot his exit route. Looking up from his sandwich, he noticed a perfect T-rex metatarsal embedded in the cliffside just out of reach. He hiked several miles round trip to the nearest satellite camp and retrieved a folding chair. From that precarious perch, he was able to dig out the bone. The site was quarried for 3 summers by a crew skilled in using rock-climbing harnesses and jackhammers, and has produced the oldest, yet best preserved T-rex ever found’
See this on the museum site:
muse.museum.montana.edu/paleo/2003/skeletons/skeletons.html

So the specimen was found in 2000. It was not fully excavated until 2003. The year of excavation is also confirmed by the supporting news article in Science:
Stokstad, Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects, Science 307, 1852

It then took Schweitzer et al until 7 Dec 2004 to do the work and write the paper and submit it to Science. The paper was then refereed and, rather quickly, accepted for publication on 26 January 2005. It was finally published in the 25 March 2005 edition of Science. Sometimes the wheels of science grind slowly (but effectively).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

You’ve created a masterpiece! Your post is alive with rich information about T-rex and the scientific process. This is exactly what I was hoping to see on this thread! Gracias.

I hope you’ll reconsider becoming a florist! Although, I am a lover of flowers.

Again thanks Alec for your patience. I for one appreciate it.

(I appologize to everyone for that giant T-rex picture. It seems to be messing up the layout of the thread. I think it grew!

 

[three-sixteen]

i liked the big T-Rex picture!

 

[three-sixteen]

if Karl Keating supports evolution i kind of don’t want to say anything against it any more to respect this great site.

 

[abcdefg]

Vir Dei:

The Saints of the old believed in the creation story. Sure, they also believed in other things - such as the world being flat, but nevertheless, we believe they are in Heaven right now. If it was good enough for them to get into Heaven, then I think I’ll go ahead and believe in the creation story.

Earth is flat isn’t a theology belief, it has no base in the Bible and so far I don’t know which tradition shows it has anything to do with theology.

theologically speaking. believing in creationism/ID which reflects on God’s omnipotence will make one go to heaven easier (no harder) than believing in evolution theory.

God excepts the relationship between Him and human as close as possible. so it’s impossible he would have let a monkey randomly mutates into a man (or in some slightly benign (and more tempting!) forms of ET he’ll make a monkey a man) he created man using dust to directly show man, unlike other creatures which are mass created, is specially designed/created by Him from beginning.

 

[abcdefg]

trumpet152:

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

World isn’t run on nature today. things that can’t happen(miraculous cures for example) or shouldn’t happen easily(alive after falling from a plane without a working parachute for example) happens frequently.

Pay close attention to your everyday life. God’s love isn’t that hard to find

 

[abcdefg]

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!

1. do you think soft tissues are real?
2. do you think it’s possible under evolution theory this can happen?

 

[Orogeny]

1. do you think soft tissues are real?
2. do you think it’s possible under evolution theory this can happen?

Yes and yes. Fossilization has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[zian]

Yeah, but the question here was whether or not this was genuine soft tissue? Just because it was squishy doesn’t mean it was a genuine soft tissue. My understanding of Sweitzer’s findings were that no actual cells were found. A tissue would have actual cells.

 

[Karl_Keating]

three-sixteen:

if Karl Keating supports evolution i kind of don’t want to say anything against it any more to respect this great site.

My comment had nothing to do with evolution, one way or the other. It had to do with your adulatory comments, which were appreciated even if not justified!

 

[CindyGia]

Vir Dei:

The Saints of the old believed in the creation story. Sure, they also believed in other things - such as the world being flat, but nevertheless, we believe they are in Heaven right now. If it was good enough for them to get into Heaven, then I think I’ll go ahead and believe in the creation story.

I’m with you Vir Dei.
One question to all you evolution believers:

So then “what” exactly were Adam and Eve? Apes or fish?

This whole thread made me sick to my stomach! So this is Catholicism? The Church of Christ? The Church Christ gave His life for? A bunch of apes evolving into Christians?

I’m heartsick. This thread just wisened me up to not waste my time here anymore!

 

[petra]

josephdavid:

On this who Evolution theory…
What if perception of God’s time is way off? I mean what if God’s 7 days is much much different than what we consider 7 Days?

I hope I make sense.

Gerald Schoeder, in The Science of God, suggests just that, except he gets much more specific than the typical “a day might represent a very long time.”

Dr. Schroeder points out that the passage of time is affected not only by speed, but also by mass. The greater the mass, the slower time passes. Time even passes slower on our sun than it does on earth. The background radiation present in the universe (which is essentially an echo of the big bang) provides scientists with a lot of data about the size of the entire universe. Given a close approximation of the size of the universe, the rate of the passage of time can be calculated, relative to the passage of time on earth. Does it surprise us to learn that 6 days of “universe time” roughly equals about 15 billion years of “earth time?” Schoeder suggests that the 6-day period of creation uses “universe time” as its reference point. The creational account from a universal perspective rather than an earthly perspective makes much more sense because the sun was not even created until the 4th day, and people who could comprehend the concept of creation days were not created until the 6th day. Genesis chapter 1 seems to be written from God’s vantage point rather than human.

Genesis chapter 2, on the other hand, is written from the human vantage point. In chapter 2, the order in which thing are created differs from that in chapter 1 (in chapter 2 man is created before plants and animals). This is because it is likely an account of the order in which things appeared to Adam and he became aware of them, rather than the order in which they were actually created and developed.

Anyway, I highly recommend Schoeder’s book, The Science of God. Readers will find that a belief in theistic evolution and the integrity of scripture are completely harmonious.

 

[steveandersen]

CindyGia:

I’m with you Vir Dei.
One question to all you evolution believers:

it has nothing to do with “belief”
it is simply what we know

CindyGia:

So then “what” exactly were Adam and Eve? Apes or fish?

Apes obviously (although if I understand some classification systems correctly, organisms never stop being what their ancestors were so all land vertebrates would be lobe fish too)

CindyGia:

This whole thread made me sick to my stomach! So this is Catholicism?

no, it is science

CindyGia:

The Church of Christ? The Church Christ gave His life for? A bunch of apes evolving into Christians?

(delete cheep shot joke about particular cult or sect no matter how funny it might be)

Well, technically we still are apes

But if Christian life is supposed to be about spiritual progress wouldn’t make sense if that was mirrored by physical progress?

after all, is saying we are made of clay any more or less an indication that we are physically of the earth? It is the breath of God that made the difference.
I mean sure we’re all tailless mammals with opposable thumbs but can an ape build Chartres or even begin to understand why?

CindyGia:

I’m heartsick.

Why?
How would the subtle complexity and beautiful details of God’s Creation make you heartsick?

CindyGia:

This thread just wisened me up to not waste my time here anymore!

Your choice, of course.

Sorry to loose you

 

[PhilVaz]

Cindy << So then “what” exactly were Adam and Eve? Apes or fish? >>

Adam and Eve were the first true humans with souls. You can believe in special creation of the human body if you want, but all the scientific evidence would lead us to believe they evolved.

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record

Cindy << This whole thread made me sick to my stomach! So this is Catholicism? The Church of Christ? The Church Christ gave His life for? A bunch of apes evolving into Christians? >>

I’m afraid so. According to then Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI:

"All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

“But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky.”

In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Eerdmans, 1986, 1995)

Let me summarize Cardinal Ratzinger:

(1) Our modern scientific knowledge tells us human beings evolved from the animal kingdom

(2) The story of the “dust of the earth” and the “breath of God” that we read in Genesis 1-3 is not to be taken literally or scientifically, it tells us who we are (made in God’s image), not how we got here

(3) The theory of evolution tells us how we got here, it seeks to understand and explain and describe biological developments

(4) Such ideas cannot be contradictory since God is the God of truth, they are complementary, and there must be inner unity of creation, evolution, faith and reason

(5) We used to believe everything was unchanging and immutable, modern science disproved that notion, and now we know because of evolution that Life is more a growing, branching Tree of Life

See also the International Theological Commision statement on creation and evolution from July 2004

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Cindy << I’m heartsick. This thread just wisened me up to not waste my time here anymore! >>

Well that’s too bad. Rather than wringing your hands and waste your time feeling heartsick, disgusted, humiliated, angry, ticked off and other emotions, you might be able to help us amateur theologians reconcile modern science, Catholic faith and reason as the Popes have done.

BTW, Cardinal Schonborn has written on creationism and young-earthism and fundamentalism, in short he says:

“But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism…”

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers.” (Cardinal Schonborn, 11/13/2005)

The Catholic position on this is clear: young earthism is nonsense. See Catechism 159, 283-284 again.

Phil P

 

[wildleafblower]

three-sixteen:

i liked the big T-Rex picture!

I thought you would like the picture of the Tyrannosaurus rex that I put up especially for you.

three-sixteen you said on December 16, post #24, “There is much evidence that proves the earth is not billions or even millions of years old.”

You’re smart enough to now realize there is evidence that the earth is millions of years old because a 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil (informally known as B-rex or ‘Bob’) was discovered by Bob Harmon in 2000.

msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683

The miracle of life for me is constantly unfolding before my eyes. Everytime you learn a truth, you become a little wiser.

 

[petra]

CindyGia:

I’m with you Vir Dei.
One question to all you evolution believers:

So then “what” exactly were Adam and Eve? Apes or fish?

This whole thread made me sick to my stomach! So this is Catholicism? The Church of Christ? The Church Christ gave His life for? A bunch of apes evolving into Christians?

I’m heartsick. This thread just wisened me up to not waste my time here anymore!

Hi Cindy,

Adam and Eve were human, not animals. Genesis clearly differentiates between animals and humans, and Christ certainly did not give His life for any animals. Although humans are biologically related to apes, that does not mean that we are merely advanced apes.

In Genesis 1, it is interesting to note that some of the words used throughout this chapter imply a refashioning of existing resources: made, separated, gathered, and placed. Jewish tradition understands the word “made” (Hebrew: asah) in particular, to mean that something previously existing is being acted upon, rather than brought forth from nothing.

The word “created” (Hebrew: bara) is only used 3 times (verses 1, 21, and 27, which correspond to the creation of matter, animal life, and humans). Jewish tradition understands this word to mean creating something out of nothing. In verse 1, God created all atomic elements that exist in the universe. These elements were created from nothing. In verse 21, God creates animal life, which has its origin in the sea. Here, God creates something out of nothing. However, did God create new carbon, hydrogen, and other molecules out of nothing in the process of creating life? In all likelihood, no. He likely took existing atomic elements and added something new (created from nothing) to them. This thing that was created was animation or Life. Verse 25 indicates that God “made” many other beasts, but the word used here indicates they were not made from nothing, but simply refashioned from existing atomic elements and existing animal life. This supports the theory of macroevolution much more strongly than it does special creation of individual species.

Then in verse 27, God creates man. If it is true that in creating animal life, God added something new (previously non-existant) to something already existing, then it can also be true of the creation of man. It is possible for God to take existing atomic materials (earth dust) and existing animate life and add something new and previously non-existant to it (the human spirit) to create man. The human spirit is that part of us which is made in God’s image. In contrast to our other physical and biological components, our sprit is eternal, is moral, and is capable of communion with God. If God allowed hominids to evolve and develop to a certain point, selected one such hominid, and created a human spirit within him, he would no longer be animal, but human–he would be Adam. So the fact that humans have biological ancestry from apes does not make us merely smarter monkeys. Our spirit has made us different from animals not in scope, but in type. Christ did not die for animals, but for a creation that bears His image and is very good.

 

[three-sixteen]

a quick question,

are these positions of Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Shonborn OFFICIAL Church positions or private interpretations? Are these opinions “bound” Ex Cathedra so to speak, or may we dispute them. I mean these last two quotes posted by the two Cardinals.

thanks