Is T-Rex actually three separate species?
- Thread starter inertia
- Start date
CrowCross
Well-known member
The differences could be as simple as the differences in dogs.
For the sake of the argument...If a fossil of a dog skull was found in the geological column it might be identified as German Shepherd. Later a Pug might be discovered in the geological column.
Would the paleontologist consider them as two separate species due to their differences?
inertia
Super Member
So far, I'm with the paleontologists that have reasons to call the new hypothesis weak and unconvincing.
___
CrowCross
Well-known member
I'm with the young earth paleontologists.
inertia
Super Member
Are there young earth adherents that have degrees in paleontology from an accredited and academically recognized institution?
____
mikeT
Well-known member
What does it mean to say you're "with" people who don't exist? Can you elaborate, please?
rossum
Well-known member
Thank you for confirming that you ignore science and scientific evidence.
I appreciate others have noted this comment, but I cannot resist.
From Wiki:
Paleontology (/ˌpeɪliɒnˈtɒlədʒi, ˌpæli-, -ən-/), also spelled palaeontology[a] or palæontology, is the scientific study of life that existed prior to, and sometimes including, the start of the Holocene epoch (roughly 11,700 years before present).
So a young earth paleontologist is someone who studies the life that existed more than 11,700 years ago, but believes the universe did not exist more than 6000 years ago! Cognitive dissonance at its finest!
There are a couple of these guys listed here:
Are There Any Young-Earth Ph.D. Paleontologists?
Last Friday, two such paleontologists visited the Creation Museum.
creationmuseum.org
One is at Liberty University, the other at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - and yes, both are Bible colleges. The article actually highlights the cognitive dissonance at work here:
Dr. Ross’ dissertation advisor, Dr. David Fastovsky, told the New York Times that his work was impeccable and that he was working within a strictly scientific framework and a conventional scientific framework. ... These men are part of a growing number of well trained scientists that also believe in God’s Word and that He created the Earth and universe less than 10,000 years ago.
Apart from anything else, these people are committed to the Bible to such a degree that that will ignore evidence that disagrees with it, as the Answer In Genesis statement of faith explicit says.No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.
These guys may have done real science in their PH.D.s (and they may not), but that are not real scientists if they have signed up to the above or similar.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Yes.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Paleontology is the study of the history of life on Earth as based on fossils. Fossils are the remains of plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and single-celled living things that have been replaced by rock material or impressions of organisms preserved in rock.
Creationist study fossils.
I fail to see the point of your post.
CrowCross
Well-known member
You still need to explain soft tissue in dino bones. YEC paleontologist have presented the answer. For some reason you ignore the truth that the fossils are young.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error.
rossum
Well-known member
Old earth scientists have also presented an answer that is consistent with geology, astronomy, biology and cosmology.
YEC is based an an overly literal interpretation of the late Bronze age scripture of one religion.
CrowCross
Well-known member
You're opining.
mikeT
Well-known member
Nope. They "study" the bible.
Anything which questions the creationist's understanding of God or the bible is ignored. As such, there are no creationist paleontologists.
inertia
Super Member
A clarification for those that may not be aware: The Dr. Ross mentioned above is not Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe.
___
No they have not. They have convinced those committed to a young-Earth position, but that is quite different to presenting real science. Can you present their arguments, CrossCrow? Of course not. Deep down, you know as well as I that it will get ripped to shreds here.
On the other hand, I did demonstrate that they are obliged to ignore all evidence that contradicts an old Earth:
I can show that what they do is not real science. All you can do is assert your faith position.
CrowCross
Well-known member
They sure do....and the bible mentions a flood...whee they can go look at the sediment strata and the flood buried plants and animals and in many locations see that they were deposited in a flood.
They find polystrate fossils....which PROVE that sediment deposits don't have to take millions of years to accumulate around an object. (That's just one example of many)
Such ignorance.
CrowCross
Well-known member
CrowCross
Well-known member
They have samples of lava...that they know the exact dates they flowed because they were recorded in history by the eyewitness of men....and those dates are often radiometrically dated as being much, much older.
I've mentioned the biomaterial in some dino fossils that could not have survived the 65+ MY's...which clearly shows an age dating problem for the evo-minded.
What's the half life of a magnetic field? We can measure the magnetic field of the earth...now...and with some math we can calculate what it would have been 25 thousand years ago. Take some time, do the math and tell me why such a strong field would not be a problem.
You sound like the Opining Pixie.