Natural science has all kinds of assumptions they have concluded to be true before they ever start doing experiments. They are just as guilty of circular reasoning as creationists are. It is all about the money. Look at who is funding the science journals and discover why they publish what they do and why they exclude what they do. It is all about money.

Here is a good example of how silly natural science has gotten. Dinosaur Mummy

My reaction to the story:

65 million years is hard to wrap our brains around. According to natural scientists, 65 million years ago all of the continents were all in one hemisphere (east or west). It was the Cretaceous era. The North Atlantic didn't even exist. The Appalachian and Rocky Mountains were foothills. The Grand Canyon didn't even exist. The Tethys Ocean still existed and the Himalayas had yet to rise. For the past 40 million years an ice age has been advancing and retreating glaciers.

This dinosaur mummy was discovered in an area just east of the Rocky Mountains in an area that was completely tore up by an ice age that didn't start for a supposed 25 million years after the dinosaur died. This really raises questions as to how such delicate features could be preserved unharmed for 65 million years? If it is 65 million years old, we can hardly believe we are finding it in the same location where it died. Not only did the entire continent move half way across the world, a mountain range rose just to the west of it, another mountain range a couple thousand miles to the east of it and glaciers completely carved up the area on numerous occasions. And yet the scales on its skin are still preserved.

Of course a more likely explanation is that this is a dinosaur that lived post-flood and died in some type of volcanic activity. It is hard to believe it died in the flood with such detail being preserved. I am inclined to believe baby dinosaurs were taken on the ark and died off due to dramatic climate changes during the ice age. In that model, the vast majority of dinosaurs died in the flood. Those that died after the flood were far less than the populations prior to the flood. Of course, most that died after the flood wouldn't have been preserved as most animals that die are not preserved.

I suppose that it is all in the semantics, Shane...


Your "Dinnosaur Mummy" brought forth an image where there were people who mummified a Tyrannosaurus Rex [sp] like the egyptians did to thier pharohs...which kinda substanciates the creation/adventist myth/theory that people were worshiping animals/wicked before the flood...

I had never thought of ROCK as a mummification process...

Oh well....just a thought to ponder...and not much of one at that...

As I read the ABC news story, I don't get that it's a mummy, even though that's what the headline says (perhaps an example of bad science reporting?).

The conditions that create fossils don't happen often; I wonder what kind of conditions were able to create such a remarkable fossil specimen.

According to the story:



The scientist leading the discovery's study is quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "It just defies logic that such a remarkable specimen could preserve." I agree. It certainly does defy logic. In fact, it suggests the petrified dinosaur may be much younger.

I have studied the find more since I started the original post back in December. It was buried in river sentiment and a scavenger started to eat it after it died. The scavenger's arm is preserved sticking out the dinosaur - indicating it was the scavenger's last meal. It was buried in river sentiment. From a creationist perspective, that could mean rising flood waters either from Noah's Flood or water from retreating Ice Age glaciers.

Evolutionists don't like that kind of speculation because they claim, and rightly so, that we cannot come up with speculation like that without first believing the Bible is truth. But that is, of course, why creation science is the integrating of science and faith. It is not pure science and it is not pure faith. It is mixing the two together.

The river sentiment that buried the mummy was mineral rich which explains why the dinosaur became petrified. The body was found in rock with the tail was exposed in soil (which is how it was discovered.) One must wonder how well river sentiment is going to protect fine details such as scales over the course of 65 million years as the earth moves, mountains rise, glaciers plow up the ground and rain and glacier run off erode rocks and soil. 65 million years is a long time for a rock covered with river sentiment to preserve such fine detail.

Well, aside from the fact that the GRI scientists' published work remains unexplained, this 'mummy' story has moved off into a tangent that's far from science. Do any of the paleontologists working on the find think it's less than 65 million years old? Do the rocks date as a few thousand years old? Of course it's improbable - that's why all the excitement. But improbable doesn't mean impossible. What's the science?

Note that it is a very detailed fossil - all rock - not a mummy in any sense. And yes, it's amazing that it has been preserved as well as it has, and that the original fossil was as detailed as it was. There's a real sense of wonder in the world and what has happened, and of God's power and creativity too.

Many creation scientists will argue that the study of origins is not science. It involves science but much more than that too.



That goes into the subject of how rocks are dated and the assumptions that go along with that. Which is why the dinosaur is dated 65 million years, I am sure.

This kind of paleontology is not 'origins' though, in the sense of first things and the creation of the universe, the earth and the first life. The dating of the rocks is very replicable by checking it with rocks in other places, and is therefore science.

(still waiting to hear about the GRI scientists)