Of Grass and Dinosaurs . . .

Scientific Discoveries Continue to Erode Darwinism
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.*

The unobserved process of evolution and its bizarre history has been thoroughly entrenched in the minds of millions. For decades there were facets of this theory that one was never to question, but irritating scientific discoveries continue to unravel the Darwinian garment.

For instance, decades ago it was routinely taught that vertebrates arose long after the Cambrian period. Evolutionists maintained that the Cambrian (beginning “542 million years ago”) was when “simple” life was first getting established. It would take many millions of years to produce the first animals with backbones — the fish. In fact, two evolutionists stated in a well-known text, “Fish arose during the Ordovician |beginning ‘488 mya’|. . . .”1 But in 1999 fossil fish were found in lower Cambrian sediments in south China.2

Several years back, this writer attended the International Conference on Dinosaur/Bird Evolution. One afternoon, a number of us took a field trip led by a recognized “expert.” He asked us if the field in which we were standing could have been a dinosaur-age environment. Several said no, because there was grass present. Evolutionists maintain that grasses were not present during the age of dinosaurs —

In my review |i.e., Eschberger, ed.| of Disney’s new movie “Dinosaur,” I mentioned that one of the few scientific inacurracies |sic| that I found in the movie was the presence of grasses in the dinosaur nesting grounds.3

However, in a 2005 report we read, “Plant-eating dinosaurs munched on grass, say scientists who had thought the plants emerged after the beasts died off.”4

Students were taught that the only mammals during the “age of dinosaurs” were small, and barely able to stay alive among the terrible thunder lizards. Evolution theory said that the mammals were nothing more than “shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night.” That radically changed with the recent discovery of large, dinosaur-hunting mammals!5

One of the more spectacular discoveries that has done much to dispel the myth of dinosaurs living many millions of years ago is the unearthing of soft dinosaur tissue (see Acts & Facts Origins Column).6 How could dinosaur tissue remain soft for 70 million years?

These discoveries, while devastating Darwinism, clearly support the creation model, with all things created within one week, not long ago.

1. Ayala, F. J., and James W. Valentine. 1979. Evolving: The theory and processes of organic evolution. Benjamin Cummings Publ., CA: 366.

2. Shu, D-G. et al. 1999. Lower Cambrian vertebrates. Nature 402 (Nov. 4): 42. (See also Colbert, Edwin H. et al. 2001. Colbert’s evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time. Wiley-Liss, Inc., NY: 5.)

3. Eschberger, Beverly. 2000. Grasses and grazers. Suite 101, July 7. http://www.suite101.com/print_article.cfm/paleontology/43299

4. CBC News. 2005. Grasses grew for dinosaur grazers. November 17. http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/11/17/dino-grasses051117.html

5. Hecht, J. 2005. Large mammals once dined on dinosaurs. New Scientist.com, January 15. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dinosaursmg18524824.400

6. Sherwin, F. 2005. The devastating issue of dinosaur tissue. Origins Column, ICR.org, June. http://www.icr.org/article/2033/

*Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.

Advertisements
Published in: on March 19, 2007 at 2:27 am  Comments (3)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://bassethound.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/hello-world/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. So what do you think? Are there any answers to the objections raised in this article?

  2. bassethound

    of course there are answers. can we fully know them: maybe, maybe not?

    but for sure, sherwin adequately pts out that darwin’s theory needs to be revisited. the only reason people hold so strongly to it is because they have no other explanation. personally, i think its ok to say, “we dont know”. its pretty pompous to think we can fully know why and where or what and how in the world.

    this doesnt mean we shouldnt try. this doesnt mean we cant come to some understanding, but i think we need to look at the world from the perspective that anything we theorize is up for debate and change.

    peter

  3. Quote:
    PB and J
    of course there are answers. can we fully know them: maybe, maybe not?
    but for sure, sherwin adequately pts out that darwin’s theory needs to be revisited. the only reason people hold so strongly to it is because they have no other explanation. personally, i think its ok to say, “we dont know”. its pretty pompous to think we can fully know why and where or what and how in the world.

    this doesnt mean we shouldnt try. this doesnt mean we cant come to some understanding, but i think we need to look at the world from the perspective that anything we theorize is up for debate and change.

    peter

    bassethound: I agree to a point. I think that we also need to be careful that we don’t end up embracing the post-modern mindset of moral relativism, relegating the definition of truth to personal experience. There are moral absolutes for those who believe in the Bible just as there are scientific absolutes in the form of laws. No matter how people try to bend the truth, cows will always give birth to cows, apes will always give birth to apes and the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening, not because we choose it, but because our Creator created the natural laws that dictate it.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: