Specifically, Ken Ham, head of
Answers in Genesis (and who also is building a
Museum of Creation right here in the USA), says that the recent discovery of a thigh bone from
Tyrannosaurus rex is further evidence
for a young earth and
against evolution.
First, a bit of background. Two kinds of Creationists exist: young-earth and old-earth. Old-earth creationists believe that life got here by creation, but they don't happen to believe that the earth is all that young. But evolutionists are all of one stripe: all believe in an old earth. The point: if the earth is old, creation might still be the right answer, though it's harder to prove. But if the earth is young, then evolution is impossible--because not enough time has passed. (And indeed, the notion that the earth is 4.6 billiion years old dates no further back than Charles Darwin.)
So what is all the fuss about today? Well, two years ago some archaeologists found a big T. rex bone. In order to airlift it to civilization, they had to break it. And when they did, they found soft tissue, which included blood vessels and presumably muscle.
Soft tissue? From a specimen that is supposed to belong to an era that ended seventy million years ago? Impossible. And I mean, impossible. No soft tissue could possibly last that long. No one would ever have predicted such a find.
But a young-earth creationist has no trouble explaining it. This particular specimen probably got swept away and buried in the Great Flood of Noah. Which, depending on whose chronology you follow, happened anywhere from 4,400 to 6000 years ago. (I follow James Ussher's chronology, just to set the record straight.)
But I have to agree with Mr. Ham when he observes that evolutionists will never admit that their basic premise is wrong. Instead, they'll think of some fudge, They always do. I remember reading all those fudges in my textbooks.
And why do the scientists always fudge the data? Because they can't bring themselves to believe that anything but random, impersonal chance produced the stunning variety of life we see around us today.
Nor is this especially good science. When Marie Curie repeatedly found that after analyzing pitchblende by conventional means, she still couldn't account for all the radiation it put out, she did not write it off as an unaccountable error. Instead she and her husband set out to extract what they knew was a heretofore-unknown radioactive element--which they named radium--from bags and bags of pitchblende. They succeeded. Their discovery turned upside down everything the world then knew about radioactive elements--because radium is hundreds of times more radiant than uranium. But they would never have accounted for the extra radiation if they hadn't gotten past the notion that the extra radiation came from what they initially thought was, for lack of a better word, junk.
This T. rex bone with the blood vessels and presumed muscle is the radium of paleontology--a find that will remain elusive so long as the community of science insists on their old theories. Madame Curie, I am almost sure, would be very disappointed.
