Evolutionary Timeline

Previously I wrote an entry on the evolution debate in which I simply purposed that we leave the evolution topic alone with school kids. I also said that I won’t criticize evolutionary theory directly because there wasn't anyone to argue their side…well I guess I’m going to make a criticism now. However this will only be a response to an article written by the California Academy of Sciences so they initiated it. I picked this article because it has been brought to my attention a few times this week. After my buddy Tommie sent it to me I had two separate conversations with Sherry about it and I heard Bob Dutko discuss it on his talk show. For those interested click here to read the article...it's pretty short.

In the article they discuss the discovery of a T-rex thigh bone in Montana. The bone was so large that they had to break it in half to transport. When they broke it open they found soft tissue that included blood vessels, bone cells, and possibly blood cells. They than claim that this tissue is 70 million years old…alright with such a claim they must have some plausible explanation of how soft tissue could have lasted so long without either fossilizing or decaying. Well it basically avoids this point completely until at the very end of the article when it asks the question, will we be able to clone a T-rex? Their response… “Probably not – most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.”

Evolutionist claim that it is the Christian’s that lack objectivity because of their beliefs, but they make this discover and never even consider the possibility that dinosaurs didn’t live 70 million years ago. The problem is that if an evolutionist considers this possibility than then it doesn’t allow enough time for evolution to “get lucky” and produce complexity. I could certainly go off on how mind blowing it is to believe that a theory that requires order to be produce from disorder (contrary to all scientific observations) can be considered scientific fact beyond any doubt. Heck not even order but actual information…order implies that simple repeated patterns form, but evolution has to produce DNA which is actual information. Let me illustrate the difference with an example...a simple pattern would be "INININ", but information is a nonuniform pattern that conveys a thought such as the word INFORMATION...no repeated pattern but ordered symbols to convey a thought. Those that study DNA basically describe it as a library of information written in a 4 letter chemical alphabet and it takes between 1200 and 2000 “letters” to build a single protein.

Honestly there is even plenty of other evidence to support dinosaurs and humans being on earth at the same time…this of coarse would leave no room for even an evolutionist to claim that dinosaurs lived so long ago (well maybe I give them too much credit because when they found a prehistoric creature several years ago they called it a "living fossil"). If dinosaurs and humans are separated in time by millions of years than how is it possible that in every culture around the world there are stories about dragons. Why would primitive cultures that never saw a large reptilian creature walk on earth all have stories about them and paint similar pictures of them that resemble dinosaurs…well I guess once again luck must have played a role. There are also stories of them recorded from only about 4000 years ago found in the Bible (Job 40:15 – 41:34). Obviously at this time the term dinosaur did not exist (it was invented in the 1800s), but in the book two very large beasts (the behemoth and the leviathan) are described in great detail. Some have claimed that the behemoth was simply a hippopotamus, but it says the tail sways like a cedar tree…well unless some really fast evolution has taken place on them in the last few thousand years a hippopotamus tail looks much more like a wet noodle than a cedar tree.

Well if you couldn’t tell this topic causes some frustration for me…why don’t we just look at the evidence and draw logical conclusions based on it. Then we test those conclusions over and over to confirm or disprove the hypothesis…you know science. Some time in the future I hope to write an entry on my feelings about science in general, but for now I’ll just stop at this.