Dawinists Dogma Questioned

By Dr. Theo on June 28th, 2009

IMG_1896 - CopyThe Discovery Channel repeated a program today first aired last fall about a fossil dinosaur that was unearthed in 2000 and has been the subject of much study and speculation.

In “Secret of the Dinosaur Mummy” we are informed of a nearly complete Brachylophosaurus nicknamed “Leonardo,” a juvenile plant-eating duck-billed dinosaur reported to be from the Cretaceous period 77 million years ago. What makes this specimen particularly interesting is that Leonardo was found nearly complete with articulated joints and fossilized skin (with scales).

The Discovery program focused on additional research in which powerful X-rays, gamma rays and cobalt radiation were used to image the internal structures of the remarkably preserved brachylophosaur.

I found it fascinating that many of the internal organs were intact and recognizable on the images. Not only bone structure, but intestines, heart and even stomach with food contents still intact. We are told that the young dinosaur dined on conifers, ferns and magnolia in the hours before his death.

The project leader, Dr. Robert Bakker, of the Houston Museum of Natural Science, tells us that the stomach contents contain shredded plant material that still contains carbon. This means that the specimen is not completely fossilized, even after 77 million years! It puts me in mind of the T. rex fossil that was found with collagen, blood vessels and blood cells still present (Science April, 2007).

In all the articles I was able to find on Leonardo, mention was made that researchers found evidence that brachylophosaurs had an anatomic feature called a “crop.” This same point was emphasized in the Discovery program, as Dr. Bakker points out a slight bulging area on the fossil neck below the head.

Many bird species have a crop or pouch on the esophagus, which acts as a storage reservoir for food. For instance, a bird may come upon a field of seeds but time spent on the ground feeding is time for a predator to attack. Birds with a crop can quickly fill it with seeds and make a quick get away to a safe perch where the seeds can be directed into the stomach over a relatively long leisurely time period.

It has long been held by evolutionists that modern birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs and the finding of a dinosaur with a crop would add substantial evidence in favor of that proposition. It therefore didn’t surprise me that Dr. Bakker assumed the bulge in the neck of Leonardo is caused by the presence of a crop.

The Discovery program displayed many of the X-ray and other high-energy images which showed intestine and stomach clearly (I have had some experience reading human X-rays in my medical practice). They were easily identifiable because these organs are hollow and the contents of air or food material provides a contrast in density that can be seen in the images. They also showed images of the neck region and I noticed that such was not the case in the bulge that is claimed to be evidence of a crop. Being a hollow organ we should certainly expect it to be apparent.

This fact was not mentioned in the Discovery program nor in any of the articles I was able to read on-line about this research. I find this odd.

To his credit, Dr. Bakker did speculate on how such a wonderful specimen could have been preserved and said it could only have happened in a flood in which the animal was buried very quickly in deep sediment—a local flood, of course.

While many evolutionists are busy trying to find evidence of the ancestry of birds from dinosaurs– even if it is just a hunch, as in this case—I found a report only days old from the UK Mail Online titled “Why birds are not descended from dinosaurs.” Citing the work of researches at Oregon State University the article points to the unique respiratory anatomy of birds (not seen in any land-dwelling creatures) and the fact that birds and dinosaurs co-existed during the Cretaceous period.

It has been dogma of Darwinists for many years that birds evolved from dinosaurs and some researchers are doing everything they can to prove it.

Meanwhile, other researchers have opened their minds and taken a fresh look at scientific facts that have been known for an equally long time and come to the conclusion that descendancy is very unlikely.

Any bets that the Oregon researchers won’t be tarred and feathered over this and accused of giving ammunition to the hated creationists?

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , ,

  • Brian Rutledge
    Since we have arrived at the subject of geology, I have a question that no believer in the 6000 year old earth has been able to answer. Man is now capable of making diamonds that exactly resemble the diamonds retrieved from the earth. We know exactly how much pressure, heat and time it takes to create them. The more pressure applied the less time it takes for them to form etc.

    The natural diamonds formed by the earth come from deep in the earth and are brought near the surface by volcanic type pressure release systems. We know what this pressure is under the earth where they are formed and thus we know that the diamonds cant be formed in 6000 years. It takes millions of years at that pressure to create the diamond. Even the force caused by the weight of a massive flood is nowhere enough the force to exert enough pressure to the earth below to create diamonds in 6000 years. We know this because we know the force of.. say a flood that was ten miles in depth is still not enough force to pressurize the earth beneath it. It is a mathematical certainty because we can can now make diamonds and know the exact pressures and thus time needed.

    Howwould a 6000 year young earth beleiver explain that?
  • Brian Rutledge
    dr. theo

    Can't argue your postulate either. There could have a sudden combination geologic-water catastrophe, but common sense says the fish would have Initially be strown in many directions and in many positions. It would have had to occur in a millisecond to cover them so that they were all in the same direction and Idon't believe that what Genesis 6 through 9 says..
  • Fair enough, Dr, Rutledge. You don't believe that Genesis is true and I don't believe that evolutionists are intellectually honest, blinded by their prejudice. We can agree to disagree on this point, but I appreciate your thoughts and comments.
  • Brian Rutledge
    dr. theo,

    Need to clear something up and I try to be respectful of ones religious beliefs. My intent was not to say that Genesis wasn't true, but that I didnt see how the Genesis account of the flood could scientifically explain dead fish, lying in the same direction in one strata. It is the science of flood geology that I disagree with. Would never say to anyone that their belief in Genesis is wrong, unless I could bring forth irrefutable evidnce, which I can't
  • The photo in this piece is not a brachylophosaur. It is a herring, one of billions discovered in a single geologic stratum in Montana (all swimming in the same general direction!). It is from my private collection and I used it to illustrate that the presence of fossilized soft-tissue is not rare. In this specimen I can see the fine fin rays, scales and skin, tiny bones embedded in the flesh (the ones we hate when we eat fish) and even the cornea of the eye.

    I challenge any Darwinist to present a plausible mechanism for the formation of such detailed and life-like fossils, found by the billions all over the earth. I have done some scuba diving in lakes, rivers and the ocean and I have yet to see a dead fish carcass laying on the bottom. Dead fish usually last a few hours at most before being devoured by scavengers.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I dont really have enough information, but if there was a salt water inlet from the Pacific shallows at one time in Montana, the herring could easily migrated there. If the inlet dried up or atmosphereic changes occurred that suddenly changed the ph or oxygen content of the water, then the herring could easily died en masse along with its preditors.As this ' lake bed' dried up it would have been covered with geologic material and preserved and fossilized in that strata.

    Not having much more information than you gave, there is a plausible mechanism
  • Really, Brian? Billions of herring, apparently schooling together all die in an environmental catastrophe and are preserved in a near perfect condition, all moving in the same direction. I submit that the catastrophe had to be sudden and total with deposition of thick layers of sediment in minutes. The Green River formation, of which I am referring, covers hundreds of square miles and contains many other vertebrate and invertebrate species, marine and terrestrial.

    Some postulate that the fish are from a large inland lake that was surrounded by tropical forests. Supposedly, the lake was very deep and cold and normal scavenger and bacterial decomposition was impeded by these conditions, so when animals died they sank quickly to the bottom to be slowly covered with sediment. Ok then, show me how this happens today. Lake Baikal and Lake Tahoe are the two deepest lakes in the world. Their bottoms have been mapped extensively yet no proto-fossils have been discovered and the bottoms are as absent of carcasses as any other lake or sea.

    I'll grant that your theory is as good as any others I've heard but they all fail the test of common sense and scientific verifiability. The theory of a massive flood with "fountains of the deep" opening up and shooting mud and sand thousands of feet in the air and covering large areas of land and sea in minutes is most consistent with the fossil evidence. Details can be found in Genesis, chapters 6 through 9.
  • Outcropper
    If the "theory of a massive flood with "fountains of the deep" opening up and shooting mud and sand thousands of feet in the air and covering large areas of land and sea in minutes" is accurate it would be reasonable to expect that we would find similar deposits all over the world all at the same stratigraphic level. I am not aware of that phenomenon. The Green River Fm. with it's fish fossils is just a postage stamp on the surface of the earth. A global flood with the catastrophic effects that you imply would have left a very definitive mark. One that is not seen in the geologic record.
  • Brian Rutledge
    dr. theo, I watched the special as well and agree that regular xrays will differentiate between a hollow,air-filled space and solid tissue. But the 'crop' structure is more of a pouch which collapses on itself when empty and enlarges as it stores food. Stomachs commonly have free air in them, but pouches don't.You can xray a birds neck area and not see the crop structure if it is empty, much like diverticular pouches in our colon wont show unless filled with contrast. Plus this crop or pouch had become completely fossilized,turned to stone basically, which would make a collapsible organ less likely to retain air or appear hollow..

    But more than regular xrays were used as you mentioned. High powered gamma rays, three D imagery etc. were used which did reveal a definite structure outlined in this area. I am not an expert in this field at all, but your comment that you found it odd that you did not see a hollow structure on the xrays struck me as odd, as that might suggest it wsn't there. You know that CT scanners and MRI scanners can show outlines of organs and structures that have no air or aren't hollow and thats what the more specialized images also revealed in this case.

    These researchers found a fossil and it underwent specialized imaging techniques and they reported what those images revealed. Was there proof this structure was a crop-No. Did the images show it may have been a crop-yes. You then talked about the researchers from Oregon State have found that the respiratory apparatus of birds is entirely different from any known land dwelling animales. Great. Let the research continue.

    Back to my original thought. I feel your statement that you did not see a hollow structure and found it odd, should have been fully explained as to why such a pouch-like structure would not be in a hollow state when found and it would take special images to reveal its outline.
  • Your points are well-taken, Dr. Rutledge. I'll try to answer your main issue about the images and what we might expect to see. I did mention that other techniques were used besides x-ray, but they were all two-dimensional as far as what was reported. No CT was done, and, of course, MR would be worthless in this case. Yes, a hollow organ completely collapsed may not show well on plain films, but hollow organs are rarely empty and collapsed, even in cadavers that have been long dead. Furthermore, much was made about Leonardo's stomach being full of foliage, so wouldn't we expect just a little in the crop as well? (My understanding of the avian crop is that it is found primarily among species that eat seeds, not foliage.)

    So you and I can debate the methods and findings, but I find it telling that in the lay press and the Discovery program little effort was extended to explain to us what exactly was the significant evidence for Leonardo having a crop, save a "bulge" in the neck, which could just as well be an artifact, a fat pad, a fold of skin or muscle.

    I did not think it odd that they didn't see a hollow organ that may be a crop; I found it odd that Discovery didn't mention anything about the images relative to a crop, either aye or nay.
  • Bob Janes
    This is what happens when science is driven by religion rather than facts; when evidence is constantly manipulated by an unchanging, predetermined "conclusion."
  • DCM
    Mr. Janes - I don't know if there was a point to what you wrote other than basic name-calling. But if (as it sounds) you're accusing creationists of ignorance, etc., and assuming all intelligent people accept evolutionism, then you're only showing how much you *don't* know (or don't want to know) about the debate.

    Evolutionists are good at taking minor, hypothetical points and making them sound like they *could* support the we-were-created-by-nothing myth. But they fail to answer the real foundational, elephant-in-the-living-room questions that any insightful 10-year-old could ask.

    You're welcome to disagree with those of us who don't unthinkingly go along with the evolutionary myth. You may even come up with good-sounding reasons to disagree. But to accuse us of unthinkingly following "religion" is nothing but a cop-out.
  • You're absolutely right, Bob. The religious views of evolutionists are first and foremost in their minds when they interpret the evidence, and unfortunately they seek some rather imaginative ways to make the objective evidence fit their religious beliefs.
  • DCM
    This is what happens when science is driven by ideology rather than facts; when evidence is constantly manipulated by an unchanging, predetermined "conclusion."

    Saying that most scientists accept evolutionism doesn't add credibility to evolutionism. It removes credibility from scientists.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »