Mar 10 2009
The Young Tyrannosaurus Rex
So I have continuously tried to convince myself that this was a bad topic to bring up, but I’m done fighting it. Tonight’s blog is one I would really like an opinion on. I’m serious, even those of you who usually don’t feel the need to comment, go ahead I want to hear it!
Okay, in 2005 scientists unearthed a Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil in a sandstone formation in Montana. Unfortunately during the excavation one of the bones split. This would typically be nothing more than an unfortunate accident that would ruin a perfectly good specimen. However something special was contained within this bone. There was an element of soft, spongy tissue contained within the bone made from what appeared to be cells!
Now I have previously kept my mouth shut about this…but the obviously ridiculous answer to this phenomenon seems to be far from the minds of scientists. They have been extremely skeptic about the tissue EVEN BEING that of a dead T-rex. Rather, they have suggested that it is a form of spongy decay or an element of fossilization at the molecular level. After deciding that it is a product of the animal, they then began to say “wow, this redefines our idea of fossilization. This soft tissue survived for 70 million years!”
Now what the heck is the big deal with questioning the actual age of the animal…I mean, you don’t KNOW how old it is. You only THINK you know. Every time I read about the questioning of this specimens age, scientists get almost offended! I read a response that seriously said “Well we know this animal to be cataloged at 60-70 million years, so we know it does not possibly classify as a 6000 year old specimen, it must be much older.”
…What? Where is this catalog and who wrote it? Sorry, that’s a stupid answer in my book.
This soft tissue could NOT have survived 60,000,000 years…in fact, I think people don’t really realize JUST how much time that is…
Sixty million seconds is TWO YEARS…think about that…
Look, there is absolutely no way a bone could contained PARTIALLY UNFOSSILIZED sections and soft tissue for 60,000,000 years…
That is simply my opinion. I know people will disagree, but that’ s okay. Look it up, tell me what you think…and I already know what the scientists rebuttals are, and I’m pretty skeptical about them. It’s sounds like a struggle to maintain a comfortable preconceived notion to me.
Actually carbon dating is a topic that makes me want to expel my insides because of how ridiculous of an excuse it is for scientists. I’ll probably write about it tonight to give you an idea of why I think that way. Thanks for the insight into writing though I really appreciate it.
Just to set the record straight, they did not carbon date this animal…and even if they did it wouldn’t prove anything, because they would ASSUME it is too old to be carbon dated and use some other method. They haven’t even done that! They “cataloged” it at 70 million years old because they have assumed it is impossible for a T-Rex to have lived so recently. This kind of find has surprised scientists…yet I have no problem with it. I will be writing about carbon dating tonight though, and you will see why whenever I hear about it being used I merely laugh it off…because it is only accurate if you assume numerous things. Trouble is, most people are never told about the assumptions, just the process.