I have been hammering away at the evolutionary timeline in the last couple of articles and was looking to do something else for this article. However, when the evolutionists serve up a softball, it is rude not to hit it hard. In my research preparing for another article, I stumbled on this gem of a headline. “New dinosaur found in the wrong place, at the wrong time.” I could not pass that up so we’re going to discuss a newly discovered dinosaur species from China in this article, and how it defies evolutionary expectations.
The newly discovered dinosaur is called Lingwulong and I am thankful I had to type that and not say it. It is named for the province in China where researchers uncovered it, called Lingwu. However, it is not the tongue-twisting name which brought it to my attention. Rather it is where it was found and when evolutionists dated it to that caused me to take a second look. Lingwulong is a neosauropod or an early version of a sauropod dinosaur in the evolutionary paradigm. The fossil dated to one hundred and seventy-four million years ago. Laying aside the obvious problems that come from evolutionary dating methods, the date, and the fact it was found in China, raised significant problems for the evolutionist. The evolutionary prediction was the diplodocus like dinosaurs did not even start to evolve until two hundred million years ago and did not reach China until much later than the one hundred seventy-four million years old this fossil dated as. Lingwulong should not be where it is found.
The researchers on this project recognized that they had made a discovery that did not match their dogma. “This forces a complete re-evaluation of the origins and evolution of these animals.” Professor Paul Upchurch of United College London, one of the studies co-authors, admitted. In other words, the timeline will need revising. Again.
This discovery is based on a number of partial skeletons, including a couple of skull bones. It has a surprisingly high number of discovered bones for a dinosaur, as many dinosaurs are based on a single specimen and, in many cases, only a handful of bones. However, as I’ve mentioned previously when discussing dinosaur fossil finds, many paleontologists will happily assign a new genus and species to discovered bones in the hopes of getting a paper published. However, this does not seem to be the case here as there are as many as ten separate individuals. The possibility that they are juveniles of a different species probably can be discarded since the researchers should have noticed some juvenile bone characteristics if this were the case.
However, while this is likely a new species, it is not helpful for evolutionists. Since it contradicts their dogma, evolutionists have a significant issue. Like every other time the theory comes under any amount of threat, the evolutionists immediately closed ranks and applied a rescuing device. “This ‘pushing back’ of the origination times of major sauropod clades reinforces recent suggestions that the Early Jurassic was a critical phase in dinosaur evolution, characterized by highly elevated rates of diversification and morphological change.” The paper tells us. So in other words, nothing to see here, we expected this, our theory accounts for it, move along. This is incredibly frustrating because it is not science.
The scientific method has four major steps. You observe, you test, you repeat, you falsify. Evolution fails at all these hurdles, but I’ve become increasingly convinced that the last hurdle is the key one. For something to be part of science, it has to make predictions, which, when disproven, overturn the idea. Yet when evolution makes predictions and they inevitably fall flat, evolutionists simply apply the spin, revise the theory and move on like nothing ever happened. To someone who actually enjoys performing observational science, this is incredibly frustrating.
Why will evolutionists never consider the possibility that their theory could be wrong? Oh sure occasionally an individual evolutionist will publically change sides, but the majority close ranks and keep the sacred theory afloat. Why? Part of it is a herd mentality. Most people do not want to be subjected to ridicule such as creationists are. They would rather be praised and honored by their colleagues so they hide their doubts. Also, an open creationist is much less likely to be published in the scientific journals, which is what opens the doors to the best teaching and laboratory jobs and keeps the grant money flowing. Beyond the pride issue for those with doubts, the ultimate problem comes from a worldview. Evolutionists do not want to admit that there is a God, therefore they ignore any evidence that does not fit their theory, for fear of having to accept a God. Evolution is not about the science or the evidence. Evolution ultimately is about escaping the authority of God.