Evolutionists’ proof is not proof


I’m constantly amazed at how giddy evolutionists become by the sparest bit of evidence and how quick they are to interpret such evidence as scientific proof for their religious dogma/paradigm. That is fanatical faith not imperative science.

A T-rex tooth was found embedded in the tail section of a hadrosaur fossil. Is that proof T-rex was a predator or is there a more plausible scientific scenario? Actually, this proves what creationists have said about T-rex for decades.

For over 40 years, Carl Baugh has been a leading creation science scholar on dinosaurs. He published studies on T-rex fossil teeth found that they were heavily impregnated with chlorophyll; suggesting, their diet was primarily vegetation.

Their teeth — although huge — were set in very narrow dental channels which suggest they would likely break off in a struggle. Their arms were certainly not an effective device to trap and hold prey which even materialistic scientists concede.

Most likely, they were secondary sex traits used to attract the opposite sex. We have many examples of this today in fruit bats, vegetarian monkeys, etc., that have huge incisors but whose diet consists solely on fruits and vegetables.

Considering this scenario, T-rex is an omnivore and a scavenger. He comes across a napping hadrosaur. He is hungry. He bites the hyrdosaur in the tail. The hadrosaur awakes and bolts away leaving the T-rex tooth in his tail, just as Baugh has proposed.

Once again, the evolutionary fable occurs only in the minds of evolutionists and in public school textbooks.

Think the U-B will ever encourage open debate with all viewpoints welcome, instead of printing evolutionary nonsense in its quest to convince us it’s really science? I’m not holding my breath.

Guillermo F. Garcia

College Place


Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in