160 million-year-old 'Jurassic rat' discovered

[loretta]

Scientists in China have unearthed a nearly complete skeleton of a 'Jurassic rat' - a 160 million-year-old creature - which they say is one of evolution's most successful mammal. The fossil of the extinct rodent-like creature is helping to explain how multituberculates the most evolutionarily successful and long-lived mammalian lineage in the fossil record achieved their dominance, researchers said. This fossil find - the oldest ancestor in the multituberculate family tree - represents a newly discovered species known as Rugosodon eurasiaticus. The fossil unearthed by Chong-Xi Yuan from the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences in Beijing and colleagues reveals teeth that were adapted to gnawing plants and animals alike, as well as ankle joints that were highly adept at rotation.Researchers suggest that R eurasiaticus paved the way for later plant-eating and tree-dwelling mammals. The multituberculates flourished during the Cretaceous era, which ended over 60 million years ago.

http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Social/mammalian+ancestor+discovered.htm

Before BT, I would have pooh poohed this news despite the scientific evidence collated.  I was strictly a creationist and a 'young earth' supporter and I was lead to believe by Answers in Genesis among others, that the evidence for an old earth could not be reconciled with biblical creation as  interpreted by orthodox Christianity.  So it comes as a relief to know that while more and more research point to a Creator, that science and faith are complementary and not conflicting.

JUst found this song The Script - Science and Faith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCZOGANCOKE.  Quite liked the lyrics and the music too.

[indianabob]

Hi Loretta,
Thanks for the information.
Got a problem with any assumptions that "science" is mostly correct or concurs with the Bible.
I know that it's a big subject, but in general science is either demonstrable or it is not.
If it is not then it is just a theory and adding terms like "millions" of years is about the same as what children's fairy tales do with "long, long ago in a land far, far away there lived a rat" "a rat who decided to become a world traveler etc etc.

Scientist err and also imagine all types of scenarios that cannot be proven. If enough of them repeat the imagined theory often enough and it is published or made into a movie, it soon becomes accepted fact. So I have grave doubts about the "fairy tale" of the Jurassic Rat's age being known.

[indianabob]

Oh alright jfk, you have me there, but that's a different type of evolution.   

My point about science is derived from my years as an employee in a university and in the field as a geological science assistant to a few research professors. An opportunity that provided me many revelations about how science is done and how it is funded.

I mention this situation here because I'm finding that the study of religions works along a similar path, with fanciful yet convincing theory taking the place of established and reproducible facts.

In most instances paleontologist cannot date anything much older than artifacts that they find with decipherable language imprinted on them. When they then extrapolate their actual findings into thousands of years and then millions more to allow for the gradual development of identifiable traits used to classify them in an orderly fashion that they hope God has used and allowed them to discover, it troubles me.
An educated guess is still a guess. Why don't they just say "prehistoric" and be done with it? It surely would result in a lot less memorization of imagined criteria.
The very idea that they attribute intellect and choices being made by various species of animal life is from the same mind set as the idea that humans have free will.

Thanks for listening and please correct any error.
Indiana Bob

[thewatchman]

If it's in China...did they find a set of fossilised chopsticks next to it? 

[Dave in Tenn]

Bob, with respect, how is it possible to correct any error? 

As far as my understanding goes, no scientist actually BELIEVES that individual animals "chose" to "evolve", not even that entire species made a "choice", no matter what ill-suited language they may use to describe things.

My youngest niece is a science teacher.  She is not, however, a scientist.  Demonstrating for a class (or having them demonstrate) experiments which are certain to come to the same result is not "science".  And "theory" in science carries more weight than it does in colloquial use.  There is a THEORY of gravity, yet nobody questions that gravity exists.  Newton's THEORY was ultimately proved inadequate to describe the phenomenon, and Einstein's took over.  Apparently, even his is considered to be lacking. 

Scientists thought for a long time that atoms were the basic building blocks of matter.  (This was after they thought that all physical things were made up of fire, water, air, and ether).  Then they learned that atoms themselves were made of other particles.  Now we are learning that these particles are made up of other particles.  AND there is even open discussion on what makes up THESE particles.  The worm-hole will never end, in my view, because our very language will not allow it--never mind our curiosity.  Some of these things may even prove to be unknowable, even with all the energy of the universe. 

All of these were THEORIES about the makeup of matter.  Yet, not all of them were correct.  But it was SCIENCE that discovered them and SCIENCE which disproved or amended them...all without the need to start from scratch and go back to believing that material things were made out of fire, water, air, and ether.

I could type till my fingers fell off.  It won't do any good for any who think they get a "vote" in these matters.   





   

[microlink]

Good response Dave in Tenn. It seems the more that scientists "discover" the more there is to discover. God's Great Creation is beyond human understanding but human curiosity keeps them looking.

A further thought. I remember reading about the god particle (Higgs boson) as scientists continue to search for the elemental particles in creation.
Reminds me of Romans 1:20-22.

[Dave in Tenn]

I wish the same could be said for religious fundamentalists.

[indianabob]

Hello Microlink,
Thanks for reminding me of the Higgs boson. Here is a copy of an old letter to the forum from me in 2007.
= = =
Joe,

A book, "The God Particle", written by Leon Lederman about 20 years ago, discussed all the research he had been involved in at Fermi Lab near Chicago, IL.  In that book Lederman, a man who loved a good story, attempted to explain in undergraduate terms how atomic particles are detected.  One method is to detect vibrations.  No vibrations, no detections.
Following that idea, as I recall the story, Lederman explained the God Particle as a point in space vibrating at high frequency.  The subsequent thought then is if the vibrations cease there is no detectable particle, so it's just gone.  That would seem to make the God Particle a vibrating point in space.  Interesting?  Factual? Who knows.

I think the particle was called the Higgs and attributed to it was the capacity to impute mass to other detectable particles within its field of influence

Like most good scientists, these physicist are good at measuring physical aspects of the created universe and at projecting physical effects deriving from that data, but that doesn't mean that they understand how the physical universe actually works.  An example is when they project the measurable speed of light photons within our solar system onto the entire balance of the universe assuming that nothing changes or has changed over time.

In similar manner, the religious scientists get very close to the truth of how God's plan for mankind works, but without direct spiritual revelation they are prone to error and theoretical speculation, and while I have no problem with speculation if it is labeled as such, so called experts try to impress us that they have found the final answer to all of our questions.

I am pleased that folks on the forum have the humility to recognize our limitations and patiently wait upon God to reveal His plan when He is ready. 

Isn't this forum fun?

Bob

Good response Dave in Tenn. It seems the more that scientists "discover" the more there is to discover. God's Great Creation is beyond human understanding but human curiosity keeps them looking.

A further thought. I remember reading about the god particle (Higgs boson) as scientists continue to search for the elemental particles in creation.
Reminds me of Romans 1:20-22.

[Kat]

Well the fact is there have been living creatures on this earth for millions of years and I do think that God gives man a little insight into how that has happened. I do believe we have micro-evolution, but the great majority of scientists (there may be a very few who give God recognition) cannot seem to bridge the gap that there is a Creator that gave all things their start on this earth, I think that is where the basic flaw in science lies.

But we can gain some knowledge about our earth from their research and studies. But it's like the bible we have to considered the errors in their way of thinking and then we can actually see some truth. Just my way of thinking as I do use science to a degree to better understand the development of earth and it's creatures.

Kat