really and why would that be?
See here’s the thing about Egyptian mummies…we can account for the time period in which they lived very accurately using sources other than humanism and its evolutionary assumptions. We know that any radio dating method must align with the written and oral history concerning them. We can very conclusively say that the science interpretation of age is accurate because of this other written evidence. If you are able to find written historical evidence, surely that would make you feel a whole lot better about the fossil record.
Lets take what Encyclopedia Britnnica has to say about this as an illustration…
The fossil record is incomplete. Of the small proportion of organisms preserved as fossils, only a tiny fraction have been recovered and studied by paleontologists. In some cases the succession of forms over time has been reconstructed in detail. One example is the evolution of the horse. The horse can be traced to an animal the size of a dog having several toes on each foot and teeth appropriate for browsing; this animal, called the dawn horse (genus Hyracotherium ), lived more than 50 million years ago. The most recent form, the modern horse ( Equus ), is much larger in size, is one-toed, and has teeth appropriate for grazing. The transitional forms are well preserved as fossils, as are many other kinds of extinct horses that evolved in different directions and left no living descendants.
I see some very significant statements in the above quotation from Britannica…
Incomplete record
small proportion preserved as fossils
succession of forms has been reconstructed
extinct horses come from dog like creatures and
intentional reconstruction because there are no living descendants of the evolutionary chain (which is obviously mostly hypothesis because its reconstructed)
Christians have a written account that has comprehensively been dated back more than 4000 years. They have a long oral, written, and archeological history with an enormous amount of artifacts that completely support the biblical story. They have the Dead Sea scrolls proving that the Bible hasn’t changed in more than 2000 years (the Isaiah scroll found in the first cave predates the rest by at least 350 years using mainstream science dating methods)…so its almost 2500 years old. They have Codex Sinaiticus…3rd Century AD.
There is lots of very consistent evidence to support the YEC view here…one does not need to attempt to manufacture a dating timeline. You do not need to manufacture an evidence trail of non existent missing animals in the fossil record, there is no need to do any of that. YEC have a sound written history upon which to study the fossil record and make sense of it. The reality is, the YEC studies are remaining consistent with the history of the Bible and that is because they actually have the writings of someone who lived during those times. They have writings from individuals who lived after them, and more after those people and so on all the way down to our current time. The chain of written history is unbroken for thousands of years…we have statements (in the bible) that talk about massive dinosaurs in the book of Job (which Encyclopedia Britannica dates around 600 B.C).
So we have:
the Isaiah scroll proven to be at least 300 B.C. this scroll is almost identical to today’s translations
Dead Sea Scrolls, 2000 years old…almost identical to today’s translations
there is no way modern translations had access to either Sinaiticus, Dead Sea Scrolls or Isaiah scroll during recent history.
Britannica among a huge list of authoritative sources guarentees the gap from Isaiah scroll to the writing of the book of Job is a mere 300 years or less.
The book of Job talks about living Dinasours…or even at a stretch, a very very recent history with them. We know this because the book of job gives a very detailed description of what they looked like and how they behaved.
I think it is, on the balance of probabilities a very reasonable conclusion to make that these very large dinosaurs existed side by side with quite a developed mankind in or around 600 B.C. Even if it was in fact earlier than that, it wasn’t much earlier because these guys don’t appear to have discovered any fossils back then…i am not aware of any writings at least, dating back to that time where men have documented the finding of fossils such that they could write such detail about a couple of the big ones as has been done in the book of Job!
Add this information to the evidence being found in support of soft tissue being found in the T Rex bone, and i have to say, that only adds to my evidence trail. It simply adds more to the balance of probabilities that perhaps the YEC view is correct. People try to throw in curve balls all the time, however, they don’t detract from the consistency of the above information that I’m presenting here. All those curve balls do is provide an avenue of research in order to find out why they might appear to disagree with the evidence we already have from the written record.