From Jerry in Los Angeles, CA
I’m reading your book Navigating Genesis. On page 66 you say, “Given that dinosaurs were reptiles, not mammals…” Wait a minute! I thought it was shown decades ago that dinosaurs were not reptiles. They were warm-blooded and some were feathered. I thought it was common knowledge that dinosaurs were not reptiles. Am I wrong? 

****

Some scientists have speculated that a few of the dinosaur species were warm-blooded and that some dinosaurs were feathered. However, these claims are not yet scientifically validated. Scientists do know that dinosaurs were not mammals. Dinosaurs, like reptiles today, laid eggs. Mammals have placentas.

Scientists also know for certain that many of the dinosaur species could not have been warm-blooded. The sheer size of the larger land-dwelling dinosaurs rules out the possibility. Additionally, many dinosaurs had small mouths, which means they could not have consumed enough food to maintain blood temperatures significantly different from the ambient temperatures of their environments. Thus, they could not have been warm-blooded.

The problem with identifying dinosaurs as feathered creatures is that land-dwelling dinosaurs overlapped birds in the fossil record by more than 70 million years. In some cases the “feather evidence” is ambiguous. In other instances, it is not possible to determine whether the fossil find is a dinosaur or a flightless bird.

For more on whether or not dinosaurs were warm-blooded, check out “Were Dinosaurs Warm-Blooded?” (podcast). For more on whether or not dinosaurs had feathers, check out “Feathered Dinosaur or Flightless Bird?” (article).

From Nate in Fullerton, CA:

Recently I’ve been referred by some young-earth creationist friends to a couple of articles about a Tyrannosaurus rex tooth and a Triceratops-type horn that both underwent an autopsy showing (relatively speaking) “fresher” organic material. Does this affect the time line for the existence of dinosaurs? I appreciate the thought put into this and would love support on how to respond to maintain the old-earth perspective.

****The claim made by young-earth creationists is that discovery of soft tissue evidence in dinosaur fossils proves that these fossils cannot be millions of years old. Soft tissue, they insist, cannot be preserved for that long of a time period.

Paleontologists who have studied these fossils disagree. It is true that such evidence usually decays into an unrecognizable form in just a few hundred thousand years or less. However, if a sample is isolated from any exposure to bacteria and oxygen, then the soft tissue evidence easily can be preserved for over a hundred million years.

Tissue inside a tooth or a horn, where that tooth or horn is quickly buried by mud or volcanic ash, will be effectively cut off from bacteria and oxygen. Thus, it is not at all surprising that soft tissue evidence inside the tooth and horn was preserved for tens of millions of years. If you read the peer-reviewed science papers in which these discoveries were announced, you will note that the authors do not express shock at their findings.

For more in-depth responses to young-earth creationists’ claims about soft tissue evidence in dinosaurs and the tactics certain young-earth creationists employ to distort paleontological findings, see the following articles on the Reasons to Believe website:

• “Dinosaur Blood?“
• “Dinosaur Blood Revisited, Part 1 (of 2)”
• “Dinosaur Blood Revisited, Part 2 (of 2)”
• “Structure of Dinosaur Collagen Unravels the Case for a Young Earth“
• “Do Fossilized Ink Sacs Discolor the Case for an Old Earth?“

From Gavin:

I always enjoy and profit by listening to RTB’s scholars discussing and interviewing others on various creation-science, theological-philosophical, and biblical topics. I am interested to hear what you have to say about the following. A commentator on a young-earth creation (YEC) website said,

I am very impressed with the way YEC cosmologists have broken out of the clearly defective Big Bang-Inflation scenarios, which have to invoke the imaginary fudge factors of “dark matter” and “dark energy” (for which there is no scientific evidence) to keep the Big Bang scenario credible to the cosmological community and the largely uninformed public. As Spike Psarris has pointed out…scientists generally acknowledge that they get to invoke the Tooth Fairy only once to semi-justify a theory with problems and the Big Bang community has had to invoke the Tooth Fairy twice.

My question is, are mainstream cosmologists using “dark matter” and “dark energy” to prop up inherent problems of the big bang model of the universe’s origin?

****

I understand that some people take issue with inflationary big bang models, but to say that dark matter and dark energy were invented without any scientific justification (i.e., invoking the Tooth Fairy) paints a distorted picture. Although much about dark matter and dark energy remains to be discovered, both stand on a strong evidential basis.

The concept of dark matter readily flows from observations of our galaxy (and many others) and a straightforward application of Newtonian gravity. Measurement of an object’s orbit uniquely determines the amount of mass inside that orbit.¹ For decades, astronomers have measured the orbits of Milky Way stars and stars in other galaxies. They used this information to determine the amount of mass in each respective galaxy. They have also added up all the mass from stars emitting detectable light (any form of electromagnetic radiation) for those galaxies. In every instance, astronomers find that the mass needed to explain the orbits exceeds the mass of the visible stars. Astronomers refer to the difference between required mass and visible mass as dark matter (you can charge scientists with a lack of creativity in naming things). Using a similar process, scientists find abundant evidence for dark matter in the vicinity of the Sun as well as in gigantic clusters of galaxies.

Strong evidence also supports the existence dark energy, which was discovered more recently than dark matter. One interesting measurement—independent of the methods that discovered dark energy in the first place—pertains to the large-scale structure of the universe (or how galaxies are clustered together).

Obviously, scientists don’t have a complete and final understanding of the cosmos. Thus, room for alternative models exists, even models without dark matter or dark energy. However, those competing models must explain the current evidence at least as well as inflationary big-bang models do, and right now non-big-bang models fail to meet that standard.

Modern science was birthed out of a Christian worldview. Many of the early pioneers of science—such as Galileo and Copernicus—were either Christians or working within the realm of Christian presuppositions.

Unfortunately, the current cultural climate between science and Christianity isn’t as friendly. In fact, some adults actively discourage bright young Christians who show promise in the fields of math and science away from pursuing a career as a scientist, engineer, or medical researcher. Parents are concerned about whether their child’s education will compromise that child’s faith. According to researcher David Kinnaman of Barna Group, only 1 percent of young adult pastors ever address science in their teaching—even though more than 50 percent of the 18- to 29-year-olds in the church aspire to careers in science and technology. And students often struggle to carve a career path that will result in them achieving their dream to become a scientist.

This is why Reasons to Believe is inaugurating a brand new summer youth program called The Lab. Our vision is to actively influence tomorrow’s influencers by encouraging Christian students to once again consider a career in science as a noble profession. Over the course of the next five years, we want to find 150 to 200 of the brightest young Christian minds and help them lay the groundwork for their calling.

The Lab, an elite 3-day summer experience for ages 16–22, is designed to energize students who desire a career in science, math, engineering, or medical fields. We want to support students in their career paths by helping them draw connections to their faith and discussing emerging arenas of research and how they can be a part of them from a distinctly Christian point of view.

Parallel sessions for parents will be available to equip them to support their student’s educational journey.

The Lab will run July 9–11, 2015, at Reasons to Believe’s headquarters in Covina, CA.

If you know of young Christians in your community who are aspiring to become scientists, encourage them to apply and join us as we empower future physicists, astronomers, chemists, biologists, and medical researchers for the kingdom of God. Applications for The Lab are now being accepted. There are up to 30 spots available for 2015. Although applications will be accepted through June 21, priority will be given to early applicants.

For more information and to apply, visit reasons.org/thelab.

****

By Krista Bontrager

Krista Bontrager is the dean of online learning at Reasons to Believe. She is a teacher at heart and enjoys teaching the Bible to all ages. She has an MA in theology and another in Bible exposition from Talbot School of Theology.