Today at 08:27 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #50 Except that you have all those allegedly flood deposited fossils that indicate that the animals were carnivores and had those tools you say they didn't need. Velociraptor fossils don't look much like they came from vegetarians. There is lots of evidence of carnivorous behavior in the fossil record including bones with teeth marks. I have even seen a picture of a fossil of a fish that had eaten another fish. Dinosaur coprolites (fossil feces) have been found containing the bones of the animals they had eaten.
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ENVS/research/ichnology/Dinocopro.htm
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Frum, I appreciate your effort in showing me these things, along with the links. I try to have an open mind when discussing matters such as these. One reason for that is, when someone shows me in an academic way, a possibility or a reasonable hypothesis, I tend to look at it from their viewpoint so I can understand the actual statement made.
I took this opportunity to visualize what circumstances had to occur, for us to find these fossils in their present form and orientation. I have come, with much thought, to form a conclusion to the evidence you have presented.
The first point you have made, was concerning the fact they have these tools that seem fitted for a carnivore. I thought about that, a seeming contradiction to what the Bible teaches. Then it hit me. Even today, we have animals that have these "carnivorous" tools, but they don't use it in that manner. The claws could be used for digging up the soil, stripping dead wood, and the like.One of these animals we have is the armadillo. Although it is an insectivore, the claws are ideally suited for burrowing. the mole has claws with which to dig with. So with that in mind, I can see, in keeping with the record in Genesis, why the dinosaurs had these "implements". They were used for the purpose of turning over soil, possibly stripping tree bark and eating the actual trunks. Nothing goes to waste!
As for the teeth, I saw how it would become useful for eating trees (I realize this sounds ridiculous). Given those teeth (I looked at a website with teeth from many dinosaurs), I saw that the teeth would be well suited for tough wood as well. The article is found
here.
The velociraptor has a sickle shaped sharp claw in the middle of each foot. I saw that this could have been used for the purpose of climbing trees. It reminded me of the strap-on jigs the tree surgeons use (telephone pole workers also).
As for the bones with "teeth marks", while it does seem to be from carnivore teeth marks, the marks may have been caused from acidic sediment. The marks also could have been caused from sharp objects that were undoubtedly thrown around by the swirling waters of the flood. These dinosaurs had to have been swirled around, like clothes in a washing machine, in this catastrophic flood.
Have you considered that the fish "eating" a fish when it got fossilized, could be a simple case one on top of another? Or perhaps both were dead and in what must have been a swirling malestrom, one got "stuck" in the other's mouth?
Coprolites, by their nature, are kinda fluid. Most of them are no bigger than a nickel. However, if it was fossilized, then it would be impossible to determine the contents due to the fact the organic molecules were swapped for silica based molecules. If it was not fossilized, then it would be possible to "dissect" the coporlite for checking the contents. I can see how a dinosaur could have died and fell on top of the excrement and decayed with the bones settling into it. But, my question is, "Based on it's fluid nature, how could it fossilize, instead of merely dissolving into the water?" Has any "human" coporlites ever been found? I really would like to see a report of dinosaurs with it's gut intact and analyzed for contents, as the wooly mammoths were done.
I must confess that really, I'm not a "yec" or an "oec", It seems that God created the heavens and the earth a very long time ago. In Genesis, there seems to be a untold span of time between verse 1 and verse 2. My guess is that the earth
could be millions of years old. I did some hebrew word studies and found three accounts of Satan having an actual kingdom of which earth was a part of. That kingdom was brought to judgement when Satan fell and the surface of the earth was destroyed. Verse 2, in my thinking, was when God
restored the earth, or more specifically, remade the earth and if you will, restocked it with new lifeforms. God did tell Adam to "replenish" the earth. Why would He say that, unless the earth had been "plenished"?
It may be that the dinosaurs were from that earlier kingdom when Satan was given a kingdom (a small one). This is really another topic, but it is all interelated, imho.
I hope you will consider the alternatives I have pointed from the same evidence we have looked at. I understand your viewpoint, and without the Bible record, it appears plausible. I, however, think there is more to it than meets the eye.