Dinosaurs after the flood

[Mustelidae]

You guys seem pretty far off topic, though to respond to the point of penises (funny!), the book of Job describes tails like "cedar trees." The only animal in history with any body part like a cedar tree (INCLUDING PENISES!!) is an apatosaurus-like dinosaur. And me, of course!

Did dinosaurs eat grass?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You guys seem pretty far off topic, though to respond to the point of penises (funny!), the book of Job describes tails like "cedar trees." The only animal in history with any body part like a cedar tree (INCLUDING PENISES!!) is an apatosaurus-like dinosaur. And me, of course!

But to answer the original question about what happened to the dinosaurs after the Flood, it might have been a number of things. First, there were only a few of them to start off with. Then they would have had to survive an ice age or two with all the volcanic ash in the air from the post-flood geologic disturbances. Then they would have had to find enough vegetation to feed an enormous appetite, and I don't think the post-flood environment was too conducive for that. Then they would have had to survive hunting expeditions. Perhaps Nimrod, who was a "great hunter," hunted dinosaurs. Yep, don't think dinosaurs had much of a chance.

Of course nothing would have had a chance because there would have been nothing to eat except each other but that's another story.
The idea that dodo birds, who were so easy to hunt that they went extinct right after man came to their island somehow make it after the flood while T-rex was being hunted to extinction is also pretty silly.

But isn't it interesting that ALL the dinosaurs and ALL the Permian Therapsid mammal-like reptiles that got buried in Permian, Triassic Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments died out right after the flood. It looks just like these animals lived millions of years ago because they are buried in those specific layers with no modern mammals for company but they all died right after the flood. Now let's consider mammals. There were some small mammals primative who did get buried with the dinosaurs in the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments. Guess what! They all died off right after the flood along with those dinosaurs they just happened to be buried with. Here are some data from Glenn Morton on the subject

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fish.htm
oldest
Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members
Jurassic 43 genera-no living members
Cretaceous 36 genera-no living members
Paleocene 213 genera-no living members
Eocene 569 genera-3 extant genera
Oligocene 494 genera 11 extant genera
Miocene 749 genera 57 extant genera
Pliocene 762 genera 133 extant genera
Pleistocene 830 genera 417 extant genera
youngest

There were also at least 36 genera of mammals that got buried in Paleocene sediments just after the dinosaurs somehow stopped getting buried. Guess what! They are all extinct as well. Hmm. What a coincidence. Of the 569 genera of mammals from the Eocene that managed not to get buried with any of the the dinosaurs but got buried right after the Paleocene mammals only three are still around. They mostly all died off right after the flood along with the mammal-like reptiles and dinosaurs.

So why is that that there is such a strong correlation between how deeply the supposed worldwide flood just happened to bury species and whether or not they survived post-flood? Could it be that they actually did evolve over millions of years and that is why they are all buried in different sediments and nearly all extinct now? That is the only explanation that makes logical sense as far as I can see. How do YECs interpret these data?

Added in Edit: There are over 1100 modern mammalian genera comprising more than 4,000 species. Of these extant mammals none are found in Ordovician,Silurian,Devonian, Carboniferous, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous or Paleocene sediments with the thousands of extinct vertibrates, including Therapsids from the Permian, dinosaurs from Triassic to Cretaceous, and some mammals from the Triassic on, that are buried in those sediments and only a few dozen got buried with the hundreds of genera of Eocene, Paleocene and Miocene Mammals.

This seems to be another of those coincidences that YECs have no hope of dealing with in their "model"

http://christianforums.com/t42599

YECs claim to look at all the same data as Theistic Evolutionists and Naturalists and just interpret it differently. Creation "science" groups claim these interpretations can be made without relying on miracles. How do they deal with these details?

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Did dinosaurs eat grass?

Since grasses didn't evolve until the Oligocence I don't think they were on the dino's diet. Or if you are a YEC it must seem that grasses outran dinosaurs when escaping the flood so dinosaurs didn't eat grass because they couldn't catch it.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[troodon]

Did dinosaurs eat grass?

Sauropods (such as Apatosaurus) have just about the worst teeth imaginable for eating grass.

 

[Jet Black]

Jet Black, I disagree - the changes you imply have not been proven. Changes within species are minimal compared to those claimed for the progression of simple creatures to more complex. Where does the new information for that come from? You can only modify what is aready present, either overtly or hidden as in recessive genes. We only need to look at all the breeds of dog with their great variety in size, shape etc. to see that varity within a kind has taken place, and still does. But they're still dogs, and they will never become anything in future but more dogs.

this is why characters are derived... they are modified forms of their ancestral characteristics. continual modification basically creates something completely novel when one compares the start point to the end point. No-one is saying that all canines will ever produce anything other than an organism with derived canine characteristics, and this is what we expect. The problem is, when you turn that round and work backwards, where do you stop? There is already a line of transitional species stretching back to the most primitive carnivores, the mesonyx and so on.

To go over the therapsid in more detail:

First I will start off with a little overview of reptile mammal comparisons: Reptile skulls consist of a larger number of individual bones than mammals. Reptile teeth are all conical, and have multiple sets within a lifetime, compared to Mammals who have a number of different tooth types, from incisors to molars, and many of these are permanently set within the jaw. The Lower jaw of reptiles consists of a number of bones, whereas the mammal jaw consists of only one (the dentary, which articulates on the squamosal bone). Reptiles only have one bone in the ear - the stapes, whereas mammals have three. Reptiles can also hear through their jaws, since the jaw transmits sound to the ears. This is not the case in mammals. Reptiles have a small hole in the skull where the pineal gland extends through, in mammals this is absent.

When we look at the triassic therapsids we see a more or less reptillian type of jaw, with the articular bone attached to the quadrate bone in the skull (reptile jaw joint), but in later fossils, these bones are much smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have grown and got much closer together (more mammalian).
By time we get to the much later therapsids, the cynodonts, we see in Probainognathus that it actually has two jaw joints - both reptilian and mammalian! - this is about as intermediate as one can get; having one feature of each. Now the earlier quadrate-samosal joint which made the reptillian jaw was still jointed as a jaw, however now it also has a connection to the stapes in the ear, and begins to resemble the incus bone found in the mammalian ear. Later on in the ictidosaurians, the mammalian joint continues to become stronger, and the reptillian joint becomes weaker, but is still present, and the squamosal and dentary bone joint is now completely self functional and no longer reliant on the assistance of the older reptilian joint. A particular fossil, Diarthrognathus, is about as finely tuned between reptile and mammal in this respect as one can get.
By time we get to the late triassic, we are finding examples of Morganucodonts, where the double joint is still present, but with the mammalian joint taking effectively all of the stresses of jaw operation and the articular-quadrate hinge functioning more or less only for sound transmission.

bear in mind that this is not a literal transitional line, but a chart of transitional species. The species that eventually became the mammals is probably not included in our fossils, but this is not what is being demonstrated. Some of the sister species will have lived along side the species that eventually branched off into our line (and species that also branced into the monotreme and marsupial lines as well) so we expect to find fossils of therapsids around at the same time as their "more advanced" cousins.

so we can see the evolutionary path from reptile to mammal jaw, in which the bones slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, for a while there were two jaw joints and one took on more stresses while the other became more responsible for sound transmission with the reptilian jaw's quadrate bone becoming the mammalian incus, and the reptilian articular bone becoming the malleus. So this is in opposition to your earlier comment that the therapsids are just a species that exist in the middle, they are whole groups of species, which over time developed, and no doubt competed with other therapsid species just like we compete with other mammal species and one of those species eventually became the mammals.

 

[Data]

You guys seem pretty far off topic, though to respond to the point of penises (funny!), the book of Job describes tails like "cedar trees." The only animal in history with any body part like a cedar tree (INCLUDING PENISES!!) is an apatosaurus-like dinosaur.

But then it talks about its testicles. Dinosaurs didn't have exterior testicles.

 

[Mustelidae]

Fumious,troodon,
you blew it now.He,he.
I had to ask because I recall debating a YEC who referred to a biblical passage which,according to the person,talks about dinosaurs eating grass.
And indeed,no grass available those days.

 

[Jet Black]

But then it talks about its testicles. Dinosaurs didn't have exterior testicles.

you're too young to know about such things.

 

[Aggie]

Then they would have had to find enough vegetation to feed an enormous appetite, and I don't think the post-flood environment was too conducive for that.

So you're telling me that elephants were able to find food after the flood, but this animal wasn't? http://dinosauricon.com/genera/hypsilophodon.html

(By my Belgian friend Aspidel)

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned here yet that in some of the cultures that believed in dragons, there were people who had bones that they claimed had come from them. Some of these bones have been looked at by more modern scientists, who determined that they really were from dinosaurs, but were millions of years old just like any other bones from dinosaurs other than birds.

I think it's quite likely that these cultures built up their legends about dragons around dinosaur bones that they found without knowing what they were. They'd know there was an animal something like this that was alive at some point, and they would have tried to imagine what it was like even if none of them had ever seen one that was living. And, of course, once they had the basic idea of this animal they'd imagine all sorts of things that they did, such as the immortal dragons from Chinese mythology that live in the sky and make it rain. The European dragons that humans supposedly fought with would be another example of this.

If the behemoth is a dinosaur, it could also be something like this. It's not clear that Job has ever seen one living, and even if God was describing it to Job he could have been describing an animal that lived millions of years before Job's time, that Job knew only by its bones.

 

[TrueCreation]

you're too young to know about such things.

--"Let no one despise your youth"... my favourite verse.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[True_Blue]

Trivia question--when were the first (large) dinosaur bones discovered, and recorded in the history books?

 

[platzapS]

I suppose there are a couple different viewpoints.

From an mainstream evolutionist POV, dinosaurs became extinct ~65 million years ago.

A young earth Creationist might say that dinosaurs were on the ark (probably baby dinos), but found it hard to adapt to the post-flood climate and mostly died out. They claim that some dinosaurs might still be alive today, in isolated areas.

It's also possible, if you believe in multiple creations (old earth creationism? gap theory? If you know, please tell), that dinosaurs were in one of the "earlier" creations, but were wiped out and replaced with more modern animals.

 

[platzapS]

Since grasses didn't evolve until the Oligocence I don't think they were on the dino's diet. Or if you are a YEC it must seem that grasses outran dinosaurs when escaping the flood so dinosaurs didn't eat grass because they couldn't catch it.

hehe

 

[AgentX]

True_Blue:

The first real dinosaur bone was discovered in 1676 by Robert Plot, a museum curator, who thought it belonged to a giant man. Not sure when they made it into the history books. It wasn't until 1840 or so that they got the name "dinosaurs."

Nice Supt's pin, btw. Back in the day, I only ever had the star.

 

[seangoh]

Thanks for your views guys.