Where are the dinosaurs?

[Norseman]

Flightless bird >> hungry humans >> easy prey? why is the Great Alk extinct? Same. Now for the dinos, are you saying that every dino with the ability to defend itself more then chickens, cows, shrews and what not were somehow deliberatly murdered by your God? Wether or not humans did it or not, I find that not only hard to believe but also very very ignorant to God.

[sarcasm]Maybe it was an accident and god was just trying out his omnipotence?[/sarcasm]

 

[Joshscorp]

Flightless bird >> hungry humans >> easy prey? why is the Great Alk extinct? Same. Now for the dinos, are you saying that every dino with the ability to defend itself more then chickens, cows, shrews and what not were somehow deliberatly murdered by your God? Wether or not humans did it or not, I find that not only hard to believe but also very very ignorant to God.

Maybe they Kamikaze!!!! If people, as crazy as muslim can do so, so can dinosaurs...juz a dinosaur religion of theirs...or like the whales....

 

[Jet Black]

rite.

 

[lucaspa]

Then I can only conclude Hovind is a nutcase. How does he think we are we supposed to be able to kill raptors with medieval or worse technology?

Our ancestors killed cave bears with stone technology. Cave bears made grizzlies look like teddy bears. But Cro Magnon got to Europe and wanted the caves. The cave bear goes extinct.

So, it is possible for humans, working together, to take care of some pretty nasty beasts. Humans didnt hunt alone. They lived in tribes and did cooperative hunts. And our ancestors were very good at it.

Now, Hovind is wrong on several counts, including this one, because, if humans did hunt dinos to extinction, where are the cave paintings we find of other prey the humans hunted. Where are the dino bones with cracked long bones so the humans could get at the marrow? Where are the raptor bones with marks of butchery like we have with deer, mammoth, and mastodon bones?

We have enough of all these bones now that we have searched enough of the search space that we should have encountered this evidence by now.

 

[David_777]

All this talk about hunting dinosaurs...geez...it's making me hungry.

I wonder how dinosaurs must've tasted like.

 

[Mistermystery]

Maybe they Kamikaze!!!! If people, as crazy as muslim can do so, so can dinosaurs...juz a dinosaur religion of theirs...or like the whales....

Stop typing. you make my modem, me, my mother and my ISP wheep.

 

[Kokopelli]

IMHO, lucaspa has presented the most relevant thoughts to this. One thing I am surprised was not mentioned with this, is the co-existance of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon up untill around 35,000 years ago.

 

[Jet Black]

I wonder how dinosaurs must've tasted like.

well their closest relatives are the chickens. well, birds generally, so I guess we can say they taste like chicken.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

I wonder how dinosaurs must've tasted like.

Chicken

 

[ego licet visum]

Our ancestors killed cave bears with stone technology. Cave bears made grizzlies look like teddy bears. But Cro Magnon got to Europe and wanted the caves. The cave bear goes extinct.

So, it is possible for humans, working together, to take care of some pretty nasty beasts. Humans didnt hunt alone. They lived in tribes and did cooperative hunts. And our ancestors were very good at it.

Yea, but what when the thing your hunting is naturally nastier than you are even with your armor and weapons AND it hunts in packs too?

A pack of Utahraptors would laugh at our pathetic attempts to hunt them down with medievel technology.

Hunting compsognathus to extinction would be like hunting rabbits to extinction, not gonna happen.

 

[Joshscorp]

Dinosaurs died 60 million years ago, whats the point of speculating something that cannot be justified now? The question is "Where are the dinosaurs?". My answer is, They are dead........

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Dinosaurs died 60 million years ago, whats the point of speculating something that cannot be justified now? The question is "Where are the dinosaurs?". My answer is, They are dead........

Maybe you need to read the OP again, and get a few context clues as to what it was actually talking about.

 

[sugaki]

My first post in forums, so may you be merciful

First off, for shoving huge dinos into the arc: The bible says that "two of each kind" were put into the ark, and doesn't necessarily mean the taxonomic order of species. The concept of species is a very modern one (18th century), and there's no reason that the bible should adhere to how we categorize life right now.

Noah could have brought two of every genus, or two of every family, substantially reducing the number of dinosaurs he needed to put in. Also, he could have brought (as a previous post said) two eggs or two young animals.

Furthermore, it is a possibility that there weren't as many species pre-flood, and that speciation occured due to natural selection and genetic drift post flood.

As for how dinosaurs went extinct, somebody brought up an excellent point of there being a lack of paleontological evidence of humans hunting dinosaurs. There are some possibilities:

1) Dinosaurs were unfit to survive the post-flood world. The flood was a catastrophic event, literally changing the face of the planet. Whole habitats and ecological systems would be different. The dinosaurs might've not been able to adjust and just went extinct on their own. Extinction doesn't have to be brought about by humans.

2) Humans did hunt to extinction. Even though there haven't been any evidence to show this, the absence of that evidence doesn't mean it's true. Fossilization only occurs when the bones and body are in an environment condusive to rapid preservation (IE a worldwide flood). It should not be concluded that humans didn't hunt dinosaurs to extinction simply because we never found a hand-axe stuck inside a T-Rex skull. Though quite honestly this seems more unlikely then dinos going extinct on their own. And its important to note that the movie Jurassic Park is not exactly a reliable source of information of how ferocious dinosairs. It's more Hollywood than fact.

 

[Mistermystery]

welcome to the forums.

My first post in forums, so may you be merciful

First off, for shoving huge dinos into the arc: The bible says that "two of each kind"

Define "kind" for us then. What is this "kind" you speak off?? If you have lurked around these boards before, you might have seen this question arsize before, and it has not been awnsered yet by any creationist to a satisfiable degree.

Noah could have brought two of every genus, or two of every family,


Furthermore, it is a possibility that there weren't as many species pre-flood, and that speciation occured due to natural selection and genetic drift post flood.

Whoa, you must have a bigger belief in evolution then me then. I mean... Whoa. just whoa man.

1) Dinosaurs were unfit to survive the post-flood world. The flood was a catastrophic event, literally changing the face of the planet. Whole habitats and ecological systems would be different. The dinosaurs might've not been able to adjust and just went extinct on their own. Extinction doesn't have to be brought about by humans.

Sounds like God is very unjust then.

2) Humans did hunt to extinction. Even though there haven't been any evidence to show this, the absence of that evidence doesn't mean it's true.

... uh... How can you say it's true when there is no evidence for it in any way?

Fossilization only occurs when the bones and body are in an environment condusive to rapid preservation (IE a worldwide flood).

Buzz, a worldwide flood does not conduse a rapid preservation, antry again

And its important to note that the movie Jurassic Park is not exactly a reliable source of information of how ferocious dinosairs. It's more Hollywood than fact.

Sure, a t-rex with teeth like sabers was a gentle plant-eater, right?


Can you also give us some pointers on this supposedly world wide flood? Where did all the water go/came from? What natural mechanism do you go for that assumption?

 

[Prometheus_ash]

Can I see the evidence for this world wide flood please?

 

[sugaki]

Define "kind" for us then. What is this "kind" you speak off?? If you have lurked around these boards before, you might have seen this question arsize before

I haven't lurked at all so I don't know what you're talking about ...and I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for Do you want a bullet list of what "kind" means? Take "kind" to mean as general as it sounds, it doesn't have some special taxonomical meaning in the bible.

Whoa, you must have a bigger belief in evolution then me then. I mean... Whoa. just whoa man.

You're going to have to be more blunt and explicit by what you mean by "bigger belief in evolution," cus' I don't have a clue why you said this.

Sounds like God is very unjust then. (in reference to dinosaurs going extinct on their own)

First off, even speaking of "just" means you believe there to be universal right and wrongs, which doesn't work for any belief without God. That opens a can of worms so I'll stop there. But God being unjust because dinosaurs went extinct? No, it is a testament to the destructive nature of sin, for death entered the world through Adam and Eve. Extinctions are due to falleness of the world originating from the falleness of man. It's not God's fault.

... uh... How can you say it's true when there is no evidence for it in any way? (in reference to humans hunting dinosaurs to extinction)

I didn't say it was true, I said it was a possibility, and a less likely one.

Buzz, a worldwide flood does not conduse a rapid preservation, antry again. Can you also give us some pointers on this supposedly world wide flood? Where did all the water go/came from? What natural mechanism do you go for that assumption?

Yes it does conduse a rapid preservation. A worldwide flood means the massive transportation and rapid erosion of sediments. The resettling of the sediments will allow for animal carcasses to be quickly buried and kept from decomposition. Evidence? There's lots. The grand canyon cannot be explained by gradual erosion from the Colorado river. Or how about the presence of ocean fossils atop mountains? How about fossils of ocean dinosaurs? When something dies in the ocean, it eventually floats up due to the gases created during the process of decomposition of the body. Neat and complete fossils would not have been preserved. How about fossilized trees that are wedged across different rock layers that supposedly span millions of years? It couldn't have gradually been buried over millions of years and still be preserved in the same way from the top of the trunk to the bottom.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

A worldwide flood means the massive transportation and rapid erosion of sediments.

Where do the sediments come from? How does this explain sediments that are precipitated from water rather than merely moved around by it? How does this explain sedimentary rocks that are not deposited by water?

Evidence? There's lots.

If there is "lots" of evidence, then you should take the global flood challenge:

http://www.christianforums.com/t728542

The grand canyon cannot be explained by gradual erosion from the Colorado river.

That's the only way it can be explained, especially considering the outwash of the Grand Canyon off the Colorado plateau shows evidence that the sediments of the canyon were lithified at the time of erosion and pesky features like sharp gooseneck meanders which should not occur from fast cutting.

The rocks in the Grand Canyon however cannot be explained by a global flood.

Or how about the presence of ocean fossils atop mountains?

Strawman. Marine fossils are found in the rocks that comprise mountains, not simply on mountains. Furthermore, you'll often find that these fossils appear stretched due to the accumulated strain of mountain building. Since there is not enough water on earth for such deposition to occur, that rules out a global flood as a mechanism in the first place.

This is easily explained by plate tectonics, however. The lithospheric plates of the earth have not been stationary throughout time. Continental masses that collide with each other and were previously separated by the ocean (e.g., India and Asia) will produce mountains that include shallow marine material. An example of continent collisions can be seen here from the formation of pangea:

http://www.scotese.com/pzimages.htm

How about fossils of ocean dinosaurs?

The existence of marine dinosaurs does not substantiate a global flood. It substantiates the existence of marine dinosaurs.

How about fossilized trees that are wedged across different rock layers that supposedly span millions of years? It couldn't have gradually been buried over millions of years and still be preserved in the same way from the top of the trunk to the bottom.

That's because there are no such instances of trees that span layers that have been labelled on the scale of millions of years. The closest you can come would be a tree whose roots grow into an older sedimentary rock layer and is preserved by a layer on top of it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Take "kind" to mean as general as it sounds, it doesn't have some special taxonomical meaning in the bible.

So why is it being used to categorize the animals that went into the ark?

You're going to have to be more blunt and explicit by what you mean by "bigger belief in evolution," cus' I don't have a clue why you said this.

The amount of evolutionary change needed for a small founding population (2 or seven, depending on which Noah story you go with) to produce the diversity within these supposed "kinds" is much greater than the amount of change in the same period proposed by most evolutionists. For instance, many creationists claim that only one two cats from the cat "kind" were needed to produce lions, tigers, housecats, pumas, etc. that we see today in a period of about 4,000 years. Evolutionists state that these changes took millions of years from the common ancestor of cats and dogs.

But God being unjust because dinosaurs went extinct? No, it is a testament to the destructive nature of sin, for death entered the world through Adam and Eve. Extinctions are due to falleness of the world originating from the falleness of man. It's not God's fault.

So wouldn't it make more sense for humans to be the only mammal and for dinosaurs to number in the billions, since it was a mammal that brought sin into the world? Why were dinosaurs wiped out but other classes of animals were left alone?

Yes it does conduse a rapid preservation. A worldwide flood means the massive transportation and rapid erosion of sediments. The resettling of the sediments will allow for animal carcasses to be quickly buried and kept from decomposition. Evidence? There's lots. The grand canyon cannot be explained by gradual erosion from the Colorado river. Or how about the presence of ocean fossils atop mountains? How about fossils of ocean dinosaurs? When something dies in the ocean, it eventually floats up due to the gases created during the process of decomposition of the body. Neat and complete fossils would not have been preserved. How about fossilized trees that are wedged across different rock layers that supposedly span millions of years? It couldn't have gradually been buried over millions of years and still be preserved in the same way from the top of the trunk to the bottom.

We do see floods rapidly preserve fossils today. However, this layer is consistent with what was alive during that time and floods do not sort fossils as we see in the fossil record. For instance, not once do we see grass or grass pollen in the same strata as dinosaurs. If a flood laid down the fossils then we should see buffalo, t-rex, and grass all side by side. We don't.

Next, the grand canyon can and has been explained using modern geologic theories. It is consistent with all of them. However, the layers of sediment found within the grand canyon are very inconsistent with what we would expect from a global flood, including preserved sand dunes below aquatic environments, burrows made by small air breathing animals under hundreds of feet of rock (and presumably miles of water), sediments that can only be lain down over long periods of time (concino sandstones), etc.


As to your aquatic dinosaurs, why don't we see an aquatic dinosaur preserved in the same layer of sediment as an aquatic mammal (eg whale, dolphin)? This seems to be a huge problem for your world wide flood.

 

[Ataradrac]

Hiya, sugaki. Mechanical Bliss answered most of your points, but there is one thing I have to address...

How about fossils of ocean dinosaurs? When something dies in the ocean, it eventually floats up due to the gases created during the process of decomposition of the body. Neat and complete fossils would not have been preserved.

It's very, very rare to have a "neat and complete" fossil. Lots of creatures like to eat dead things, so only dead animals which escape the scavengers are still around to be fossilized. Many fossils exhibit scavenger activity, like a missing head or leg with tooth marks adjacent to the missing body part. "Neat and complete" fossils were generally formed by a catatrophic event, like a flood or a volcanic eruption... And they are far and few between. (For example, a complete T-rex skeleton has never been found.)

In the event of a worldwide flood (and depending on how you think that lots of dead animals should act ), you would either end up with NO complete fossils at all, since the bodies would have rotted away into fins, legs, and skulls before being buried... Or ALL of the fossils should be complete, since they would have all been buried at the same time, in the same catastrophic fashion.

 

[Mistermystery]

I haven't lurked at all so I don't know what you're talking about ...and I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for Do you want a bullet list of what "kind" means? Take "kind" to mean as general as it sounds, it doesn't have some special taxonomical meaning in the bible.

How can we have a discussion when we don't know the definition of "kind". I ask you this question because it's a vital term to creationists, and I've heard many diffrent meanings to it (ranging from a species-definition to a whole group of animals (like the "bird kind")).

You're going to have to be more blunt and explicit by what you mean by "bigger belief in evolution," cus' I don't have a clue why you said this.

You say that (some) speciation happend after the flood. That would mean that species arised less then 4k years ago. That's more, faster, and bigger speciation then evolution would ever dream off.

Problems with this: what is the mechanism for this super evolution? What happend to stop it? Why did it happen?

First off, even speaking of "just" means you believe there to be universal right and wrongs, which doesn't work for any belief without God.

Are you meaning to say that atheists are somehow "unjust"? Are you saying that somehow evolutionists are unjust? Watch out when you awnser this question.

But God being unjust because dinosaurs went extinct? No, it is a testament to the destructive nature of sin, for death entered the world through Adam and Eve.

That's handy. Blame it all on Adam and Eve! an earthquake? It's Adam's fault! an eruption of a volcano? Blame it on Adam! Just because they made mistakes the dinosaurs got extinct? Be honest here; Doesn't that sound a bit stupid?

Also; if God said that we should be "fruitfull and multiply", and if you say that there was no death before "the fall", to us and all animals, did God create us to fail? I mean what would happen is in a small time period animals and what not would be crawling over the Earth in no time. People would be stepping on bunnies, bacteria would have multiplied to cover the Earth twice in a nice thick layer of bacteria-goo before they'd even got to the apples.

Again, sounds like a pretty petty unjust God you're having.

Extinctions are due to falleness of the world originating from the falleness of man. It's not God's fault.

You sure?

I didn't say it was true, I said it was a possibility, and a less likely one.

Very less likely one. There have never been any humans living together with dinosaurs, and there is no evidence for it.

Evidence? There's lots.

And here comes the parroting again. Watch out for pratt-lists! (before you ask: pratts are points refuted a thousand times. i.o.w. nothing new under the horizon)

The grand canyon cannot be explained by gradual erosion from the Colorado river

That's the only way to explain it. There is no other way, how do you see water doing this to the ground?

Or how about the presence of ocean fossils atop mountains?

Strawman, what about the ones *INSIDE* the rocks. It's better explained by plate tectonics anyways. See also mechenical bliss's post.

How about fossils of ocean dinosaurs? When something dies in the ocean, it eventually floats up due to the gases created during the process of decomposition of the body. Neat and complete fossils would not have been preserved.

What about them? even if 'they floated", they are bound to hit land sometime, right? Even if they fell to the ocean floor, the bones themself would be neatly preserved. Got any source for your last statement.

How about fossilized trees that are wedged across different rock layers that supposedly span millions of years?It couldn't have gradually been buried over millions of years and still be preserved in the same way from the top of the trunk to the bottom.

polystratic trees are hardly something uncommon, but through million of years is something else entirely. Got a source for that buddy?

Here's a picture from a vacation I took to Poland a courple of years ago:

sand from dunes in the vincinity slowly swallow these trees as a whole and encircle these trees through multiple layers of sand. Does that mean that these trees were still alive when they were burried? Nope.

This polystratic thing was first proposed by Nicolaas Rupke, a Dutch ( ;_; ) geologist son of a minister. In his early years Rupke was a young-earth creationist.

The argument goes that a tree can't stand out in the weather for thousands of years waiting to be slowly and gradually covered. It would rot according to the young-earth creationists. Thus, they conclude such trees are evidence of rapid deposition ala the global flood.

Here is what is wrong with that idea. First such trees are evidence of rapid deposition, but this can be accomplished without a global flood. In 1993 the Mississippi River flooded and dumped up to 6 feet of sand on the forests and farm fields of the Midwest. This had the effect of killing millions of trees, whose trunks now are polystrate tree trunks. They are firmly rooted in the pre-1993 sediments and their trunks extend through the next layer. If there had been a 1994 flood, the trees, still standing but dead at that time, would then extend through many layers of strata. So, in the year 10,000 AD the 1993 trees will be used by future young-earth creationists to argue that this is evidence of a global flood--yet we know differently.

Secondly, the assumption that trees can't stand for millennia without rotting is fallacious under certain circumstances. Waterlogged wood will last millennia. There are forests offshore England today that were inundated by the rise in sealevel after the ice age. Those tree trunks still stand. And at a famous site of Mt. St. Helens, the trees in Spirit lake still exist underwater, 20 years after the explosion.

---
The rest of your post has been dealt with suffeciently by others. Now it's my turn, I will also turn to a form of a list, unfortunatly it's still unrefuted: (taken from talk org, because I too am lazy)

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 100,000 years by counting annual layers. And don't get me started on these, because I almost certainly know more about them then you do.

A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, different grain size distributions in the sediment, a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), a massive extinction, and other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]