[_ Old Earth _] Why Did The Dinosaurs Go ?

[Lewis]

I thought I should start a topic on this. Why did the dinosaurs die out, well most of them anyway gators and crocks are dino's. But the flood is what caused the rapid burial to make the fossils. After the fall and after the flood changes were done. I have deleted some of this post because gabby got me to thinking about something that I knew and had fforgot about. And that is that Dino's did not eat meat, they have been finding that they ate plants trees and grass.
You can find most of want you want to knw here.

http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html

 

[peace4all]

lewis, time frame here.

before the flood, the dino's didn't eat meat

do u beleive they survived teh flood? or were they all killed
when did men and anmials start to eat meat?

 

[Lewis]

lewis, time frame here.

before the flood, the dino's didn't eat meat

do u beleive they survived teh flood? or were they all killed
when did men and anmials start to eat meat?

Genesis 9:2-3

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... osaurs.asp

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I thought I should start a topic on this. Why did the dinosaurs die out, well most of them anyway gators and crocks are dino's.

Jer 33:3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

Believe it or not, this is one of the topics that I discussed with the Lord. gators and crocks, yes. So are elephants and Rhinoceros's (Praise God for spellcheck :-D )

But the flood is what caused the rapid burial to make the fossils. After the fall and after the flood changes were done. And a lot of Dino's would have been to much for man, because there was no meat eating before the flood. But after man and animals started to eat meat. So big Dino's would have tore our tails up. So God for man's sake let them go. Now this is the conclusion that I have come to from years of looking into this stuff, on why they are gone.

Some of the things that God revealed to me was that they were not vicious. The big guy with the huge pointy teeth? He ate trees. There was one dino that was found that scientist had believed had swallowed another dinosaur whole? He did not. She was pregnant. They did not lay eggs, they gave live birth, like rhinos do today.
Well, except for the big bird thingy. And unlike its Hollywood and Japanese film counterparts, they had feathers.

Why are they gone? The Lord says that there were not all that many of them to begin with. They were on the ark. And they simply did not reproduce after the flood rapidly enough to survive. With the exception of the ones that survived. Crocks, gators, elephants, rhinos.

God does answer prayer. You can ask Him anything.
:lilangel:

 

[Lewis]

I thought I should start a topic on this. Why did the dinosaurs die out, well most of them anyway gators and crocks are dino's.

Jer 33:3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

Believe it or not, this is one of the topics that I discussed with the Lord. gators and crocks, yes. So are elephants and Rhinoceros's (Praise God for spellcheck :-D )

http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html[/url]

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I like it, I already knew that not all of them ate meat and now you got me to thinking again. Because some scientist are now finding out that they did not eat ,eat. So I am going to take back the meat eating.

Something else the Lord revealed. There is one creature that scientist put together from some bones that they found. They created a whole new animal that never existed.
They took a long bone from each leg, and made a huge tail out of it. It became a dinosaur with a long neck, short legs, and a long tail. The bones were actually from a giraffe. :

 

[jwu]

Do you have a reference for that?`And if that actually happened (i seriously doubt it), who found out about the mistake?

It however sounds completely made up. I'm not aware of any instance of giraffe bones found in strata which is expected to hold dinosaurs, an no palaeontologist would be stupid enough to mistake leg bones for tail bones. Tail bones are spines after all.

Do these giraffe leg bones look like something that could be mistaken for dinosaur tail bones as seen in the other photo?

 

[peace4all]

what are u totally denying the fact that Dino-s laid eggs?!

Ever been to a museum, and seen the eggs? Honestly, do you just deny them! You can see them, touch them, they are there. I mean, Honestly!!

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Do you have a reference for that?`

A reference? For a conversation I had with God?

what are u totally denying the fact that Dino-s laid eggs?!

[

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Do you have a reference for that?`

A reference? For a conversation I had with God?

what are u totally denying the fact that Dino-s laid eggs?!

They did not lay eggs, they gave live birth, like rhinos do today.
Well, except for the big bird thingy. And unlike its Hollywood and Japanese film counterparts, they had feathers.

 

[jwu]

A reference? For a conversation I had with God?

God told you that some scientists assembled a dinosaur skeleton from giraffe bones?

And that still doesn't explain how a palaeontologist could possibly mistake giraffe leg bones for dinosaur tail bones. Take a look at the pictures. Leg bones and tail bones look completely different.

 

[Poke]

what are u totally denying the fact that Dino-s laid eggs?!

I believe dinosaurs laid eggs. Thinking this is evidence of Evolution is an example of how the theory of Evolution leads to anti-knowledge.

It's impractical for animal species to carry young internally until they're old enough to eat "wild food". Mammals have mammal glands to feed their young while they continue to mature. Non-mammals don't have mammal glands and therefor rely on eggs to provide the food for the maturing baby until it's old enough to eat wild food.

The Evolutionist should be explaining, complete with evidence, how egg-layers evolved into mammals. Evolutionists, of course, struggle to find evidence or explain how fundamental changes in species were made. So, they like stick to strawmen, like the changes in the size of finch beaks.

As for your pictures, if I didn't believe dinosaurs laid eggs, your pictures would prove nothing. For all I know, they're petrified turds, or stream-polished rocks. If you provided proof that they're eggs (e.g. cross sections), then you'd still have to show they came from dinosaurs instead of any large non-mammal. Where's your scientific skepticism?

 

[LightHorseman]

http://dschaub.froods.ca/drumheller/Big_Therapod

http://www.dinosaursociety.com/images/t ... _skull.jpg

You are suggesting this is the skeleton of a tree eater?[/img]

 

[Poke]

Some of the things that God revealed to me was that they were not vicious. The big guy with the huge pointy teeth? He ate trees. There was one dino that was found that scientist had believed had swallowed another dinosaur whole? He did not. She was pregnant. They did not lay eggs, they gave live birth, like rhinos do today.

So, God talks to you and he said dinosaurs did not lay eggs? But, God failed to point out that dinosaurs ate meat before the Flood, to correct some errant Bible reading?

 

[LightHorseman]

Is it worth pointing out that tree eaters teeth aren't pointy, they are flat for crushing vegetation?

 

[jwu]

I believe dinosaurs laid eggs. Thinking this is evidence of Evolution is an example of how the theory of Evolution leads to anti-knowledge.

I don't think anyone in this thread presented this as evidence for evolution, just as evidence for the existence of dinosaurs.

The Evolutionist should be explaining, complete with evidence, how egg-layers evolved into mammals. Evolutionists, of course, struggle to find evidence or explain how fundamental changes in species were made. So, they like stick to strawmen, like the changes in the size of finch beaks.

Please read up on the definition of a "straw man". It's not what you think: A straw man is a misrepresentation of the opponent's argument to make it easier to tear down.

However, the change of the reproductive organs is not very welll documented as they fossilize rather poorly, and it's hard to see in the bones.
The process itself is not hard to imagine - eggs remain in the womb for longer, the offspring eventually begins hatching inside the womb, the shell is rendered useless and doesn't form anymore.

There is a nice transitional series from reptiles to mammals by the way, just a sample of some transitionals:

Sphenacodon
Biarmosuchia
Procynosuchus
Thrinaxodon
Probainognathus
Diarthrognathus
Morganucodon
Hadrocodium

 

[Poke]

Please read up on the definition of a "straw man". It's not what you think: A straw man is a misrepresentation of the opponent's argument to make it easier to tear down.

I'm aware of that. But, for where I lack awareness, I'm using "strawman" for a misrepresentation of one's own argument to make it easier to defend. Maybe bait-and-switch would be better, but even that really doesn't fit. Maybe non-sequitur. Because dinosaurs laid eggs, they're ancestors of birds. Because flies lay eggs, they're ancestors of birds (I know, not as parsimonious).

However, the change of the reproductive organs is not very welll documented as they fossilize rather poorly, and it's hard to see in the bones.

Fundamental changes seem to always be poorly documented in the fossil record.

The process itself is not hard to imagine - eggs remain in the womb for longer, the offspring eventually begins hatching inside the womb, the shell is rendered useless and doesn't form anymore.

Another error of Evolutionists, over simplifying everything. Such reasoning is what made it credible to some people that maggots spontaneously generated from feces. People didn't understand or appreciate the complexity of a maggot.

Do you know of any animals that lay eggs, but hold those eggs inside themselves (during development) for any length of time? I suspect it's an insurmountable hurdle (low fitness) for a body to hold a developing egg for an extended period of time, just to still lay an egg. There's the burden of carrying the egg without corresponding benefit.

It's almost a necessity to jump from eggs to live birth (even if fairly premature). Then, the mammery system still needs to be created.

There is a nice transitional series from reptiles to mammals by the way, just a sample of some transitionals:

None of which reveal how egg laying gave way to live births (not that an Evolutionist can't imagine something to the contrary).

 

[jwu]

I'm aware of that. But, for where I lack awareness, I'm using "strawman" for a misrepresentation of one's own argument to make it easier to defend. Maybe bait-and-switch would be better, but even that really doesn't fit. Maybe non-sequitur. Because dinosaurs laid eggs, they're ancestors of birds. Because flies lay eggs, they're ancestors of birds (I know, not as parsimonious).

Where did anyone in this thread argue that dinosaurs laying eggs is evidence for evolution? You're argueing against a straw man here.

Fundamental changes seem to always be poorly documented in the fossil record.

Actually there are many nice transitional series for things which involve bones, such as the series which i listed here earlier. It's an excellent example for the change of the skull structure, including the development of the middle ear during the transition from reptile to mammal.

But how do you expect things which are mostly a soft tissue thing to be visible in the fossil record? Considering how rarely soft tissue is preserved, does it really surprise that this is sketchy at best?

I suspect it's an insurmountable hurdle (low fitness) for a body to hold a developing egg for an extended period of time, just to still lay an egg. There's the burden of carrying the egg without corresponding benefit.

What about not having to protect a nest at a fixed location? It greatly enhances the mobility during gestation.
If there was only a decisive negative aspect to it, mammals should be extinct by now, shouldn't they?

The presence of the egg shell is the only real difference. And by the way, reptile eggs aren't hard but rather leathery - and the babies of mammals still grow in amniotic sacs which may very well be the successors of that.

It's almost a necessity to jump from eggs to live birth (even if fairly premature). Then, the mammery system still needs to be created.

As indicated by the platypus, mammary glands came before live birth. And besides, these are two completely seperate things, one can have live birth without mammary glands and vice versa.

Since both concepts are successful. what would be an actual problem with a hybrid version?

 

[LightHorseman]

Platypus and echidnas... egg laying mamals, then marsupials, then placental mamals,

theres your chain from egg layers to normal mamaals right there. Geez!

 

[Poke]

Actually there are many nice transitional series for things which involve bones, such as the series which i listed here earlier. It's an excellent example for the change of the skull structure, including the development of the middle ear during the transition from reptile to mammal.

The middle-ear of mammel like reptiles is the exception that proves the rule. Even this example is far from ideal. But, even if it seemed ideal, why are not such examples clearly found through the fossil record? There's no reason, in Evolution, that transitional states should be any less common in the fossil record than anything else. In fact, "transitional states" should be all we find in the fossil record.

But how do you expect things which are mostly a soft tissue thing to be visible in the fossil record? Considering how rarely soft tissue is preserved, does it really surprise that this is sketchy at best?

Scales and feathers aren't so soft, so where are the animals with things that are between scales and feathers?

What about not having to protect a nest at a fixed location? It greatly enhances the mobility during gestation.
If there was only a decisive negative aspect to it, mammals should be extinct by now, shouldn't they?

This isn't a question of the fitness of eggs. vs. live birth, it's a question of the fitness of the transitional state. And, apparently, they are all extinct, if they ever existed.

As indicated by the platypus, mammary glands came before live birth.

Yes, platypus have mammary glands. They lay eggs. They are a composite, not a transitional form. There's no transitional state of the development of mammery glands or of eggs giving way to live birth.

And besides, these are two completely seperate things, one can have live birth without mammary glands and vice versa.

The challenge of live birth almost requires mammary glands (as explained earlier in this thread). It's a given that dinosaurs laid eggs if they didn't have mammary glands.