Changes

They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>   

They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>   

They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

They pretend to use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.  These arguments are unsupported in the scientific community though and generally laughed at.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur."  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref>  <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively.  Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." This is quite funny because if "god" wrote the Bible, he would have known the terminology that eventually would have been used.  God decided this was unimportant and made no mention of the dinosaurs. However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref>  <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively.  Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

==== Extinction ====

Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with  a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref>

Creationists assert nothing but claim that evolutionists are frequently coming out with  a new, and better, Theory of Dinosaur Extinction and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref>

====Dinosaurs-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

====Dinosaurs-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.

Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.

* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.

* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures, in books of fiction.

** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />

** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today, the equivalent of the American "National Enquirer".<ref name="Today" />

** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>

** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].  But since there is no actual proof that the Loch Ness Monster exists, creationists are not stupid enough to argue that this supports their case.<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>

** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur.  The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature.  Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />

** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur.  The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature.  Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />

** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>.  Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref>  World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings.  But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />

** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>.  Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref>  World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings.  But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />

** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]].  Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.

** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]].  Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.

 

* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.

* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times. Just kidding!  The fact that dinosaurs appear in strata much lower than any hominid species is support that there were no human like species during the time of the dinosaurs. 

** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.

** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>

* The recent dinosaur tissue find may seem to be a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but really it is not.<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>

<!-- The Coelacanth are from a group that had previously been thought to have rudimentary limbs and so be the ancestor of land creatures, but this idea was dropped when living Coelacanths were discovered.<ref>[http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html Coelacanth: the world’s oldest fish?]</ref>  Biologists see this as merely a minor adjustment to the story of evolution. -->

<!-- The Coelacanth are from a group that had previously been thought to have rudimentary limbs and so be the ancestor of land creatures, but this idea was dropped when living Coelacanths were discovered.<ref>[http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html Coelacanth: the world’s oldest fish?]</ref>  Biologists see this as merely a minor adjustment to the story of evolution because science is continually changing to better understand our world, where as creationism preaches to know everything about the world already and must only conform the evidence to its simple and narrow minded view of the world. -->

==== Dinosaurs and birds ====

==== Dinosaurs and birds ====

Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence but they are horribly mistaken.  <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:

In his scientifically deplorable article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!  

The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!  

Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary Perspective===

===Evolutionary Perspective===