Talk:Dinosaur

Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1| Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2

Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? 50something 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.

There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "kinds", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.

The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.

One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.

Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? 50something 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.

Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.

If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.

Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. 50something 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? Feichineejits 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.

God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.

As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this convergence, but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with this article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.

Philip J. Rayment 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. Feichineejits 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days as would be measured on Earth. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. Philip J. Rayment 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! 50something 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that plesiosaurs and the like, and pterodactyls and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for archosauria. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--All Fish Welcome 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. 50something 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.

I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.

Philip J. Rayment 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. 50something 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation mechanisms in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? Philip J. Rayment 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? 50something 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[1]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, 50something 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. Philip J. Rayment 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --Ned 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I found this in the Tyrannosaurus rex article:

“

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be carnivorous.

”

That might point you in the right way... --Jenkins 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). Philip J. Rayment 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--hmuckabee

They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. Philip J. Rayment 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)

The bible is not a reference. Wisdom89 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? Philip J. Rayment 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!

Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. Wisdom89 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)

"Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference is (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it can be used as a reference.

I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an evolutionary concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.

Philip J. Rayment 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? Wisdom89 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. Philip J. Rayment 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Evaluating the stature of resources

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). HelpJazz 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. Philip J. Rayment 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) HelpJazz 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Search window

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Chicago University incorrect reference

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Star (talk)

The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Philip J. Rayment 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Remove Soft Tissue Claim

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not. MetcalfeM

There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.RobertK 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists do claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate even if the creationists are wrong. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. Philip J. Rayment 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue. MetcalfeM

The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.

And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.

Philip J. Rayment 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

*deep sigh*

have a look at answersincreation.org

MetcalfeM

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.RobertK 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy.. I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged." It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost "It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University." NOT soft and stretchy So why is this not included in the article? MetcalfeM

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.RobertK 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim? MetcalfeM

deeper sigh

The AnswersInCreation response is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.

Their objections have already been answered here.

To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:

1. That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
2. That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ad hoc explanation: It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
3. That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
4. This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.

So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!

Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.

The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.

Philip J. Rayment 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.RobertK 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! Philip J. Rayment 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place. But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then. MetcalfeM

I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) replaced by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and not mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) soft and stretchy. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.

National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".

Philip J. Rayment 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)