Big Dinosaurs, Little Eggs

While some dinosaurs were rather small, the ones that get our attention are the towering heavies. It is easy to assume that big creatures came from big eggs. Cartoons and dinosaur movies sometimes show extremely large eggs, but that is not the case. They hatched small and grew like other critters. What are the implications for Noah's Ark?

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Palauenc05 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

An egg could not be the size of a typical human because the shell would necessarily be thick. In fact, it would be too think for the unhatched dinosaur to breath or even escape if it could breathe in the first place. Paleontologists have learned from fossils that, like humans and critters, dinosaurs had growth spurts in their younger years.

Biblical creationists know that God brought animals to Noah. If you think about it, there would have been no reason to have the largest dinosaurs taking up a great deal of space on the Ark. They would have been juveniles, and after they disembARKed, they went on doing dinosaur stuff.

Have you ever thought about how pairs of each of the large dinosaur kinds were able to fit onto Noah’s Ark? Some of the sauropod dinosaurs reached over 30 m (100 ft) in length and likely some 50 tonnes (55 US tons) in weight! If they had been on the Ark they would have been a bit hard to handle (but there was plenty of room). The rather obvious answer is not to take fully grown adults, but rather juveniles, on board.

However, this still poses a problem in some minds. Wouldn’t such giant beasts have had huge babies, hatching out of monster eggs? While movies like Jurassic World depict dinosaur eggs as fairly small, they have been shown in popular media and cartoons as larger than a man, even. So, what is the truth about the size of dinosaur eggs? Did big dinosaurs lay big eggs, posing big questions for Noah’s Ark?

To read the rest of this eggciting article, click on "The biggest dinosaur eggs — Just how big were they, and what are the implications for the Ark?" Also of interest is a feedback article, "Pre-Flood predatory dinosaur interactions and the fossil record".





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Another New Pterosaur Discovery

Pterosaurs have been interesting additions to movies about dinosaurs and such, and most of us probably can picture the winged reptiles. What may be less known is that there were many types. Big ones, little ones, many teeth, no teeth — in many parts of the world. Now paleontologists have added another one.

Credit: Modified from an image at Wikimedia Commons by Antonio R. Mihaila (CC BY-SA 4.0)

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are so excited about this, they are going to add it to the festivities when they dance around the maypole. But they still don't know where to place it on the failed evolutionary tree, and have no evidence of its evolution. We may be tempted to say, "Big deal, another flying reptile". Well, it is a discovery, and we can expect additional news about recent pterosaur fossils because some are very well preserved and have soft tissues. That is always bad news for proponents of deep time because these critters were created far more recently than they believe.

Pterosaurs were amazing flying reptiles that came in all shapes and sizes. Not surprisingly, when these bizarre creatures are found in the fossil record they are 100% flying reptiles. Some achieve the size of a fighter jet, such as Quetzalcoatlus discovered in Texas or Hatzegopteryx in Romania. Paleobiologists have recently discovered a new pterosaur (Afrotapejara zouhrii) in Africa belonging to a group called the tapejarids that were small to medium-sized toothless pterosaurs.

To see what the flap is about, wing on over to the short article, "New Pterosaur Discovered".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Apex Predators Before the Flood

It is interesting to think of how critters lived before the Genesis Flood, especially those predators that would not take any guff off anyone. But like in the Old West movies where someone says, "This town ain't big enough for the both of us", there is no reason to think that the mean ones all lived in the same area.

The Animals Entering Noah' Ark, Jacopo Bassano, 1570s

Dinosaurs with sharp claws and (as Tim the Enchanter might say) nasty big pointy teeth. It may be fun to watch them strutting around looking for a fight like rival gang members, but is that plausible? We know from fossil evidence that there were some rip snortin' fights, but those were probably the exceptions. The same kind of safe distance thing can be inferred from predatory animals living today.

A [CMI] reader from Ukraine, B.V., asks some interesting questions about what dinosaurs are found buried together and why. His message follows, with a response from Philip Bell, intended to provoke fruitful thought on the topic, not as an exhaustive answer to the questions raised.

How did that many animals get along before the Flood? For example, there were such apex predators in North America, as Tyrannosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Siats, Acrocanthosaurus, Torvosaurus, Allosaurus etc.

We see traces of interaction between T. rex and Triceratops, Allosaurus and Stegosaurus. If they lived at the same time, why don’t we see traces of interaction between T. rex and Stegosaurus or Allosaurus and Triceratops?

There were some intelligent and agile creatures among dinosaurs. Why aren’t they as high as most of mammals in the fossil record?

Philip Bell replies:

Thank you for your question. I’d like to answer your question in a slightly unusual way.

To bite into the answer, click on "Pre-Flood predatory dinosaur interactions and the fossil record".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Pigments Ages of the Imagination

Believers in deep time are constantly denying facts as well as principles of science, giving them false confirmation of their biases. For example, despite all the dinosaur soft tissues and other remnants, the discovery of dinosaur DNA, and more, materialists have a "Whaddya know, that stuff does last millions of years!" approach. The same thing is happening with the "oldest" biological pigments.

Credit: Pexels / Sharon McCutcheon

 We've seen science denial (after all, the narrative trumps observed evidence) in the colors of dinosaurs and in dinosaur eggs. While this post is not about dinosaurs, these examples show how secularists clutch their pearls and deny inconvenient facts. It is no surprise that they believe the impossible about other biological pigments (perhaps they studied under Joe Biden at the University of Pennsylvania or something). Cyanobacteria were apparently the culprits that led to colors extracted from marine black shale, but the earth is not nearly as old as secularists want it to be.

Just how long can organic colours survive for? A new study claims they have survived for a whopping 1.1 billion years, more than 600 million years longer than previous similar discoveries. They have found intact porphyrins, ring molecules that are important components of many biological pigments, including hemoglobin and chlorophyll.

You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "‘Oldest’ biological colour discovered".






Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Dinosaur DNA: More Bad News for Deep Time

New links added at the end of the post in mid-March 2020. 

The atmosphere at the Darwin Ranch could accurately be described as subdued. Creationists have been trying to keep them honest, but evolutionists insist on their materialism and deep time beliefs despite science and logic. They have been faced with numerous refutations across the board, but what has been most devastating involves dinosaurs.

Soft tissues were found that could not possibly have lasted for millions of Darwin years. Evolutionists then had to deal with intact skin, blood vessels, and proteins. Desperate rescuing devices ensued. Katie, bar the door! Now they are faced with dinosaur DNA, and not just dubious fragments. DNA cannot last for huge amounts of time. By the way, where did Jack Horner get his doctorate? Just joshin' with y'all, he doesn't have one.

The secular science industry is committed to naturalism, and this makes it more difficult for them to find alternative explanations and more excuses. How could something possibly last for such a long time? "Wow, I guess it does last millions of years!" No. That kind of logic comes from a fundamentally flawed epistemology. While the narrative trumps the observed evidence in so many of their stories, it won't work this time. 

Alternative explanations? That's not difficult. Truth is, tissues, proteins, DNA, and so forth are nowhere near as old as evolutionists and deep time proponents want to believe. What is found over and over is evidence for the global Genesis Flood that happened a few thousand years ago. Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Deep-timers had a big enough problem with collagen and melanosomes. But DNA should be long gone. 75 million years? No way!

Could this be the last straw? For two decades now, especially since 2005, creationists have been challenging deep-timers (those who believe life is hundreds of millions of years old, and earth is 4.5 billion years old) with dinosaur soft tissue. Secular reports have been coming in regularly about soft tissue in fossils: feathers, melanosomes, collagen, various proteins, and materials in dinosaur bones that look like stretchy blood vessels and red blood cells. Evolutionists have been scrambling to find chemical mechanisms that might stabilize the molecules over deep time (see 18 Feb 2020 for latest attempt). They trot out their theories as ‘proof’ that soft tissues can survive tens of millions of years, never taking seriously the creationist critiques, which include the fact that evolutionists themselves had already predicted that soft tissues could not survive anywhere near that long.

But DNA? That’s impossible. Sorry, Jurassic Park fans; DNA degrades way too fast. Evolutionists know that.

To read the rest of the article (frustrating for naturalists but encouraging for biblical creationists), click on over to "Dinosaur DNA Found!" EDIT: More news at "Dinosaur DNA Confronts Big Ideas" and "No Other Explanation: Dinosaur DNA!"



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Nanotyrannus is Actually T. Rex, Junior

Back in 1942, a small dinosaur skull was examined and classified as a relative of Tyrannosaurus rex. However, paleontologists did not have much to work with. Eventually, more parts were found as well as a nearly-complete skeleton in 2003 for Nanotyrannus. Upon further examination, it was determined that Nanotyrannus did not exist.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / MCDinosaurhunter (CC by-SA 3.0)

"You mean like Nanny Pelosi, Cowboy Bob?"

Ummm...sure. While Nanotyrannus was not real under that name, it turns out that it was a teenager. The first of the two articles features is shorter and focuses on the error of growth rings, which seems similar to dendrochronology. Since dinosaurs were unique and there was a lack of data, it should not come as a surprise that this method failed. Young dinosaurs like this one are considered by many creationists to have been on Noah's Ark, and they would have matured after the Flood.

A new analysis of a small pair of T. rex-like fossils, called Nanotyrannus, shows they were actually teenage T. rexes.

Holly Woodward, from Oklahoma State University, and her colleagues reporting in Science Advances, counted the growth rings in the leg bones of the two Nanotyrannus specimens. Their results showed the specimens were not a new species. Rather, they were just 13 and 15-year-old T. rex dinosaurs.

To read the rest of the first article, click on "Teenage T. rex Fossils". The next article is more detailed.

Determining taxonomy has been problematic for a long time — especially for dinosaurs. There is prestige in making a discovery, but there have been many dinosaurs that have been reclassified as juveniles as well male and female of the same type. This is compounded by arrested growth patterns.

The latest research on one dinosaur called Nanotyrannus (Nano- or dwarf and tyrannus or tyrant) has finally firmed up what it was, a teenage T rex. Most of our information was known primarily from a single proven specimen, CMNH 7541. It was originally believed to be a new distinct genus based on a handful of cranial and postcranial features. Now, additional research on the creature’s bone tissue confirms it was merely a juvenile T. rex. The story of arriving at this conclusion is a good example of a big problem in the science of taxonomy, namely determining what is (or is not) a new species. This case also illustrates the problem of extrapolating conclusions about evolution from the fossil record.

The problem is actually central in documenting evolution. What one may conclude is a transitional form between one species and a more evolved species may well be only a juvenile of a known species, and not a new species. Paleontologists admit that “despite its iconic status as the king of dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus rex biology is incompletely understood,” even though since its discovery in 1905 the famed King of Dinosaurs “was met with intense scientific interest and public popularity, which persists to the present day.”

To finish reading, click on "Kid dinosaur was misidentified as a new species".





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Spectacular Remnants to Make Evolutionists Cry

Soft tissues of dinosaurs and other critters are becoming more and more common, and so are remnants that are termed spectacularly preserved. These are existential threats to universal common ancestor beliefs, as we will see in the three posts below. Faint not, brethren, most are not lengthy.

Plesiosaur skeleton credit: Flickr / Kim Alaniz (CC by 2.0)

The first article is about the discovery of well-preserved brains and nerves in the Cambrian period. These things ought not to be because of the alleged long ages! Or is it because of global warming? Instead, fossils are showing great detail. It was thought by archaeologists — yes, I know, should be paleontologists, but the writers made the easy mistake — that soft tissues could not fossilize. Surprise! They could do that during the catastrophic processes of the Genesis Flood, and that is the best explanation.

Exquisitely preserved fossils of Cambrian arthropods show minute details of brain and central nervous system.

Paleontologists have seen remains of nerves and brains in Cambrian fossils before, but these newly-announced ones exceed all previous ones for detail. Coverage in Phys.org shows that Harvard scientists are befuddled that this much detail of soft tissue could survive before fossilization, and remain visible for over 500 million years.

You can read the rest of this first installment by clicking on "Cambrian Brains Found". Hope you come back for the next one.

Howdy, welcome back! Because Darwin's disciples must keep to the deep time framework, they are convoluted and attempting to explain away the truth. All sorts of phrases are used in their "explanations", so mayhaps the Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ would come in handy right about now. This discovery raises inconvenient questions, and points to (wait for it) the Genesis Flood.

Scientists at Lund University say, “Remarkably preserved fossil sea reptile reveals skin that is still soft.”

An ichthyosaur (a type of marine reptile thought to have died out with the dinosaurs), if it could talk, would boast, ‘I’m young! Feel my soft skin.’

But watch how evolutionists distract attention from the main thing – the apparent youth of the fossil. Their evolutionary worldview obligates them to keep this fossil with the mythical Darwin timeline. The opening paragraph in the press release from Lund University could be considered a model of confabulatory obfuscation:

You can finish reading this one by swimming on over to "Marine Reptile Found With Intact Skin". Don't forget to come back for the final piece.

Thanks for staying along for the ride. So, how about them hadrosaurs? Think they'll have a good season next year? No, of course not, they're extinct. But boy howdy yee haw, gray skin pigment molecules have been preserved! Not only that, but blood vessels. The story about the find is fatuous, so it needs (and receives) further examination. Yet still again, the best explanations are recent creation and the Flood. You savvy?

So well preserved is a hadrosaur’s skin, the remnants of blood vessels and pigments are still visible with original molecules present.

It’s a phenomenal case of exceptional preservation for a dead dinosaur, but all the scientists seem excited about is the color. Michael Marshall in New Scientist titles his article, “Mummified skin suggests duck-billed dinosaurs were grey like elephants.” But is the skin color the biggest news?

To conclude this trilogy, click on "Dino Skin with Blood Vessels, Proteins Found". If they extricated their heads from Darwinism, scientists might be able to cowboy up and have some doubts. After all, Question Evolution Day is there to remind them — and us — annually on February 12.





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Secularists Still Puzzled over T. Rex Soft Tissues

When soft tissues of dinosaurs were discovered, they were considered oddities or misunderstood. Problems for secularists continued as more soft tissues were found as well as proteins, so rescuing devices were attempted. Another effort was made that does not bode well for evolutionary ideas.

Count Krosstich told me that these folks have to deal with a great deal of cognitive dissonance. True, they are presuming that dinosaur bones have been in the ground for millions of years, but also knowing that soft tissues and proteins cannot last anywhere near that long. The toast concept and Maillard reactions have been invoked, but nothing popped up with them. New studies have tremendous flaws. These people should admit that the evidence supports recent creation and the global Genesis Flood of only a few thousand years ago.

The latest fossil biochemistry paper, published in Scientific Reports, describes “blood vessel structures” recovered from inside a T. rex femur. This is the same femur in which the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology featured collagen fibers, protein remnants, and possible DNA signatures back in 1997. Since then, debate has raged among experts. On one hand, fossil experts keep reporting more biochemicals in all kinds of fossils. On the other hand, protein experts keep confirming that biochemicals cannot possibly last millions of years. This new report attempts to bridge those two parties.

The Scientific Reports paper focused on mechanisms that might help protein last for 65 million years—the length of time that secular scientists insist the T. rex bone rested in the earth. Such mechanisms bear a big burden. Assuming normal temperatures, proteins and other biomolecules fall apart after only thousands of years.

To read the rest of the article, click on "More T. rex Soft Tissues". Yippie ky yay, secularists!



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Still More Dinosaur Feather Fake News

My old pal Miles Prower stopped by to let me know that the hands at the Darwin Ranch were cranking up the propaganda mill again, this time to give more fake news about fossilized dinosaur feathers. Here we go again.

Assembled with components from Clker clipart

We saw that proponents of particles-to-paleontologist evolution are riding hard and fast to use space aliens for propaganda, but they are especially enamored with using dinosaurs to promote evolution. People with a modicum of critical thinking skills and some degree of science knowledge should be able to see that this report is nonsense.

One significant problem here is the same as we experience at The Question Evolution Project — a frustration common to Page owners. Namely, lack of reading. People see headlines and summaries but tend to avoid actually reading the material and thinking about the poor science and reasoning involved.

Ride up on the hill for the bigger view. What did they find? Fossils of feathers. Where did they find them? Southeastern Australia. Where did the fake news say they were from? The South Pole. What is the evidence? None. Assumptions, presuppositions of evolution and deep time, circular reasoning, and basic storytelling were found. If grant money was based on actual science instead of propaganda value, these jaspers would be relegated to selling pencils outside subway terminals. Unfortunately, they are locked in with their naturalistic views, so they won't cowboy up and admit that the actual evidence they find is in keeping with recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Galileo Figaro, they're frightened!

Dino-bird evolution frequently causes excitement on social media platforms so my attention was grabbed by a picture of a fully feathered dinosaur with a sensationalist National Geographic headline that read, “In a first, fossil dinosaur feathers found near the South Pole”. However, what had actually been found differed so significantly from the headline that words such as overreaching speculation and grandiose story-telling immediately came to mind. In what follows, I have broken down the article’s salient points to highlight the highly misleading nature of National Geographic’s claims.

To read the rest of the article and learn the facts, click on "Separating fact from fiction in a farcical story! — Were fossil dinosaur feathers really found near the South Pole?"






Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Further Confirmation that Dinosaurs were Reptiles

While scientists can learn a great deal from fossils, they do not give many of the finer details. With improving technology plus dinosaur bones being discovered and analyzed, more can be learned. Back in 1842, Richard Owen formed the word dinosauria from Greek words for "fearful" and "lizard". He could tell that they were reptiles.

Credit: RGBStock / Adrian van Leen

Evolutionists get on the prod when recent creation is discussed, especially when dinosaur soft tissues support recent creation. They keep on trying to find ways to make them seem millions of years old despite the evidence (because the Bearded Buddha required deep time to work his magic). Researchers managed to confirm what we already know: dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles.

Years ago, I was working a desk job and the manager put a big lizard nearby. It kept watching my every move. I asked why this was happening, and I was told that it was a monitor lizard.

"That's dreadful, Cowboy Bob!"

Well, I wasn't too keen on being monitored, either.

The Komodo dragon is a kind of monitor lizard (which supposedly got its name by monitoring its surroundings for predators). This bad boy is big, mean, fast, has poison, and relentless. It has no problem taking down a water buffalo for lunch. Studies of the metabolisms of Komodo dragons and alligators support what has already been believed about the reptilian nature of dinosaurs.

Based on these findings, researchers have proposed that many dinosaurs had low metabolic levels during resting or low-activity periods but could rapidly expand their lung ventilation levels for bursts of activity associated with running, attacking, and defensive maneuvers. This type of adaptation would also have allowed large dinosaurs to sustain life within a reasonable level of caloric intake. Indeed, research showed that if large dinosaurs were warm-blooded, they wouldn’t have been able to ingest enough food to maintain their metabolism.

You can read the entire article by clicking on "Dinosaurs Had Reptilian Metabolic Adaptation".





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Rescuing Dinosaur Protein Preservation

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are trying to cook up another rescuing device to avoid the young earth implications of dinosaur soft tissues and proteins. Soft tissues in dinosaur bones have been a cause of consternation among believers in deep time. The toast idea was crummy from the get-go, but that does not stop determined evolutionists from tweaking it for dinosaur proteins, no siree!

Made at PhotoFunia with an image on Pixabay by Ralph

While Maillard reactions are just ducky when they put a crust on toast and do tasty things with food, the very nature of the effect requires somewhat high temperatures. (By the way, the L in Maillard is not pronounced.) Desperate evolutionists try to explain the preservation of proteins through this process, but thinking people are able to easily determine four reasons that this preservation explanation can be relegated to the fake news trash can. If secular scientists started from the fact that the world was created recently, they would be more likely to come up with believable science.

How could dinosaur proteins persist over 70 million years inside dinosaur bones? That’s one of the biggest questions that secular paleontologists have faced in the last two decades. Many of them reason that some unique but undiscovered set of conditions grant proteins power to defy all odds and somehow survive unimaginable time scales. They think someone, someday, will discover the protein’s secret to survival. A new model suggests those long-sought conditions have come forth. And the once-secret rescuing device has a name: Maillard reactions. Does this common chemistry really explain the issue like its champions suggest, or does it leave ancient organics just as frail as ever?

To crunch on the rest of the article, click on "Do Maillard Reactions Explain Dinosaur Proteins?"





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Perhaps a Camarasaurus in China

Although Darwin's disciples insist that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago, long before humans evolved and set up camp, there is evidence to the contrary. There are historical records and artifacts that have rather accurate descriptions and representations of dinosaurs, such as St. Davids dragon that we examined a spell back. There are many more, including what looks like a Camarasaurus from China.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Dmitry Bogdanov

Creationists accept historical evidence (including the Bible) of dinosaurs and humans living contemporaneously. Nowadays, we only know what some of them looked like from fossils and such, but people long ago did not have (or know about) fossils underfoot. They still had some surprisingly accurate illustrations and artwork of what were called dragons prior to Richard Owen coming up with the word dinosaur.

An artifact from China dating from the third century BC had detailed depictions of what appears to be a Camarasaurus. It is interesting that hundreds of years later, Marco Polo described what appeared to be dinosaurs in China. This older bronze work has details, with a bit of fanciful artwork on the tail. The truth is that dinosaurs, humans, and everything else were created recently, not the product of blind chance evolution.

A late Eastern Zhou (3rd century BC) wine vessel excavated in 1975 from a tomb in Sanmenxia, Henan Province, China, demonstrates this beautifully. Cast in bronze with much of its gold inlay still preserved, the stunning artistry is clear. Looking distinctly dinosaurian are four animals, one featured on each side of the wine vessel, easily recognizable as sauropod dinosaurs. Due to the particularly rounded head at the end of the long thin neck peering over the edge it may very well be depicting a Camarasaurus. The thick muscular legs come down from the body and the tail extends out, suspended in the air, not touching the sides of the vessel.

To read the entire article, click on "A Chinese Camarasaurus?"






Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

That Thanksgiving Dinosaur Idea

Today is Thanksgiving Day in the United States, and many of us are blessed to have a grand feast. The most traditional part of this is turkey. While we should be thankful to our Creator and Redeemer for all that he has done for us, we do not need to be accepting the philosophy that the turkey evolved from dinosaurs.

Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / hin255

While it is an article of faith for evolutionists to believe that birds came from dinosaurs (a "fact"), many posts on this site alone show the insuperable problems of this position (actual facts). Indeed, dinosaurs and birds existed together, and not all evolutionists have signed on to that opinion. Mixing evolution with biblical Christianity interferes with our worship. We may even use this time to point out the truth of creation — with grace and discretion, of course.

Ever mindful to immerse the world in evolutionary mythology, the Smithsonian.com’s “Dinosaur Tracking” column on Thanksgiving Day zoomed in on your turkey’s genealogy. While it is good to be aware of the currently popular classification system, it is vital for us to make our children—who are constantly exposed to evolutionary dogma from many directions—understand the implications of calling a bird a dinosaur.

To gobble up the rest of this article, click on "Dinosaurs for Thanksgiving".






Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Dinosaur Eggs and Challenges to the Genesis Flood

There are millions of fossilized dinosaur eggs around the world, but they may not stand out to someone who is not trained to notice them. After all, they are fossilized. These eggs are more concentrated in some areas than others, and secularists fixing to lynch biblical creationists present some challenges.

Fossilized dinosaur eggs at Indroda Fossil Park
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / S. Ballal (CC by-SA 3.0)

Secularists have raised some challenges for Genesis Flood geology that are interesting at first glance. However, observed evidence regarding dinosaur eggs is also difficult for those geologists to answer as well. Creation scientists have the Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments model that provides satisfactory answers to objections of secular geologists.

Other features, such as mud cracks, raindrop imprints, bird tracks, channels, and burrows, have been reported at some egg sites. In addition, some dinosaur remains seem to have been scavenged. Skeptics argue that these features together with dinosaur eggs and nests represent normal activity over a long period of time and would need far more time than Noah’s Flood provides. However, as with all challenges against the Genesis Flood, a careful examination of the evidence reveals that there is no problem.

To read the entire article, click on "Dinosaur eggs point to the global Genesis Flood".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

St. Davids Dragon

If you happen to venture into Wales and want to see some ancient cathedrals, head west over to the county of Pembrokeshire. Before you ride into the sea, look for a small city (the population is just under 2,000) named St. David's. There is a cathedral that has something of interest to biblical creationists.

Credit: Freeimages / John Noble

St. Davids Cathedral has been existence since the 6th century, but like other cathedrals, it had repairs and upgrades over the years. In the late Medieval upgrade, folding seats were installed that feature a critter that looks quite a bit like a sauropod dinosaur. Regular readers know that there are historical accounts of dinosaurs (previously called dragons), indicating that despite the claims of Darwinists, they lived at the same time as humans. But this one has a mix of fantasy with reality, so we commence to doing some reasoning. This starts with the fact that the artist could not have seen fossils or reconstructions in museums.

Its overall anatomy resembles the sauropod dinosaurs known from fossils, with longer hind legs than front legs. These long-necked, extinct reptiles typify Jurassic rock layers. This one’s neck is not nearly as long in proportion to its main body as the more familiar sauropods like Diplodocus. Lest someone say its neck looks too short for the carving to represent any real sauropod, its neck length closely matches that of a dinosaur fossil found in Argentina in 2005 named Brachytrachelopan mesai.

To read the full article, click on "St. Davids Dragon — Fantasy or Reality?"



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Dinosaur Fossil in a Strange Mix

Rusty Swingset and the hands at the Darwin Ranch like to present the fossil record as an orderly progression of simple to more complex life forms. They get on the prod when someone points out that fossils are frequently out of order according to the evolution narrative.

Enhanced and cropped from Wikimedia Commons /andytang20 (CC by 2.5)

Point out to some tinhorns that some fossils are in the wrong place and mixed with other fossils, if you watch closely, you can see ghastly plumes of smoke rising from their heads like Ethel Rosenberg. Jumbled fossils support the Genesis Flood and rein in evolutionary excitement. In this case, a kind of Edmontosaurs in Japan caused a heap of excuse making. After all, they detest the truths of recent creation and the Genesis Flood.

Researchers published the hadrosaur’s detailed description in the online journal Scientific Reports and named the fossil Kamuysaurus japonicus. Hadrosaurs, known popularly as duck-billed dinosaurs, had plant-eating teeth and jaws and could walk either on their hind legs or on all four legs. Subtle differences justified this dinosaur’s new name, although it looks basically the same as Edmontosaurus-types found in North America, Russia, and China.

A Hokkaido University press release via EurekAlert noted that the remains were found in “marine deposits.” The team suggested that it “preferred to inhabit areas near the ocean.” Mingled fossils included sea creatures like “ammonoids, mosasaurs and a sea turtle.” The hadrosaur didn’t have fins or flippers, so what was it doing there?

To can read the whole article by clicking on "Dinosaur Mingled with Sea Creatures in Japan".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Creation Science Collagen Research Affirms Genesis Flood Timeline

The hands at the Darwin Ranch, up yonder past Stinking Lake and through Deception Pass, get a mite complacent. When observed evidence is against them, they employ rescuing devices by the wagon train-load. However, the problem of dinosaur soft tissues is the goat at their tea party.

Background image: Pixabay / Yuri_B

Members of the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society teamed up to do some research on bones. Using new techniques, collagen was shown to decay faster than scientists previously thought. This fits quite well with the Genesis Flood timeline, but is going to cause further difficulty for old earth proponents.

Collagen is a tough, stringy protein that holds bone together like the steel belts in tires. Secular scientists struggle to explain why so many different techniques have found positive detections of collagen in fossil bones. At the heart of the scientists’ struggle lies collagen’s relatively short shelf life. Prior studies accurately measured collagen content, but more precisely knowing collagen’s decay rate would set a sharper outside age limit for fossils that still contain it.

New techniques for Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) could improve this level of precision. As part of my recent Ph.D. research, I applied FTIR to hundreds of artificially decayed bone samples.

To finish reading this short but technical article, click on "Collagen Decays Too Fastfor Evolutionary Time".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Deniers Accidentally Support Creation

Looks like the hands at the Darwin Ranch contracted with the Field Museum of Paleontology in Chicago. Like a pesky stain on a shirt or a bad penny, evolutionists cannot escape the devastating facts of soft tissues found in dinosaur bones, which support recent creation and the Genesis Flood.

Original image credit:
Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum, US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Secularists tried ignoring the problem, put the spin on tissues, and even sailed on Denial River with Cleopatra. Now they're trying something old and new by digging up failed arguments from 2008 and attempting to research up some confirmation for their biases. I reckon that these folks are unwilling to face reality.

They had some interesting results, but inadvertently confirmed several things that creationists have been saying all along. In addition, several very important facts have been left out in an effort to make a possible exception prove the rule. This is similar to something I've said: If scientists found conclusive proof of actual Darwinian evolution for some critter, it would not instantly prove the general theory of evolution for everything, you savvy?

By dismissing dinosaur soft tissue as bacteria, Field Museum scientists may have given creationists a selling point.

Scientists at Chicago’s prestigious Field Museum of Paleontology have made a frontal assault on claims of original dinosaur proteins in dinosaur bones. The claims that soft tissue can be found in some dinosaur fossils, made primarily by Mary Schweitzer at North Carolina State University, and by others, have invigorated young-earth creationists with alleged proof that the bones are only thousands of years old, not tens of millions. Are they wrong? Were they looking at bacterial biofilms masquerading as dinosaur proteins, blood vessels and blood cells?

It’s an old argument revitalized by new experiments. The Field Museum team of 19 paleontologists from a dozen institutions in the US, Canada, Britain and China sawed out some bone from Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada to check. They took precautions to avoid contamination. They found evidence of recent bacteria, but no collagen (bacteria do not make collagen).

To finish reading, click on "Showdown: Is Dino Soft Tissue Just Bacteria?" A related article is "Soft Tissue Showdown".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Draining the Dinosaur Swamp

We do not exactly see dinosaurs hitched up to carts for manual labor or getting saddled up for use in a posse comitatus. Practitioners of evolutionary pettifoggery will have us believe that dinosaurs joined the choir invisible millions of years before humans evolved, but biblical creationists have different ideas.

Assembled at PhotoFunia

Apparently they are bereft of life and taking dirt naps, except in a few possible instances in modern times, in the Bible, and in other instances of ancient history. Biblical creationists reject naturalistic presuppositions and believe that not only was there a global Flood at the time of Noah, but various dinosaur kinds were on the Ark. (Apparently, many dinosaurs were ill-tempered critters and became nuisances, so they were hunted.) The Flood radically changed the world, including the stomping grounds that dinosaurs preferred. Even the Sahara Desert was wet many years ago. Loss of habitat is a primary cause of extinction, you know.

Genesis says that “every beast after its kind…went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life.” Dinosaurs were beasts, and their fossil nostrils show they had the breath of life. So, if a breeding pair of every dinosaur kind entered the Ark, why don’t we see dinosaurs alive today?

Many other animal kinds also died out after the Flood. Mammal-like reptiles called synapsids left Flood fossils and then later went extinct. Other animals that vanished include the “bear dogs,” rat-size morganucodonts, and Leptictidium, which walked like a tiny, hairy tyrannosaur. We can’t know specifics about their extinction without going back in time, but three key clues sketch an answer.

 To read the rest, click on "What Happened to Dinosaurs after the Flood?"



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Dinosaurs and Birds Lived Together

Those scientists who never bought into the dinosaurs-evolved-into-birds mythology probably get exasperated by hearing the majority opinion proclaimed. However, they may also feel a bit vindicated by the numerous reports that show such evolution is impossible — not that they are fond of supporting creation, however.

Assembled using components from Clker clipart

If you study on it or read previous posts here, you might realize that they are asking a lot in the first place. After all, feathers are complex, lungs would have to change, bone structures rearranged and redeveloped, flight itself would have to develop, and more. There is simply no evidence for such evolution. Then we have conflicts with the timeline, such as fully-functional birds living alongside dinosaurs. The truth is that God created dinosaurs and birds separately, and didn't consult Darwin.

Several aspects of the dinosaur-to-bird evolution don’t make sense in the light of evolution.

Museums and park displays show the public dioramas of dinosaurs going extinct 65 million years ago. After the asteroid strike (or volcanoes) did in the dinosaurs, birds really took off, diversifying into the great variety of birds we have today. Does this match the evidence? First, the news.

To read the rest, click on "Birds with Modern Traits Flew Over Dinosaurs".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!