Do living dinosaurs disprove evolution?

[NowAgnostic]

I don’t think this argument is very compelling if you look at the evidence I cited. The Ica stones, for example, clearly depict triceratopses for example. It matches the fossils very well. We don’t have fossils of fairies, but we do with dinosaurs. It’s not a fair comparison.

I would be more inclined to believe all the ancient artistic depictions of dinosaurs were faked … and they might be. Some might be at least. But it would seem very unlikely if they ALL were, in my opinion.

Yeah but not all artistic depictions of dinosaurs have that degree of accuracy as the Ica stones, the genuineness of which, shall we say, is open to question…

Maybe T-Rexes aren’t THAT dangerous. If Spielberg is right, all you have to do is stand still and you’re good.

T-Rexes will completely prohibit the development of anything resembling civilization as they will destroy everything with a single step. And can you really grow crops or go hunting with T-rexes around?

 

[Areopagite]

They were already becoming endangered before the K-T event because of a period intense volcanism, many species had already gone extinct.

I’m not quite sure how we could know this with certainty. In fact, how in the world could we?

Some non-avian dinosaurs could have survived a few hundred thousand years afterwards, but even that I would doubt.

This statement seems to contradict the one you make here:

Birds descended from dinosaurs.

Unless you’re joking? If birds descended from dinosaurs, then some dinosaurs survived, right?

Asking where they would have survived matters if you want to hypothesize that they survived for even 2 million years. Yes, they could have died and rotted away like you said, but that would suggest a very small breeding population for 65my which seems very unlikely.

But then, of course, why did crocodiles survive? They’re as old as the dinosaurs, and they’re not fish.

Yeah but not all artistic depictions of dinosaurs have that degree of accuracy as the Ica stones, the genuineness of which, shall we say, is open to question…

Indeed, there is a case that the Ica stones could be faked … but there are strange things about them that suggest … that they might be real (there are 50,000 of them with varying artistic styles for example). It’s definitely debatable. All I’m saying is that there is a legitimate case to be made based on ancient art that dinosaurs could have existed at the time of man. It’s not totally without basis.

T-Rexes will completely prohibit the development of anything resembling civilization as they will destroy everything with a single step. And can you really grow crops or go hunting with T-rexes around?

Well, once again, maybe they can only detect movement … like in Jurassic Park. If that’s the case, and the ancients figured that out, there would be relatively little problem. Or maybe the T-Rex was deathly afraid of fire (and placing a couple torches around a settlement took care of that) … there could be millions of reasons why the humans could have survived alongside the King of the Lizards. I think there is enough room for skepticism with regard to any confident declarations regarding the natures of T-Rexes, since those declarations are based on mere fossils … right?

 

[Hosh]

I’m not a geologist en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps

Avian dinosaurs did survive and they became birds. They don’t require a large diet, can cover large distances in search for food, and can take shelter just about anywhere. I’m sure lots of other things about them contributed to there survival as well.

As for crocodilians… they have a very narrow niche and there very good at exploiting it. There amphibious nature provided protection. Fish and other freshwater creatures which they can eat would have been afforded same . Whatever creatures survived were small and still needed to drink water, so more food for the crocs.

The massive animals your talking about have massive dietary requirements, the light was blocked out, it got cold, plants died, so the plant eaters died, and then the predatory dinosaurs had nothing to eat.

 

[prettylarge]

There is no legitimate scientific evidence that men lived at the same time as dinosaurs. If it were true, why wouldn’t there be dinosaurs at burial sites of ancient peoples? If you told an archaeologist that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time they would laugh at you, or just think you were very uninformed.

I don’t think there is any legitimate evidence that the world was created as it says in the Bible.

OK, lets say that the story of Adam and Eve happened. Adam and Eve would have to be the ones to pass it down. Why would they tell their children what actually happened? And if Adam and Eve existed we are all decedents of incest.

 

[Hosh]

If you want evolution to be compatible with your faith think about it like this: The 7 days are metaphorical days, time means nothing to god. If God had told Moses exactly what happened not only would Moses be utterly confused but the Israelites would have never accepted the covenant. God knew this, so he told the story in a way the humans of the day could understand. Say Adam and Eve represent when god gave our ancestors a soul and freewill rather than actual people… You don’t have to take everything in the literally.

 

[Areopagite]

Avian dinosaurs did survive and they became birds. They don’t require a large diet, can cover large distances in search for food, and can take shelter just about anywhere. I’m sure lots of other things about them contributed to there survival as well.

So, is it possible that some pterosaurs may have survived … because of course they are seemingly the most widely depicted dinosaurs in ancient art. Would you say this would be a possibility?

As for crocodilians… they have a very narrow niche and there very good at exploiting it. There amphibious nature provided protection. Fish and other freshwater creatures which they can eat would have been afforded same . Whatever creatures survived were small and still needed to drink water, so more food for the crocs.

So, if enough creatures survived for crocs to eat, why couldn’t there be enough for T-Rexes?

The statements you are making, at the very least, are not incredibly certain.

The massive animals your talking about have massive dietary requirements, the light was blocked out, it got cold, plants died, so the plant eaters died, and then the predatory dinosaurs had nothing to eat.

So … crocs would have died out too? And the birds?

There is no legitimate scientific evidence that men lived at the same time as dinosaurs. If it were true, why wouldn’t there be dinosaurs at burial sites of ancient peoples? If you told an archaeologist that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time they would laugh at you, or just think you were very uninformed.

I don’t think there is any legitimate evidence that the world was created as it says in the Bible.

OK, lets say that the story of Adam and Eve happened. Adam and Eve would have to be the ones to pass it down. Why would they tell their children what actually happened? And if Adam and Eve existed we are all decedents of incest.

All right, some of this a little off topic. I’m not here defending creationism here. I’m actually defending evolution. I’m not suggesting there is indubitable evidence that dinosaurs lived with man. But there is some kind evidence. But in any case: I’m asking, if dinosaurs did live with man, does it disprove evolution. Are you, prettylarge, say it would? Because I don’t think so.

And also, I think there are plenty of archeologists who believe that dinosaurs could have existed with man. I’m not sure what you’re evidence is to the contrary. I continuously come across archeological/historical theories (many of whom are not even Christian) who think that the “dragons” that were believed by the ancients and medievals were actually dinosaurs who had survived.

And one last side-note: if monogeny is true, then yes I guess you could say that we are descendants of incest. For what it’s worth though, the Catholic Church (and humanity in general, I would say) condemn incest because it causes birth deformities. However, if theoretically, there is enough genetic diversity/dissimilarity between brothers and sisters that birth deformities wouldn’t result, then incest would be morally permissible. Theoretically, if monogeny and Genesis is true and all that, perhaps Adam and Eve were made with enough genetic diversity that it wouldn’t be a problem. Or something. Those are my thoughts. I’m open to criticism on this.

But really, this is off topic, so I strongly suggest starting a new thread if you honestly want to talk about that.

If you want evolution to be compatible with your faith think about it like this: The 7 days are metaphorical days, time means nothing to god. If God had told Moses exactly what happened not only would Moses be utterly confused but the Israelites would have never accepted the covenant. God knew this, so he told the story in a way the humans of the day could understand. Say Adam and Eve represent when god gave our ancestors a soul and freewill rather than actual people… You don’t have to take everything in the literally.

I don’t disagree with any of this. I think Genesis could be read this way. You are completely right. I definitely do not take the Bible literalistically in every way.

My question for this thread, actually, came about largely because I want to pull the rug from under a literalistic/creationist argument … and also want to have evolutionists stop feeling they have an obligation to disagree with more than they need to.

So, once again, I’ll state my question: would living dinosaurs disprove evolution? Most people here have said no … and others … I’m not sure. A lot of people have dodged the question.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Indeed, there is a case that the Ica stones could be faked … but there are strange things about them that suggest … that they might be real (there are 50,000 of them with varying artistic styles for example). It’s definitely debatable. All I’m saying is that there is a legitimate case to be made based on ancient art that dinosaurs could have existed at the time of man. It’s not totally without basis.

Well, maybe not, but if the stones weren’t faked isn’t it a little more plausible that some of the ancients may have just happened upon a dinosaur fossil?

Well, once again, maybe they can only detect movement … like in Jurassic Park. If that’s the case, and the ancients figured that out, there would be relatively little problem.

Really? How are they to get around to hunt and farm without moving?

Or maybe the T-Rex was deathly afraid of fire (and placing a couple torches around a settlement took care of that) … there could be millions of reasons why the humans could have survived alongside the King of the Lizards. I think there is enough room for skepticism with regard to any confident declarations regarding the natures of T-Rexes, since those declarations are based on mere fossils … right?

I think we can be pretty confident about the size of a T-Rex, even if it is based on “mere fossils”: it is huge.

 

[Hosh]

Sure Pterosaurs could have survived but they would have continued to evolve and would look like a bird by now. Not everything died, there were resources to be exploited. The dietary requirements for 5 ton dinosaur are substantially lower than for a 400 pound crocodile.

 

[Areopagite]

Well, maybe not, but if the stones weren’t faked isn’t it a little more plausible that some of the ancients may have just happened upon a dinosaur fossil?

I won’t deny that such a thing could have happened. However, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it true that the large dinosaur fossils are not found as a whole but have been pieced together by paleontologists? It seems like ancient people of South America wouldn’t have done that. On the other hand, they may have been more advanced than we think. It’s hard to gauge which one was more likely.

Really? How are they to get around to hunt and farm without moving?

No, no, no. All you have to do is stop moving once a T-Rex shows up. Right?

I think we can be pretty confident about the size of a T-Rex, even if it is based on “mere fossils”: it is huge.

Well, yeah, it’s huge, but we have no idea how dangerous it would really be to humans or have any idea of all the possible weaknesses it could have. Lot of room for skepticism for any confident positive claims about it. That’s my point.

Sure Pterosaurs could have survived but they would have continued to evolve and would look like a bird by now.

Are you sure? Is this necessarily so? The coelacanth, frilled shark, and croc have underwent little or no evolution … why would pterosaurs necessarily evolve more rapidly?

Not everything died, there were resources to be exploited. The dietary requirements for 5 ton dinosaur are substantially lower than for a 400 pound crocodile.

For what it’s worth, crocodiles can weigh over one ton. How do we know that there were just enough resources for crocs to survive but not dinosaurs? I’m pretty sure we don’t have enough reliable and exact data to draw that conclusion with any kind of certainty.

 

[Formosus]

I think its worthwhile to point out that during the periods when Dinosaurs lived, Crocs were infact much much larger then they are today. Due to the decrease in food resources, the smaller crocs were able to reproduce while larger ones died and so crocs that required less and less resources lived on and flourished while those that were of a monstrous size , like nearly all the dinosaurs, died of starvation. This is why bird-like dinosaurs lived and eventually became birds, they were smaller and required less food.

This concept is not that far off from even closer to the current era when giant ice age mammals died off once the climate changed, while the smaller ones lived on and currently inhabit our world (for instance, giant wolves used to exist, now only smaller wolves exist).

 

[Thing]

I think its worthwhile to point out that during the periods when Dinosaurs lived, Crocs were infact much much larger then they are today. Due to the decrease in food resources, the smaller crocs were able to reproduce while larger ones died and so crocs that required less and less resources lived on and flourished while those that were of a monstrous size , like nearly all the dinosaurs, died of starvation. This is why bird-like dinosaurs lived and eventually became birds, they were smaller and required less food.

This concept is not that far off from even closer to the current era when giant ice age mammals died off once the climate changed, while the smaller ones lived on and currently inhabit our world (for instance, giant wolves used to exist, now only smaller wolves exist).

Sarcosuchus (pronounced /ˌsɑrkɵˈsuːkəs/, meaning ‘flesh crocodile’ and commonly called “SuperCroc”) is an extinct genus of crocodyliform and distant relative of the crocodile. It dates from the early Cretaceous Period of what is now Africa and is one of the largest giant crocodile-like reptiles that ever lived. It was almost twice as long as the modern saltwater crocodile and weighed approximately 8 to 10 tonnes.

Other crocodilian biologists are skeptical of the animal’s “giant killing” capabilities[citation needed]. The long, thin snout of Sarcosuchus was very similar to the thin snouts of the modern gharial, the false gharial and the slender-snouted crocodile, all of which are nearly exclusive fish-eaters and incapable of tackling large prey. This can be contrasted to both the modern Nile crocodile and the extinct Deinosuchus, both of which exhibit very broad, heavy skulls, suitable for dealing with large prey. This, coupled with the abundance of large, lobe-finned fish in its environment, leads many to suggest that, far from being a dinosaur killer, Sarcosuchus was simply a large piscivore, a scaled-up version of the modern gharial.

It is pertinent to note, though, that the lobe-finned fish that shared the waters with Sarcosuchus were often in excess of 1.8 m (6 ft) long and 90 kg (200 lb) in weight[citation needed]. This raises the possibility of those adaptations, which seem to indicate large or moderate-sized terrestrial prey, may instead have been adaptations for dealing with exceptionally large fish (many species of which possessed a layer of osteoderms, for protection). - wiki

I wonder why it died out but not other crocodiles.

 

[Sair]

Well, once again, maybe they can only detect movement … like in Jurassic Park. If that’s the case, and the ancients figured that out, there would be relatively little problem. Or maybe the T-Rex was deathly afraid of fire (and placing a couple torches around a settlement took care of that) … there could be millions of reasons why the humans could have survived alongside the King of the Lizards. I think there is enough room for skepticism with regard to any confident declarations regarding the natures of T-Rexes, since those declarations are based on mere fossils … right?

Actually, - just as an interesting aside, while I have my dinosaur-nerd hat firmly on - there’s a good body of evidence that suggests T-Rex was likely to have been primarily a scavenger, rather than the ‘king of predators’ of the popular imagination. Its probable weight (as an adult, at least) and the dimensions of its legs meant it couldn’t run all that fast (though maybe fast enough to catch humans!) and its top-heaviness meant that it was in danger of a fatal fall if it tripped. The huge olfactory chambers in its skull are proportional to those of modern scavengers, such as vultures, that can smell a carcase from miles away. And considering its sheer size, it was probably frightening enough to scare smaller predators away from a kill in order to get a meal for itself.

All things considered, I think if dinosaurs were to have survived, I’d probably feel safer having a T-Rex in the neighbourhood than a pack of marauding raptors… :bigyikes:

 

[Hosh]

Are you sure? Is this necessarily so? The coelacanth, frilled shark, and croc have underwent little or no evolution … why would pterosaurs necessarily evolve more rapidly?

All three of those that you mention our highly specialized and exploit a very narrow niche. Pterosaurs would have been in direct competition with protobirds, which were far more adapt to the rapidly changing enviorment of the early tertiary.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Areopagite -

I went to your first and third links, on your opening post to this thread. Since my video card doesn’t handle videos very fast, I avoid video links. Which means, finding out the first link was Utube, I went on to the third link.

It didn’t have a much, as I had hoped for, in the way of photos disclosing dinosaurs drawn on stones.
About that. If they pre-Inca natives had found fossils, I’m sure they would have drawn fossils, if at all.

I’m writing, because I have read lots of books about strange creatures. One had a photograph of prospectors beside a large flying animal’s corpse, nailed to the side of a barn. This could have been a hoax, or the actual carcass of a pterodactyl. It was either in Arizona or New Mexico, I can’t remember.

As far as the stones and Inca petroglyphs of different dinosaurs, several hundred might be a hoax. However, if there really are 50,000 such drawings…all of those can’t be a hoax, I would think.

I doubt I’ll ever see a living dinosaur. Nevertheless, there’s native reports of a really huge animal, along the Amazon River. Euro-Americans have yet to spot it, during their different expeditions to find it.

In closing, there remain large tracts of uninhabited terrain in South America, Asia, Africa and even North America. I have no doubt that there’s some large animals in those regions, yet to be discovered. Go ahead, call me credulous. But, remember, I didn’t claim what kind of large animal, just that there’s room for them in the wilds.

 

[edwest2]

There have been depictions of dinosaurs (a relatively recent word) made by men, including in metal. There is the mosaic of Palestrina which shows a T-Rex. Does it disprove evolution? I think the dates are way off. By the way, it turns out the method for estimating dinosaur size was seriously flawed.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090621195620.htm

A bit odd considering skeletons of such things do exist.

Peace,
Ed

 

[stenlis]

Finding a living specimen of an animal that was thought of as being extinct long time ago would not concern the validity of the evolution theory.

Evolution theory would be invalidated the other way around - if you’d consistently find fossils of modern day animals (say, rabbits or sperm whales) in pre-cambrian strata.

As for the Ica stones, here’s some facts:

1. The stones have not been scientifically dated. To date them, archeologists would need to examine the excavation sites.
2. Javier Cabrera, their main proponent and the owner of the collection failed to show the excavation sites to the scientific community. Despite the fact that to this day he keeps ‘finding’ new stones.
3. Besides the dinosaurs the stones depict people using telescopes, flying machines, perform heart-transplants and brain surgeries suggesting an extremely advanced civilization. In contrast, they generally look like scratchings of an unskillful farmer using simple tools.
4. The supposedly highly advanced civilization depicted in the Ica collection failed to leave any artifact other than a couple hundred well preserved unskillfuly decorated stones.

 

[Areopagite]

Is it possible, based on what some people have been saying, that if dinosaurs did survive up through human history, that it doesn’t disprove evolution but merely some theories regarding the gravity of the various worldwide disasters and what species were extinguished by them? Is that fair to say?

All things considered, I think if dinosaurs were to have survived, I’d probably feel safer having a T-Rex in the neighbourhood than a pack of marauding raptors… :bigyikes:

If you allow me my nerd-hat: velociraptors were actually very small critters … the size of dogs or something like that. It’s kind of disappointing.

All three of those that you mention our highly specialized and exploit a very narrow niche. Pterosaurs would have been in direct competition with protobirds, which were far more adapt to the rapidly changing enviorment of the early tertiary.

Do crocs have a narrow niche? They eat pretty big animals, don’t they? A lot of dinosaurs did too. If there were enough to feed the crocs, there may have been enough for the T-Rexes. It’s not unreasonable. Just saying.

And while it’s reasonable that protobirds probably had advantages of pterosaurs, I don’t think we have enough information to conclude that pterosaurs necessarily went away. We obviously don’t know much about them since we’ve only studied them from fossils. Perhaps the pterosaurs were good at eating other birds. I don’t know.

All this is shrouded in a great deal of mystery. We don’t know too many things for sure. And that’s the point. Dogmatic statements about this stuff should be suspect. That is why, if dinosaurs turned out to be alive during mankind’s life, nothing very serious in science would be overturned because we don’t know too much for sure about dinosaurs and what happened to them.

If they pre-Inca natives had found fossils, I’m sure they would have drawn fossils, if at all.

Yeah I agree. That argument doesn’t make much sense. Especially considering they would have to piece them together … and happened to do it as accurately as modern paleontologists have.

As far as the stones and Inca petroglyphs of different dinosaurs, several hundred might be a hoax. However, if there really are 50,000 such drawings…all of those can’t be a hoax, I would think.

Yeah, that’s the very compelling part of the argument. If it is a hoax, it’s one of the biggest and most elaborate ones in history. But I guess it’s possible. In any case, it makes the living dinosaur question something to take seriously and not dismiss offhand.

In closing, there remain large tracts of uninhabited terrain in South America, Asia, Africa and even North America. I have no doubt that there’s some large animals in those regions, yet to be discovered. Go ahead, call me credulous. But, remember, I didn’t claim what kind of large animal, just that there’s room for them in the wilds.

And perhaps this is how the dinosaurs survived. They adapted into extremely stealthy creatures. But maybe not.

In any case, if there are dinosaurs walking around somewhere today, I really don’t think evolution is threatened by them, contrary to what many creationists have constantly said. Maybe some theories of certain natural disasters in the past would be in trouble, but that’s about it.

Finding a living specimen of an animal that was thought of as being extinct long time ago would not concern the validity of the evolution theory.

Evolution theory would be invalidated the other way around - if you’d consistently find fossils of modern day animals (say, rabbits or sperm whales) in pre-cambrian strata.

Good point.

1. Javier Cabrera, their main proponent and the owner of the collection failed to show the excavation sites to the scientific community. Despite the fact that to this day he keeps ‘finding’ new stones.

Cabrera claimed the reason for this was to protect the site (from artifact-robbers or something).

1. Besides the dinosaurs the stones depict people using telescopes, flying machines, perform heart-transplants and brain surgeries suggesting an extremely advanced civilization. In contrast, they generally look like scratchings of an unskillful farmer using simple tools.

The same is claimed about certain Egyptian art. We know for a fact that the Greeks did brain surgery. The surgical instruments they had apparently are very similar to modern ones too. The supposed “flying machines” on the stones look more like large birds that the natives are riding, in my opinion (but Cabrera doesn’t think so), and the “telescopes” could be some kind of sticks instead.

Also, the style of the art is somewhat primitive but it more or less matches the general style of legitimate ancient artifacts found elsewhere in that area. Also, the styles vary enough to suggest different artists and even different artistic periods. And, of course, there are 50,000 of them, suggesting that it wasn’t just some farmer. That would be physically impossible.

Also, apparently, the scenes that depict hunters killing dinosaurs show them stabbing in what scientists have agreed would be particularly vulnerable areas. It shows (at least occasionally) a greater degree of knowledge than some unskilled farmer would have.

But there are a lot of things about the Ica stones that discredit them. And yet, there is a good amount of seemingly irrefutable evidence that suggests they’re authentic (at least some of them). A lot of stuff about them are just weird.

 

[donsnow]

There have been depictions of dinosaurs (a relatively recent word) made by men, including in metal. There is the mosaic of Palestrina which shows a T-Rex. Does it disprove evolution? I think the dates are way off. By the way, it turns out the method for estimating dinosaur size was seriously flawed.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090621195620.htm

A bit odd considering skeletons of such things do exist.

Peace,
Ed

Hi, Ed -

Now, that is an interesting article (my computer does just fine with text and photographs).

It makes me wonder, if the large dinosaurs were half the original estimate, could some of them have been actually small enough to have survived the meteor strike?
Oh, what am I doing? Dreaming, I guess.
On an aside, there are still dragons on the Komono isles . They call them Komono Dragons, snicker.

Why are people so enthralled with dinosaurs? I’ve been to the Glen Rose Dinosaur State Park. There are actually foot print fossils in the dry riverbed. It was something else, to walk along, ‘tracking a dinosaur’. I really got into it, and tried to picture the beast I was tracking. It’s tracks was two feet, each about 3’x3’. It had a stride of at least 6’. That’s bigger than an elephant. It gave me chills and I didn’t want to come up on an animal that big. Then, I looked up and around, and came back to the present .

I think we’re better off, with few survivors of that epoch.

 

[Hosh]

I searched on Pterosaurs last night and I came across this site objectiveministries.org/creation/pterosaurs.html. Go to the front page and click on the members tab on the top. I hate to generalize, but am I crazy or do those people look kinda weird?

 

[donsnow]

I searched on Pterosaurs last night and I came across this site objectiveministries.org/creation/pterosaurs.html. Go to the front page and click on the members tab on the top. I hate to generalize, but am I crazy or do those people look kinda weird?

Hi, Hosh -

Thanks, for sharing this. I went and did what you directed.

On the one hand, the group photo of congregation members looked like ordinary people.

I scrolled on down.

On the other hand, the individual photos of different staff members…over half the men photoed had the same smile. That left me with an ‘unsettled’ feeling.

I see what you mean.