Did dinosaurs exist?

[haukipesukone]

How do we know dinosaurs really existed? There are all the bones, but how do we know the scientists were able to put them together in the right way? Maybe they are bones of some other animals or dragons or something completely different.

What other evidence is there to say dinosaurs existed?

I'm not saying they didn't exist, I'm exploring the possibility that dinosaurs were invented to cover up some bigger truth. Dinosaurs are something everybody takes for granted nowadays, but how can we be sure? Has any of you actually had any personal experience to say they did exist? It's just what the doctors say and we're supposed to believe them because of the white coats.

[element]

Most bones you will see in the museums are fake, yes.

I think dinosaurs didn't all died out 65 million years ago. It's hilarious.
Within time, they will say it happened 40 M. years ago etc. etc.

We still have sharks and crocs around, which are very old.
Some dinosaurs might have lived on, and become the ''dragons''...? Who knows? :)

[steevo]

Dinosaurs definitely did NOT exist cos they were never mentioned anywhere in the bible ;):D

[element]

Dinosaurs definitely did NOT exist cos they were never mentioned anywhere in the bible ;):D
That's questionable. Dragons, Leviathan and Behemoth could be considered dinosaurs.

[ianw]

Some thing do´nt ring true, when you think an elephant keeps three feet on the ground at all times,as the cartledge on the bais on the feet could not take the presure,that is if it walked like a horse for example.(Circus elephant are trained to stand on two legs, but does it do them any good.)Then we are expected to belive T,rex walked on two legs,and what about the big ones.Earth must have had a lot less gravaty,dinosors are bullshit,or everything is an illusion.

[haukipesukone]

I read somewhere years ago that if the gravity of the Earth was the same back as it is now then pterodactyls wouldn't have been able to fly. They're too big and all that. Back then I thought it means gravity was different, but maybe there were no pterodactyls.

[dogsmilk]

I'm not saying they didn't exist, I'm exploring the possibility that dinosaurs were invented to cover up some bigger truth

Like what? Why would you want to cover up some different animal? What for? They weren't cool enough?

I seem to recall from a childhood dinosaur book they put Iguanadon's bones together wrong at first or something, but exactly how different could this possibly be from what it looks like?

http://www.granneman.com/images/050814tRexSkeleton.jpg

Fucking hell, I really wish there was some way to actually see a live one. They must have been incredible.

[dogsmilk]

Some thing do´nt ring true, when you think an elephant keeps three feet on the ground at all times,as the cartledge on the bais on the feet could not take the presure,that is if it walked like a horse for example.(Circus elephant are trained to stand on two legs, but does it do them any good.)Then we are expected to belive T,rex walked on two legs,and what about the big ones.Earth must have had a lot less gravaty,dinosors are bullshit,or everything is an illusion.

Well if you've evolved as a quadruped you're just not built for two legs. If you have, you are. It wouldn't do my cats any good to walk on two legs, but I seem to manage.

[ianw]

I read somewhere years ago that if the gravity of the Earth was the same back as it is now then pterodactyls wouldn't have been able to fly. They're too big and all that. Back then I thought it means gravity was different, but maybe there were no pterodactyls.

may be your Australian thread dream time Abariganis and stuff needs another peep what was it called ive not been keeping track.

[ianw]

Well if you've evolved as a quadruped you're just not built for two legs. If you have, you are. It wouldn't do my cats any good to walk on two legs, but I seem to manage.

Because your the dogs bollocks:D

[dogsmilk]

because your the dogs bollocks:d

:D

[lottie]

Imo we need to look at the actual validity of the Theory of Evolution by the oh so effing wonderful overglorified Darwin who's theories have been taken as gospel, who was even reported to have changed his mind on his death bed and said 'I think i was wrong about evolution' he repented/prayed to God and then died! (not sure of the time scale - from what ive read it was at least a week) but there's not much evidence of this and its very sparse on the net... but as usual the MSM et al wouldnt for one minute endorse this possible chain of events! They refute it adamantly!

To me the theory of evolution doesnt add up, my other half is also a scientist and even he says the theory's flawed, there's too many gaps and the MSM et al have run with it coz it fits the agenda. If we were able to find a better reasonable theory of why we are here etc etc then everything would make far more sense incl that of where the dinosaurs cum from!!

I think possibly they did exist but tbh i dont for one minute believe that the earth is more than a few thousand/hundred thousand yrs old, it defo doesnt run into the millions/billions but thats just my opinion! :)

[element]

I would agree the theory has its flaws, but then again it is changing all the time.
(as it should ofcourse!)

To me, it makes no sense if all animal species were here from the start..
Neither does it makes much sense if all of it was made by aliens.

I would say, there is evolution (both spiritually and materially) and there was intervention at some point!

[lottie]

i think there's adaptation but there hasnt been much evolution going on as far as i can see, no species seems to merge slowly over time into another, there's just one species and another 'found' 10million yrs later thats suddenly a different animal/species. There's no inbetween...why not? if there was evolution there'd be evidence of it all around us. Why did crocodiles survive and tortoises yet not t-rex's? why are there monkeys still swinging in trees if we evolved from them? How do we know or how can we trust the scientists etc that the world was much different or the climate different?

[element]

i think there's adaptation but there hasnt been much evolution going on as far as i can see, no species seems to merge slowly over time into another, there's just one species and another 'found' 10million yrs later thats suddenly a different animal/species. There's no inbetween...why not? if there was evolution there'd be evidence of it all around us. Why did crocodiles survive and tortoises yet not t-rex's? why are there monkeys still swinging in trees if we evolved from them? How do we know or how can we trust the scientists etc that the world was much different or the climate different?

I agree with this.
This is the biggest flaw of it all: Where all those so-called common ancestors?

I believe evolution is partly true, within the family of the species. If lions will be freed in northern places and stay there, within many milennia they might develop thicker fur for instance. And they can cross with other cats, hybridisation. That's not really evolution though.:p
But I don't see reptiles becoming mammals, not over a million years..

[pri01]

i think there's adaptation but there hasnt been much evolution going on as far as i can see, no species seems to merge slowly over time into another, there's just one species and another 'found' 10million yrs later thats suddenly a different animal/species. There's no inbetween...why not? if there was evolution there'd be evidence of it all around us. Why did crocodiles survive and tortoises yet not t-rex's? why are there monkeys still swinging in trees if we evolved from them? How do we know or how can we trust the scientists etc that the world was much different or the climate different?


I agree lottie. Where are all the inbetweenies? For instance, a chicken has wings that don't work. Where are all the other birds with semi evolved wings progressing towards fully fledged flying birds with fully functional flying wings?

[haukipesukone]

Like what? Why would you want to cover up some different animal? What for? They weren't cool enough?


Maybe they wanted to cover up ancient civilizations like Atlantis or Lemuria with dinosaurs, maybe they're covering the Anunnaki, or maybe something none of us has any idea about, because they've done such a great job.

They wouldn't want to cover up the existence of other animal, except maybe your existence. I meant perhaps they used the bones of more "normal" animals to invent dinosaurs so people wouldn't look more deeply about the reasons for phenomenon X or location Y.

[localidiot]

who was even reported to have changed his mind on his death bed and said 'I think i was wrong about evolution' he repented/prayed to God and then died!


Modern myth, but a good one. Darwin was somethign of a religious man, though he described himself as agnostic.



Excerpt from Wikipedia Article on Charles Darwin

The “Lady Hope Story”, published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[139] His last words were to his family, telling Emma "I am not the least afraid of death – Remember what a good wife you have been to me – Tell all my children to remember how good they have been to me", then as she laid down for a rest, he repeatedly told Henrietta and Francis "It's almost worth while to be sick to be nursed by you"


As for finding a tween species... it's hard to. Technically, every species is a transitional species. Older species have traits of more recently evolved species.

As for places like Lemuria...
Lemuria was invented to explain a missing continent, back in the 1800's when geology was (and is still) a developing field and plate tectonics was still being roughed out.

[localidiot]

It should be noted that when it comes to reconstructing dinosaurs, there's a lot of guesswork involved. In some cases, there's a good deal of help.
An example would be, in the case of Iguanodon, when several skeletons were uncovered in a mind in Bernissart. Many were preserved more or less in state, giving scientists both a good view of their body structure, and settling a debate at the time of whether or not they were bipedal. From that point they
were able to both get a better picture of how the animal moved, but also a basic framework on how other dinosaurs would have been structured.

To add to this, we have tracts of fossilized foot prints, which can show stride, weight distribution, and, in some cases, how they hunted, and lived.
I remember reading a article a few years ago about a partially preserved track that showed a carnivorous dinosaur that appeared to be stalking a herd of herbivorous. If I remember correctly, the herbivore were a type of duck bill, I can't remember the carnivore.

Even further, with today's computer technology, scientists recreate the dinosaur skeletons, can apply musculature as indicated by scaring (the traces muscles leave on the bone, itself something that is a work in progress) to get a better idea of the way the creature moved.

As for being mentioned in the Bible, it's possible that the mention of the Behemoth and the Leviathan were dinosaurs. it's also possible they were referencing animals like the whale or elephant. It also leaves out a severely large number of other dinosaurs, with a huge sweep in size and possible mannerisms.
As for dragons... aside from a giant monitor lizard that inhabited Africa with our early ancestors (thing was the size of a double decker bus) and went extinct around the time of a huge fire on the African grasslands. Some reports of water dragons seem to indicate amphibians, like a crocodile or alligator.
As for sightings of flying dragons, I've always been impressed how the silhouette of a bird, especially large water fowl, remarkably matches a dragons outline.

[astrochicken]

I agree lottie. Where are all the inbetweenies? For instance, a chicken has wings that don't work. Where are all the other birds with semi evolved wings progressing towards fully fledged flying birds with fully functional flying wings?

Similar to chickens are kiwi's, the now extinct dodo and other birds that never had natural enemies and thus *forgot* how to fly.


We have a couple of peacocks, which despite prancing around during the day..fly up into the oak trees and spend the night on the branches before coming down the following morning.

For me that's an inbetweenie.

You've obviously also never seen chickens fly... pick one up and throw it in the air and you'll see that it's wings aren't entirely useless.

[dogsmilk]

Maybe they wanted to cover up ancient civilizations like Atlantis or Lemuria with dinosaurs, maybe they're covering the Anunnaki, or maybe something none of us has any idea about, because they've done such a great job.

They wouldn't want to cover up the existence of other animal, except maybe your existence. I meant perhaps they used the bones of more "normal" animals to invent dinosaurs so people wouldn't look more deeply about the reasons for phenomenon X or location Y.

So are you suggesting this is in any conceivable way some kind of manipulated Atlantean skull or a more 'normal' animal?

http://www.healthstones.com/dinosaurstore/dinosaurskulls/t_rex_skull/t_rex_skull.jpg

Well one thing's for sure - those Atlanteans were mean motherfuckers.

People are far more inclined to "look more deeply" at locations where dinosaurs are found because they generate interest among paleontologists, geologists and amateur fossil collectors.

You've obviously also never seen chickens fly... pick one up and throw it in the air and you'll see that it's wings aren't entirely useless.

Some friends used to keep chickens that they'd let roam in a field by their house during the day. Sometimes when there were strong winds, they'd be lifted into the air and would be aloft for a few seconds, flapping madly. It was very entertaining to watch.

[skunksmash]

i heard tell the dinosaurs were offspring from the fallen..(annunaki)

they did not only mate with humans to create the giants of old, these are the result of gene splicing between them, animals & reptiles.....''apparently''



:)SK

[swethirte]

Interestingly, dinosaurs died out at exactly the same time, 65 million years ago, that the Pleiades star cluster came into existence.

[miranda]

Mm - if dinosaurs are some sort of link to do with the ancient Reptilians, it wouldn't surprise me if the knowledge of them had been messed around with.

Or just if science had got it wrong. Let's face it, picking the pieces together for what happened millenia ago? Chinese whispers just isn't in it. And science - hah! Science will tell you the Earth is flat, your dog is a cat, and there is no conceivable life on any other planet - in a universe so vast we get light from dead stars ...

[themime]

Interestingly, dinosaurs died out at exactly the same time, 65 million years ago, that the Pleiades star cluster came into existence.


Was that a Monday or a Tuesday?

[enddivision]

Birds are dinosaurs. Just look at the skulls and skeletons very carefully. Their bones have been economised for weight issues to make flight easier. The tail was shortened and the ankle bones were all fused into one (creating the 'shank' that many people mistake for the shin, the drumstick is the shin). Everything from orthodox paleontology is wrong about dinosaurs, granted, but that is because the majority were more feathery/fuzzy than scaly, only the really big ones reverted to the scaly condition. Flightless birds descend from flying ancestors, as does velociraptor, something that I intuitively knew before all the new fossils were discovered. T. rex is a very close relative to birds (evolved to attack prey using only it's mouth), and looking at the atrophied arms, it seems that it's ancestors could fly, too (ancestral tyrannosaurs weren't much bigger than humans, and had long arms w. three fingers, and feathers, the earliest were chicken-sized). The fossil record of bird evolution is pretty complete.

I've always had an intuitive knack for getting stuff right about the dinosaurs. I think that the reptilians evolved from very early dinosaurs. All those paleontological anomalies, purporting to be human remains from the Mesozoic, are actually early reptilians. The feathers explain the significance of Quetzalcoatl, and endless other feathered serpents! Nuff said.

Yes Darwin was wrong on many points, yet that doesn't make the overall gist of his theory wrong. Many scientists are finding out that evolution isn't as cut and dry as species enexorably changing at the same rate into others, it just doesn't work like that at all. Some are adapted adequately enough that their evolution slows down or even stops. Others evolve so quickly that notable changes occur within decades! This has been experimentally proven. Viruses evolve and mutate within months, when conditions are right, it's all down to genetic diversity. A computer program, that accumulates changes in the data-stream as time goes on, like genetic 'chinese whispers'. If the adaptation is wrong, that animal, plant etc. doesn't get to reproduce and pass on the fault that has emerged in their genetic code. When beneficial, the change makes that individual more 'attractive', and gives it the edge over the others.

On the subject of the age of the earth, I'd say it was far older than anyone realises. The oldest rocks are about 4 billion years old (4 milliard [4000,000,000] to us UK lot), but those below have sunk into the molten mantle and been recycled to be returned to the surface as volcanic rock - it's an almost endless cycle. The Solar System is one big 'perpetual motion machine', with every part passing energy to the next, and then back again. It's all energy at the end of the day, but the dynamics of it are pretty cool!

[ianw]

So are you suggesting this is in any conceivable way some kind of manipulated Atlantean skull or a more 'normal' animal?

http://www.healthstones.com/dinosaurstore/dinosaurskulls/t_rex_skull/t_rex_skull.jpg




.

Ive just read enddivisions post conecting birds and dinasors,Does this mean the skull once belonged to a crokiduck,what you think chuck.:rolleyes:

[liltroofer]

I was wondering this same question the other day.

Human history is definitely subject to human tampering. Is Earth's history, too? It's an interesting line of thought.

We should understand though that skeletons generally tend to look incomplete as creatures.

[enddivision]

We should understand though that skeletons generally tend to look incomplete as creatures.

Definately. But skeletons preserved in silt or volcanic ash tend to show soft tissues also. This is why the earliest Tyrannosaur is known to have had feathers, they're all over it in the same places as those of birds today. I have been thinking of writing a book entitled: 'Everything You Know About Dinosaurs is Wrong', or something like that. I find it unbelievable that warm-blooded animals could get by without something to keep them warm, and the footprints from the Triassic Period (the time period that dinosaurs originated from reptiles), showing dinosaurs crouching, show feather marks around the legs. So they had them from the beginning, the same as mammals had fur since they had split from the reptile lineage. Explains how polar dinosaurs could get by - feathers are superior to fur in insulating against cold.

The lies about dinosaurs were all to do with them being cold-blooded, sluggish, stupid things, when it was obvious that this wasn't the case. This was probably to hide the notion that they could evolve into sentient, 'civilised' beings. As for the artificial skeletons, I've seen and touched many genuine ones, the casts are used because they are lighter than the fossil ones, and less liable to shatter into pieces if dropped or rattled about during transport. The American Museum of Natural History T. rex has a mostly genuine skeleton, with a cast of the skull instead of the original (which weighs as much as a small car), which is in a glass case next to it. You also find plenty of dinosaur remains in areas where reptilians are witnessed. Maybe those ones were domesticated and penned in, long ago? Dino-cattle, maybe? You'd make use of whatever food source is readily available, and any civilisation would start farming a constant supply. Even ants do that! Maybe dinosaurs were attracted to energy vortices and ley line, having an inbuilt geomagnetic sense. A certain modern dinosaur, the pigeon, has this ability, using earth-energy to navigate. Probably the same with migratory geese and swallows.

[airkraft]

My two peneth.

I dont believe the story we are told about the history of the dinosaurs. The reason is, that I have read some alternative ideas about them, and it sort of sits better with me, if you like.

The first one was that nearly all dino digs cover a quite large area, and at many depths, this is where they get the age from....comparing the depth it was found. But....some scientist (cant remember his name) thinks that the reason we find lots of dinos in an area is because maybe....just maybe, there was a huge flood on the land, and all the dinos got washed away and drowned. He explained that the way there is always large amounts of the herd forming dinos together, it is very similar to what is found to modern day animals after a flood...like wildebeast in africa.

One of the other things was that some of the bones of dinos that have been found, are what they call "green". this is a term they use when the bones havent actually fossilised and are still able to gain DNA from them. This would indicate that they are not as old as some would have you believe.

And the last thing was, that human footprints have been found side by side, and even walking in dino prints. They where made at the same time.....when the mud/silt was still soft, so again, this would seem to suggest that humans and dinos were co-inhabiting the earth....untill some catastrophic event (like a flood) happened.

This would all tie in with the story of another planet in our solar system.....a watery planet...got destroyed for whatever reason, and the water rained down on earth in the form of water/ice which caused huge floods.

Just another alternative view

[localidiot]

The lies about dinosaurs were all to do with them being cold-blooded, sluggish, stupid things, when it was obvious that this wasn't the case.


I havn't heard of that one for a very long time, early 80's at best. Since the finding of the Iguanodon fossils indicating they were primarily bipedal, most scientists have agreed that dinosaurs were in some form or another warm blooded.
While I'm aware of several fossils showing evidence of feathers, I wasn't aware of any trace fossils showing any.

[comawhite015]

I agree lottie. Where are all the inbetweenies? For instance, a chicken has wings that don't work. Where are all the other birds with semi evolved wings progressing towards fully fledged flying birds with fully functional flying wings?

Behold the Moa. A flightless bird, native to New Zealand, that stood an average of twelve feet in height. It was hunted to extinction by the Maori in the 1500s.

http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/images/pb-moa.jpg

http://www.copyrightexpired.com/earlyimage/bones/display_extinctanimals_moa.jpg

[pinkfreud]

Behold the Moa. A flightless bird, native to New Zealand, that stood an average of twelve feet in height. It was hunted to extinction by the Maori in the 1500s.

http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/images/pb-moa.jpg

http://www.copyrightexpired.com/earlyimage/bones/display_extinctanimals_moa.jpg



holy shit! that thing is a monster... why don't we hear about the moa as often as we hear about the other extinct beings?

anyway, i've always been fascinated by dinosaurs. i don't necessarily believe everything that we're told about them, but birds and today's existing reptiles are connected to these creatures- well, at least they have striking similarities.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


lottie's comment about dinosaurs being just thousands, instead of millions of years old made me look up some info and i found THIS link which purports this claim (and puts forth scientific evidence)

from http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html-


The Bible and Radiometric dating (The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods)

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?

At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do?

They threw the results out.

And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time.

The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.

see below- A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.

"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."

This test was done on August 10, 1990.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/1615/universityofarizonadq2.jpg (http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=universityofarizonadq2.jpg)
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/universityofarizonadq2.jpg/1/w576.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img10/universityofarizonadq2.jpg/1/)


Comment from a reader:

"Of course carbon dating isn't going to work on your Allosaurus bone. That method is only accurate to 40,000 years. So I would expect to get some weird number like 16,000 years if you carbon date a millions of years old fossil. 16.000 years by the way is still 10,000 years before your God supposedly created the Earth."
-Amy M 12/11/01


My response:

I explain the limits of Carbon dating below. One thing you might want to ask yourself though, is how do you know it is millions of years old, giving an "incorrect" date (one that you think is too young) or if it actually is only a few thousand years old?

As far as your comments that 16,000 years is older than when God created the earth, we know that there is more carbon in the atmosphere than there was a thousand years ago. So a date of 9,000 or 16,000 years is more likely to be less.

Perhaps only 6,000 years old.



30,000 year limit to Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Something that is 300 years old for example.

But it is far from an exact Science. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. Thirty thousand years is about the limit.

However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. It is much younger than that.

Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere.

Willard Libby (December 17, 1908 – September 8, 1980) and his colleagues discovered the technique of radiocarbon dating in 1949. Libbey knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. Because he assumed that the earth was millions of years old, he believed it was already at equilibrium.

However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium.

What does this mean? It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth approx. 10,000 years old!

Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago.

Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did.



Carbon dates they did not like:

Carbon dating is frequently an embarrassment to Scientists. Here are some Carbon 14 dates that were rejected because they did not agree with evolution-

1. Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.

2. The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years! (Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)

3. The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! ("The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor)

4. Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)


There are many more examples that I will add later. But the ones above give you a general idea.

There are other methods of dating. They too, give varied results.



Potassium-argon dating:

The potassium-argon method was used to date volcanic material in this next example-

"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801. ("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)

Volcanic ash has also been known to give dates much older than they actually were .

Lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand gave erroneous dates (from K-Ar analyses) ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years old. These rocks were "observed to have cooled from lavas 25-50 years ago".("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

The equipment was checked and the samples were run again to exclude the possibility of lab error but similar results were obtained. ("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

Because the actual age of these rocks is known to be less than 50 years old, it is clear that these K-Ar ‘ages’ are due to ‘excess’ argon which was inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth. ("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

See also the video: Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe by Dr. Steve Austin


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i don't necessarily believe this, but this does point out the inadequacies in dating technology used by archaeologists and geologists. there's more info on the site, so do check the link.

[comawhite015]

^^Yah, I've heard such things about the fossil record/carbon dating before.. The whole concept still seems utterly maaaaaad.. but who knows? I wasn't alive 10,000 years ago.. But.. I .. like to cling to the 'Old Earth' theory =)

Did you hear that thing about the stalactites or stalagmites growing inside the Lincoln Memorial? That's some madness right there.

Was that a Monday or a Tuesday?

*snigger*.. nice..

[pinkfreud]

i know this thread questions the fact whether dinosaurs really existed, and though science has for the most part lied to our faces, i still believe they lived- there have been ancient depictions, cave paintings et al of dinosaurs; which could probably debunk the populist notion that dinosaurs became extinct before humans came along.

this is important, so yeah here's another long-ish post. sorry.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm:


ANCIENT DINOSAUR DEPICTIONS


I. (Below) is a carving of a dinosaur fighting a mammoth from the book Buried Alive by Dr. Jack Cuozzo.

It was taken by the author in the Bernifal Cave, one of the caverns in France that is renowned for Neanderthal artifacts.

The cave has been closed to the public.

Science News was given the opportunity to publish the remarkable photo, but declined.

It seems that evidence against the prevailing paradigm of naturalistic origin was selected against. It is buried alive by the scientific establishment. As Cuozzo says, this is natural selection in the most literal sense!

the now 'faded' carving at bernifal (i don't see it, but there's a clearer depiction below):

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4964/bernifalwd7.jpg (http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bernifalwd7.jpg)



http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6827/bernifalclearcn5.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bernifalclearcn5.jpg)





II. "Fran Barnes, a recognized authority on rock art of the American South-West, writes-

'In the San Rafael Swell, there is a pictograph [picture symbol] that looks very much like a pterosaur, a Cretaceous flying reptile'..." (Swift, Dennis, "Messages on Stone," Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 19, p. 20).

This figure, about 7 feet long from wing-tip to wing-tip, is actually painted with a dark-red pigment. Indians of the Fremont culture are thought to have inhabited the "Swell" between 700 and 1250 A.D.


http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1518/sanrafaelswellpterosauroy0.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sanrafaelswellpterosauroy0.jpg)



Black Dragon Canyon is named for the pictograph which resembles a large winged reptile with a headcrest. On the left is shown a photo of one of the curious "dinosaur" petroglyphs near Middle Mesa at the Wupatki National Park. This particular petroglyph is called "Puff the Magic Dragon," and appears to be a depiction of a fire-breathing dinosaur.

Though there is no certain way to date such petroglyphs, it is believed to be at least several hundred years old.




III. Under the reign of King Nebuchanezzer,a Babylonian artist was commissioned to shape reliefs of animals on the structures associated with the Ishtar Gate.

Centuries later, in 1887 AD, when German archaeologist Robert Koldeway stumbled upon the blue-glazed brick, that gate was rediscovered.

The animals appear in alternating rows with lions, fierce bulls (rimi or reems in Chaldean), and curious long-necked dragons (sirrush). The lions and bulls would have been present at that time in the Middle East.

But, on what creature did the ancient Babylonians model the dragon? The same word, sirrush, is mentioned in the book of Bel and the Dragon, from the Apocrypha.

Both the description there and the image on these unearthed walls (see below), which are now displayed in the Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum, appear to fit a sauropod dinosaur. (Shuker, Karl P.N., "The Sirrush of Babylon," Dragons: A Natural History, 1995, pp. 70-73.)


http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3863/ishtargate2vw8.jpg (http://img14.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ishtargate2vw8.jpg)




IV. The ancient Sumatrans produced multiple pieces of art depicting long-tailed, long-necked creatures with a headcrest.

Some of these animals resemble hadrosaurs.

This particular work (Ethnographical Museum, Budapest) depicts a creature that bears a striking resemblance to a Corythosaurus which is being hunted by these ancient Indonesian peoples. (Bodrogi, Tibor, Art of Indonesia, plate #10, 1973.)


[couldn't find a larger image, sorry]

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/439/ethnographicalmuseumbudxp3.jpg (http://img11.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ethnographicalmuseumbudxp3.jpg)





V. Asian stories and stylized dragon depictions are fairly common.

But an unusual beaked dragon statue came up on the antiquities market and is now in the Genesis Park collection. The bronze styling on this artifact suggests it is from the Zhou Dynasty (1122 B.C. - 220 B.C.) or possibly from the Han Dynasty (206 B.C. - 220 A.D.). It displays numerous characteristics of the beaked dinosaurs (like the oviraptor depicted alongside for comparison): tridactyl feet configuration, metatarsal stance, scale-like representation all over the body (except for the horn which has a striated pattern), long (albeit slender) tail, elaborate head crest and a long neck.


http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9352/zhoudynastygp9.jpg (http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zhoudynastygp9.jpg)


http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2030/oviraptordy9.jpg (http://img13.imageshack.us/my.php?image=oviraptordy9.jpg)




Another fascinating Chinese artifact is the Late Eastern Zhou Sauropod (Fang Jian) Ornamental box. Displaying a tridactyl foot, a long neck and a head that resembles a brachiosaur, this depiction is compelling. (Fong, Wen ed., The Great Bronze Age of China, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980, p. 285.)

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1155/ornamentalboxyn2.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ornamentalboxyn2.jpg)


http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/6403/resemblesabrachiosaurvi2.jpg (http://img410.imageshack.us/my.php?image=resemblesabrachiosaurvi2.jpg)http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/ornamentalboxyn2.jpg/1/w200.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img291/ornamentalboxyn2.jpg/1/)

[pinkfreud]

...Next we consider a Shang dynasty (B.C. 1766-1122) dragon artifact that was advertised on the Chinese antiquities market as a dinosaur depiction.

It displays relief lines in a scale-like pattern, a broad beak, a dermal frill, and a headcrest that is strikingly like the dinosaur Saurolophus. This jade statute, now in the Genesis Park collection, is made of white colored nephrite with differential weathering, cleaving veins and earth penetration, demonstrating authenticity.


http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6897/dermalfrillon4.jpg (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dermalfrillon4.jpg)
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/dermalfrillon4.jpg/1/w180.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img100/dermalfrillon4.jpg/1/)

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8708/trikinglylikethedinosaufs3.jpg (http://img14.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trikinglylikethedinosaufs3.jpg)




VI. The February 26, 2000 issue of Science News contained an article that commenting on an artifact housed at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts that has come to be known as the Hesione vase (Hesman, 2000).

Pictured on this ancient Greek vase is a series of somewhat unusual paintings, including one that portrays a monster that possesses the head of a dinosaur (minotaur?)

This pottery was created around 550 B.C., and depicts the Greek hero Heracles rescuing Hesione from this "monster of Troy."

Forced to concede the amazingly realistic dinosaurian depiction, Science News concluded that the paintings on this unusual vase simply prove that ancient people dug fossils, too.



VII. The picture below was drawn by North American Anasazi Indians that lived in the area that has now become Utah approximately 150 B.C. - 1200 A.D

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/234/anasaziindiansnt7.jpg (http://img9.imageshack.us/my.php?image=anasaziindiansnt7.jpg)



http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1271/anasaziclearlx6.jpg (http://img168.imageshack.us/my.php?image=anasaziclearlx6.jpg)



Even noted anti-creationists agree that it resembles a dinosaur and that the brownish film which has hardened over the picture, along with the pitting and weathering, attests to its age.

One evolutionist writes, "There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with a long tail and neck, small head and all."

Clearly, a native warrior and an apatosaur-like creature are depicted. Horned and flying serpent figures are prominent in the mythology of most Native American peoples, often associated with rain and thunder.

An example is the Algonquin pictograph of a flying serpent known as Mishipizheu. Yet another Native American rock pictograph found in Utah (see below) seems to depict a sauropod dinosaur.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2657/algonquinsauropodnz8.jpg (http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=algonquinsauropodnz8.jpg)
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/algonquinsauropodnz8.jpg/1/w200.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img222/algonquinsauropodnz8.jpg/1/)







VIII. There are stories of a plesiosaur-like creature seen in Queensland, Australia.

Both aboriginal peoples around Lake Galilee and tribes farther up to the north tell of a long-necked animal with a large body and flippers. "Elders of the Kuku Yalanji aboriginal tribe of Far North Queensland, Australia, relate stories of Yarru (or Yarrba), a creature which used to inhabit rain forest water holes.

The painting (below) depicts a creature with features remarkably similar to a plesiosaur. It even shows an outline of the gastro-intestinal tract, indicating that these animals had been hunted and butchered."


http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/7289/aboriginesni7.jpg (http://img518.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aboriginesni7.jpg)



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


there's simply too much info out there, and my laziness is beginning to catch up :o so just go here http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm and check the murals, paintings and cave depictions of dinosaurs.

i'm now beginning to think humans did indeed live with the dinosaurs, and that palaentologists have been shitting with us for a long, long time.

[pinkfreud]

Did you hear that thing about the stalactites or stalagmites growing inside the Lincoln Memorial? That's some madness right there.

never heard of it, will look it up now- how convenient to erect the memorial in said place :rolleyes:

your avatar is freaky, btw.

[comawhite015]

never heard of it, will look it up now- how convenient to erect the memorial in said place :rolleyes:

na-uh, apparently they're growing inside the actual structure. It's really quite interesting.


your avatar is freaky, btw.

ps: You must know Sadako Yamamura.

http://cinemaasia.blox.pl/resource/sadako.jpg


Anyway, here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/

There's a whole bunch of .. things.. here. Astronomy, Fossil records, Dinosaurs etc etc.. Some of it thought provoking, some of it.. well.. you''ll see.

My favourite bit is that God made the stars cuz they were pretty so we could look at them.


Anyway.

In New Zealand, we also have what is called a Tuatara. They are .. dinosaurs. They existed back when the rest of them did. They're pretty much as close as you're able to get. Sephenodonts, they are called. 200 million years ago or thereabouts. Still around in NZ, through some freaky occurance.

Henry, our Tuatara in the museum in Invercargill, where I used to live (I had the pleasure of meeting Henry last year. He sat on my shoulder. He is very light for a 112 year old), became a dad again with his wife Mildred just recently. 12 more kids. Good on him..

Here is is:

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00066/tuatara_66324a.jpg

This gives you a scale:

http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2008/08/henry_the_tuatara_with_tuatara_curator_lindsay_haz _4899546160.jpeg

He is lovely. Doesn't move much, though.

[localidiot]

http://paleo.cc/kpaleo/fossdate.htm

Keep in mind, when you try to Carbon date a artifact that's older than the end range for it, especialy in the case of dinosaur fossils which are basically rocks, you will get a reading on the highest concentration of carbon-14 in the artifact.
In this case, whatever has contaminated the fossil, seeing as how because of the age the original carbon-14 would have decayed.

Edit: Should also be noted that the long necked dinosaurs were not very flexible. Mainly up and down and side to side instead of the old ideas that they were as flexible as a goose neck.

[element]

What really sucks is that most alternative sources are pro-bible. This makes it suspicious.
Who's saying those cave paintings of dinosaurs are real? Some don't even look like dino's, like the mammoth with the other (which was not really a dino), it's just a rock formation!
I do want to believe it though.
:(

[pinkfreud]

What really sucks is that most alternative sources are pro-bible. This makes it suspicious.
Who's saying those cave paintings of dinosaurs are real? Some don't even look like dino's, like the mammoth with the other (which was not really a dino), it's just a rock formation!
I do want to believe it though.
:(


i know what you mean. i have my doubts about pro bible sources as well, but the ancient artefacts and cave paintings are genuine. google it if you have the time.

about the first pic- yeah, i couldn't see anything too, and i still don't. just posted it for those who think there's something there.

...apparently not, lol.

[ownoiz]

We have a couple of peacocks, which despite prancing around during the day..fly up into the oak trees and spend the night on the branches before coming down the following morning.

For me that's an inbetweenie.

You've obviously also never seen chickens fly... pick one up and throw it in the air and you'll see that it's wings aren't entirely useless.

Id have to agree with this about in between birds...and i have seen semi-feral chickens...domestic chickens which have been abandoned and live where there are large fox populations in North West victoria...they can and do fly, and just like the peacocks you mentioned...i have seen them fly into and roost in Almond trees for the night to avoid foxes...yes almond trees, up to 6 or 7 meters tall and the chickens will fly up and roost in the trees just like small birds, every night, and return to the ground in the day.

The wild quails in OZ are also what i would call in between flyers...fat bodies with proportionally small wings compared to flying birds...will rarely fly unless they are startled, but if they are...they furiously launch into the air at approx 45 degree angle and fly large distances quickly in an arc before running out of puff and falling/coasting back down...they cant fly for very long, its more like a furious temporary flap of the wings to change location and lose predators.
.

[themime]

On the subject of dinos I found this site discussing the climate during the time they were "supposed" to roam the Earth.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Quite an interesting pattern there, looks like their lack of carbon production may have got them in the end, the fools.






...I'm sorry but I can't get the image out of my head of a group of bored teenage dinosaurs sitting in a lecture hall somewhere in Gondwana being forced to watch Allosaurus Gores', "An Inconvenient Sabre Tooth"....

(Note:Edited for sheer embarrassment)
:o

[astrochicken]

Was that a Monday or a Tuesday?

Twas a leapyear and thus a wednesday.

[themime]

Twas a leapyear and thus a wednesday.

Ahhh half day closing....well that explains it.

[astrochicken]

Ahhh half day closing....well that explains it.

Yep.. last-minute dash to the shops for a pack of fags..i remember it well.

[mephibosheth]

Everything from orthodox paleontology is wrong about dinosaurs, granted, but that is because the majority were more feathery/fuzzy than scaly, only the really big ones reverted to the scaly condition.


Wouldn't this apply only to those two-legged types of dinosaurs that do in fact resemble modern birds? What about sauropods and other beasties that walked on all fours and had massive horns and armour? Perhaps these beasts and the bird-like dinos were in reality totally different animals altogether?



Flightless birds descend from flying ancestors, as does velociraptor, something that I intuitively knew before all the new fossils were discovered. T. rex is a very close relative to birds (evolved to attack prey using only it's mouth), and looking at the atrophied arms, it seems that it's ancestors could fly, too (ancestral tyrannosaurs weren't much bigger than humans, and had long arms w. three fingers, and feathers, the earliest were chicken-sized). The fossil record of bird evolution is pretty complete.




The wild quails in OZ are also what i would call in between flyers...fat bodies with proportionally small wings compared to flying birds...will rarely fly unless they are startled, but if they are...they furiously launch into the air at approx 45 degree angle and fly large distances quickly in an arc before running out of puff and falling/coasting back down...they cant fly for very long, its more like a furious temporary flap of the wings to change location and lose predators.



On the subject of dinos and flight, take a gander at this fascinating beast of ages past:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0121_030122_dromaeosaur.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/index.html

The Nova site has some pages that show the wind-tunnel tests they performed using a mock-up of the dino and its feathered configuration--which was two wings along the arms and two wings along the legs.

The idea is that this animal used the two sets of wings to gain lift in order to glide from tree-top to tree-top.

Its claws otherwise allowed it to climb, and its four wings allowed it to surf the canopy!

Dual-winged flight could have descended from this method of gliding, with later generations seeing more success with lighter frames and stronger upper wings that enable continued mobility in the air.

Meanwhile, other, more stocky animals could have also developed near-flight capabilities by running along the ground. This line would never have evolved to reach a level of continuous flight, as their need would only to be to escape predators over short distances. This would be the line of birds that live on the ground, in the brush.

The gliders would be anscestors to birds that spend most of their time in high places or aloft.

So, in essence, we could have had two quite different scenarios allowing two different type of flight-capable animals evolve.

8)

[mephibosheth]

Another thing, although really a weak argument--the argument from the Chinese zodiac.

There are twelve animals in the Chinese zodiac. One of them is the 'dragon'. All the other animals are, as it were, rather common--rabbit, ox, boar, monkey, snake, horse, rooster, dog, tiger, rat, ram. And then theres this dragon. Well, why would the inventors of the zodiac go for such mundane animals and then cap it all off with a 'supernatural' animal that doesn't exist or that no human had ever experienced?

My GF asked me the other day, 'do you think dragons existed?' I said, they mustve, because its part of the Chinese zodiac.

;)

[pacoquerak]

I feel pretty sure that the reptilians are dinosaurs.
We have discovered a lot of different terosaurs, flying reptiles and almost all of them are believed to have been fish eaters.
Do you think it's true that all terrorsaurs were mostly fish eaters? I doubt it, rather just think about creatures that live in trees in the jungle. If a bird or a monkey or something drops to the ground and dies, something is gonna eat it, even if nothing does, it's gonna get rotted in the leaves.
However when your at the ocean, it's easier than anywhere else in the world to get sucked under water by a wave and covered up with sand.
Monkey dinosaurs, we haven't found any yet..

[element]

There are twelve animals in the Chinese zodiac. One of them is the 'dragon'. All the other animals are, as it were, rather common--rabbit, ox, boar, monkey, snake, horse, rooster, dog, tiger, rat, ram. And then theres this dragon. Well, why would the inventors of the zodiac go for such mundane animals and then cap it all off with a 'supernatural' animal that doesn't exist or that no human had ever experienced?


Good point you make.

[enddivision]

They've found a Psittacosaur (a bipedal/quadrupedal ancestor type to the more famous Triceratops) that has a plume of 'quills' emanating from it's tail, plus structures on the preserved skin imprints of Triceratops that appear to be follicles. The quills are hollow, like those of feathers, and match the more primitive type found on the bipedal Theropods (the line [Tyrannosaurs, Dromaeosaurs etc.] that gave rise to birds), so it stands to reason that they all had this form of insulation from the beginning. The follicles on the Triceratops look like those of birds and are arranged between the scutes on it's back, so it probably had a combination of scutes (non-overlapping scales), and fuzz/quills. All of the young would have been rather cute and fuzzy, like chicks, as they'd quickly chill and die at night, especially if the mother is too big to sit on them.

There is a polar dinosaur called Leaellynosaura, which is an Ornithopod (the group of herbivores that include Iguanodon and the 'duckbilled' [the beak actually resembled a cookie-cutter - ouch!] Hadrosaurs), and rather small. They've found evidence for mass leaf fall in the area, and other indications that there was a cold polar winter with nearly 6 months of darkness. The dinosaur had part of it's braincase chipped away, revealing a rocky cast of it's brain. It had a pretty big brain (the animal was the size of a sheep), with enormous Optic Lobes. This meant that it was able to see in the dark. Now given it's relatively small size, and the climate in which it lived, It had to be warm-blooded (like the other dinosaurs, no cold-blooded animal can walk with it's legs held directly below its body), but with naked skin, it would have frozen to death very quickly. Therefore, it had to have an insulation over its skin to protect from the ice and snow.

The long-necked Sauropods originated from smaller bipedal ancestors that were related to the original Theropods and the Ornithopods (which are related closely to the quadropedal armoured and horned dinosaurs, all of which had similar bipedal ancestors), so they likely had insulation too, but lost it in a similar manner to the modern elephant or rhinoceros. Although, the Sauropods laid eggs, and their young were a lot smaller than the young of the aforementioned mammals, so would have needed some protection from the elements. They would likely have moulted later on.

As for the origin of birds, the different forms all evolved from the same ancestor around 90 million years ago, and later filled various niches in the environment, over time becoming very different. The Ratites (Ostriches, Emus, Kiwis etc.) ARE more primitive, but their wing and breastbones show that they too could fly once.

I don't have a problem with relict populations of Nonavian Dinosaurs (all Dinosauria excluding Birds) surviving, some must have survived the cataclysm that got the rest. However, anyone who argues that Dinosaurs died out because they were cold-blooded (ectothermic), have got it wrong - warm-blooded (endothermic) animals are always hit the worst in any mass-extinction event, just ask a Turtle or Crocodile. For those who don't know, the oceanic Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs are NOT Dinosaurs, they are more closely related to Lizards, Snakes and Turtles. They might just have slipped through, but size is always a factor when an extinction comes along, proving that 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall'. This is why birds made it, they were all small, same with the mammals. But some of the other Dinosaurs got through, mainly through scavenging, meaning that the carnivores were more likely to survive - the origin of Dragons?

Many of the carnivores had long 's' shaped necks, allowing for the long-necked depictions on cave walls. Those guys are likely extinct too, now, hunted by humans to serve their self-righteous ideas of bravado and chivalry. Dragons would have to be warm-blooded to do very well in the cool climates that they have always been seen (and fought) in. All big cold-bloods live in hot climates.

[mephibosheth]

They've found a Psittacosaur (a bipedal/quadrupedal ancestor type to the more famous Triceratops) that has a plume of 'quills' emanating from it's tail, plus structures on the preserved skin imprints of Triceratops that appear to be follicles. The quills are hollow, like those of feathers, and match the more primitive type found on the bipedal Theropods (the line [Tyrannosaurs, Dromaeosaurs etc.] that gave rise to birds), so it stands to reason that they all had this form of insulation from the beginning. The follicles on the Triceratops look like those of birds and are arranged between the scutes on it's back, so it probably had a combination of scutes (non-overlapping scales), and fuzz/quills. All of the young would have been rather cute and fuzzy, like chicks, as they'd quickly chill and die at night, especially if the mother is too big to sit on them.

There is a polar dinosaur called Leaellynosaura, which is an Ornithopod (the group of herbivores that include Iguanodon and the 'duckbilled' [the beak actually resembled a cookie-cutter - ouch!] Hadrosaurs), and rather small. They've found evidence for mass leaf fall in the area, and other indications that there was a cold polar winter with nearly 6 months of darkness. The dinosaur had part of it's braincase chipped away, revealing a rocky cast of it's brain. It had a pretty big brain (the animal was the size of a sheep), with enormous Optic Lobes. This meant that it was able to see in the dark. Now given it's relatively small size, and the climate in which it lived, It had to be warm-blooded (like the other dinosaurs, no cold-blooded animal can walk with it's legs held directly below its body), but with naked skin, it would have frozen to death very quickly. Therefore, it had to have an insulation over its skin to protect from the ice and snow.

The long-necked Sauropods originated from smaller bipedal ancestors that were related to the original Theropods and the Ornithopods (which are related closely to the quadropedal armoured and horned dinosaurs, all of which had similar bipedal ancestors), so they likely had insulation too, but lost it in a similar manner to the modern elephant or rhinoceros. Although, the Sauropods laid eggs, and their young were a lot smaller than the young of the aforementioned mammals, so would have needed some protection from the elements. They would likely have moulted later on.

As for the origin of birds, the different forms all evolved from the same ancestor around 90 million years ago, and later filled various niches in the environment, over time becoming very different. The Ratites (Ostriches, Emus, Kiwis etc.) ARE more primitive, but their wing and breastbones show that they too could fly once.

I don't have a problem with relict populations of Nonavian Dinosaurs (all Dinosauria excluding Birds) surviving, some must have survived the cataclysm that got the rest. However, anyone who argues that Dinosaurs died out because they were cold-blooded (ectothermic), have got it wrong - warm-blooded (endothermic) animals are always hit the worst in any mass-extinction event, just ask a Turtle or Crocodile. For those who don't know, the oceanic Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs are NOT Dinosaurs, they are more closely related to Lizards, Snakes and Turtles. They might just have slipped through, but size is always a factor when an extinction comes along, proving that 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall'. This is why birds made it, they were all small, same with the mammals. But some of the other Dinosaurs got through, mainly through scavenging, meaning that the carnivores were more likely to survive - the origin of Dragons?

Many of the carnivores had long 's' shaped necks, allowing for the long-necked depictions on cave walls. Those guys are likely extinct too, now, hunted by humans to serve their self-righteous ideas of bravado and chivalry. Dragons would have to be warm-blooded to do very well in the cool climates that they have always been seen (and fought) in. All big cold-bloods live in hot climates.

Nice post. I'm especially intrigued by the concept of 'polar dinosaurs', of which I've only begun to hear of recently. What an interetsing diversity of creatures there must have been!

8)

[enddivision]

Nice post. I'm especially intrigued by the concept of 'polar dinosaurs', of which I've only begun to hear of recently. What an interetsing diversity of creatures there must have been!

8)

Thanks. The polar Dinosaurs are definitely interesting, makes you wonder if they had their own large Dinosaur versions of Wooly Mammoths/Rhinoceri. The diversity calls to mind what you see in unspoilt habitats today. The loss of diversity caused by the Elite Corporations mirrors what you see in the fossil record toward the end of the Age of Dinosaurs. Maybe something similar happened back then? There are signs of high pollution (Hydrocarbons/Uranium dust etc.) in the rocks, building up in the few thousand years before the Yucatan Asteroid impact, which might have just been the finishing blow, the 'icing on the Cake of Death'. What if it was actually a Nuclear Holocaust and not an Asteroid? May explain the Uranium.