Arguably the most entertaining part of any creationist Global Flood model is where the dinosaurs come in to it. Indeed, as John Morris himself asks for our introductory article, How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? Let’s find out…
The ICR considers that they are forced to accept that God created Dinosaurs “on Day Six under the category of “beast of the earth” (Genesis 1:24, 25)”, but also that they, like all other animals, initially did not eat meat, in accordance with Gen. 1:29. They have a bizarre idea about the whole meat-eating thing, first claiming (in the above referenced article) that “[o]f the many dinosaur fossils found, almost all give evidence of being plant eaters exclusively.” It should be pointed out that in most ecosystems, most animals are primary consumers (ie herbivores), and therefore the above is what you’d expect. They’re just trying to minimise their problem. Then they try and claim that “scientists can never be certain about a creature’s habits when they only have bits of dead ones to study, and most dinosaur fossils are extremely fragmentary, usually consisting of part of a single bone”, trying to call into question whether there were even any truly carnivorous dinosaurs at all. All I say to this is that you’d be surprised what can be learnt from a single tooth, and there are plenty of more-or-less complete dinosaur skeletons anyway. Here’s one – look, it’s even got bones in it’s stomach:
However, in the next breath, he says “[b]ut enough is known of dinosaurs to strongly suspect that some of them ate meat.” Yes, there is that nagging suspicion, yes…
Dr Morris speculates on “when they gained that ability”. He says:
When Adam and Eve rebelled, God pronounced the awful curse of death on all of creation. In doing so, He not only fulfilled His promise that they would begin to die (2:17), but evidently He actually changed the genetic makeup of each “kind” so that all their descendants would forever be different. He changed Eve’s body structure (3:16); the plants (v. 18), and the animals, as well (v. 14). Perhaps at this time dinosaurs and other animals acquired or began to acquire body parts designed for aggression or protection. This may be over-speculation, but sin ruins everything, and before long the entire planet was corrupt (6:11,12, 7).
The Bible itself is pretty vague on this subject, really. Verses 14 through to 18 read thusly:
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that any Genetic Modification can be said to go on here. Maybe the ‘serpent’ specifically, but not all animals. This is definitely “over-speculation”. And all this “beg[inning] to acquire” stuff from people who think that evolution has been “refuted” too…
The dinosaurs had to be on the ark, too – “every beast after his kind”. It is interesting to speculate as to how they would’ve been fed on the ark, considering that some of them were now carnivorous, and those young dinosaurs eat a lot…
It is added:
[T]he world after the Flood was much different than before, with much less vegetation and a colder, harsher climate, and evidently the dinosaurs gradually died out. Perhaps they were even hunted to extinction, as would be indicated by the many legends of dragons, the descriptions of which closely resemble dinosaurs.
So, dinosaurs survived, but now they’re extinct.
I have already gone over the DpSU “More Proof That Dinosaurs Lived with ‘Later’ Creatures“, and it’s BS, so I shan’t again.
We’ve already gone into the whole “Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood” thing, but there are a few other things in this. Note-to-self: after the flood, there was an “ensuing Ice Age”.
Next, some other guy (“Timothy L. Clarey, Ph.D.”, a “professor of geology”), says that Dinosaurs weren’t birds, but doesn’t really successfully prove his case.
He first makes the bizarre claim that Sir Richard Owen, the person who coined the word “Dinosauria”, “argued extensively against Darwin’s theory of evolution later in his life.” While technically true, he still believed evolution happened, just not quite in the way Darwin had it. Implicitly shoehorning him in as a creationist who was also “the best known and most authoritative comparative anatomist in the nineteenth century” is no way to start an article.
He then goes on to talk about all the “Bird” hoaxes and mistakes, while missing all the real ones. Also, he says that Velociraptor (see first picture above) is considered an ancestor to birds. It isn’t. I went over this in my DpSU post I mentioned above – there were plenty of feathered theropods, of which Velociraptor was one (Jurassic Park is famously inaccurate in this regard), but only one lineage was ancestral to modern birds. Most fossils we find are more the aunts to modern species than mothers in any case.
Dr Clarey also seems to like referencing the minority of palaeontologists who believe that birds are descended from an earlier point than dinosaurs on the ‘archosaurian radiation’ father than from theropods, such as Alan Feduccia. He, along with others, claims that the ‘proto-feathers’ on theropods aren’t feathers at all, and the later, clearly feathered theropods, such as Microraptor and Velociraptor, are not dinosaurs at all, but merely birds that had lost their ability to fly to some degree, which had evolved to look similar to theropods. This is not mentioned by the article, ie that for birds not to be dinosaurs they would have to take many familiar dinosaurs with them. Imagine that: not one but seven pairs of Velociraptors on the Ark…
Interesting, Morris in Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood mentions “flying dinosaurs”. However, if we take Dr Clarey’s article to mean that the ICR believes in Feduccia’s position on the relationship of dinosaurs and birds with other reptiles, there were no flying dinosaurs – they were birds. There doesn’t seem to be much consensus in the ICR on this issue…
As for science itself, there is still a legitimate controversy with regards to the origin of dinosaurs – Feduccia does have a few points. However, the argument was weakened somewhat by the discovery of Microraptor and the feathers on Velociraptor, when the anti-theropod case had to include these as ‘Birds’ and not ‘Dinosaurs’. Only time – and more fossil evidence – will tell, but it looks increasingly likely that birds are indeed theropod dinosaurs.
Next is a “Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D.” on the Chicxulub Crater. The article is from 2001, which perhaps explains the “continuing scientific debate” phrase used, though they say that about evolution too…
DeYoung explains the background of the impact theory as it was in 2001. He says that there are doubts about whether the Chicxulub Crater is even a crater at all – it has since been confirmed that is is – but at one point concedes that it “probably” is. He does spend a little time outlying “alternative explanations” for the evidence.
To summarise it, the “Creationist Conclusion” to all this is that there were a number of impacts during the Flood, that the Flood was the only extinction (rather than the multiple in “the evolution view”), and that the Iridium layer was laid down during the Flood itself, making it one of the “sediments assigned to the Flood” that are mentioned in my previous post.
Finally, did you know that “Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted“. This is largely based on the abundance of Dragon myths, as you would guess. As RationalWiki says: “Using the same reasoning they presumably also believe in fairies and trolls”. Yes, just because lot’s of people believe it, doesn’t make it true. Apparently “the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times”. Really? Some dragons have two legs, two wings, while others have four legs, two wings – some even have no wings. Nothing consistent here…
I might add that there were, after all, multiple obviously different types of dinosaur, and if everybody’s dragon was the same, that would be a suggestion that there was some other causal reason than dinosaurs for this.