Talk:Dinosaur

Suggestion about edit
In contrast to the Biblical worldview, the naturalist interpretation of Earth's history holds that dinosaurs dominated the Earth for more than 100 million years, and went extinct about 65 million years ago, about 55 million years before the first humans appeared on Earth.

That sentence in opening paragraphs, I think that the words "Biblical worldview" should be changed to "young earth creationist view". Does anybody have any problems with this edit?--Tony 23:22, 4 September 2010 (PDT)

Fossil Finger
I do not believe this find is credible and will be reversing this edit unless the claim is better substantiated. Please comment or advise.

''Also, a fozzilized human finger was found in the footprint of a dinosaur. This provides strong evidence of dinosaur/human cohabitation.''

http://home.texoma.net/~linesden/cem/finger/finger.htm

--Chris 21:24, 18 September 2006 (EDT)


 * I have to agree. This finger argument has been pilloried for years (e.g. Glen Kuban at ), and AiG has lots of problems with these types of "evidences" (e.g. ). I have to admit I agree with them.

--Klang 00:27, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

I have to disagree with AIG's attitude in such cases, as they have clearly not studied these things, yet complain about creationists using them. My first question is Who on earth do they think they are telling me not to use it, when I've studied it and they haven't? I already corrected the claim that the finger was found in a dinosaur track - it was not, and in fact, I'll add an article about this for the wiki. Kuban is, as usual, out to lunch on his claims as well. There is also the argument that it was a finger impression in mud which became infilled with limestone - this doesn't work either. In all cases, you need to explain how the details in the inside of the finger (it was sectioned) such as skin layers, bone, marrow, and even tendons, wound up in exactly the right spot in a "finger shaped rock." I have personally seen the actual thing and have a cast of it, even the cast shows details like the bone and marrow. The photos really cannot do it justice (as is often the case when trying to photograph any fossil, I've got a lot of experience - and frustration - with this)

I will also write up an article on the Paluxy tracks as once again, AIG (though I love them and support them) and CMI have opposed that which they haven't taken the time to study, and again, Kuban's hypothesis is completely ad-hoc and does not line up with the field evidence, of which I have spent considerable time studying first hand. This will take time though.

As for the finger, the only question surrounding it is that it was found in gravels; there is no other reason to consider it anything but cretaceous, and I've stumbled upon some other fascinating fossils in those same gravel beds. If one wants to claim it's an intrusion - fine, that means it's a fast fossil. If one wants to claim it was washed in with the gravels, that's fine too - but even by the conventional geological arguments, there's been no event to do that since the time of humans!

I'll see what I can do about writing this up so it's accurately presented.

Comments on "Dinosaurs alive today" section:

1) The claim that reptiles are the only animals that grow throughout their lifelime is false. Some fish (e.g. catfish), spiders and crabs (see http://noaa.chesapeakebay.net/spc/bluecrab.htm ) do as well; there are probably others

2) The claim that reptiles are always culled when they reach a certain size is pure fiction - there are plenty of places rarely visited by humans where reptiles can mature fully, but they still don't reach enormous sizes. Zoos also don't usually kill their exhibits when they grow large, and there are no cases of sauropod sized reptiles there either. Also, basic research on komodo dragons indicates that they are not immortal, so there is nothing to indicate they would ever grow to the size of a dinosaur.

3) Although many fossil reptiles resemble living ones, there are no living reptiles that resemble any of the large dinosaurs, so the suggestion that modern lizards could grow into dinosaurs is false.

Dinosaurs and man coexisted
There is a large amount of evidence pointing to dinosaurs and man coexisting. I think this additional information should be included in the CreationWiki article:

- Trained scientists reported seeing a dinosaur.

- 1,000 people had seen a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang accrording to the Chinese publication, China Today (see: Lai Kuan and Jian Qun, ‘Dinosaurs: Alive and Well and Living in Northwest China?’, China Today, Vol. XLII No. 2, February 1993, p. 59.)

- An expedition which included, Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph that pointed to dinosaurs and man existing

- The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology." (see: Knox Wilson, “Dragon,” The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265)

- The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, appears to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. 

- On May 13, 1572 a dinosaur may have been killed by a peasant farmer in Italy (pg 41 "The Great Dinosaur Mystery" by Paul Taylor ISBN 0-89636-264-7)

- According to Walt Brown, "Scientists in the former Soviet Union have reported a layer of rock containing more than 2,000 dinosaur footprints alongside tracks “resembling human footprints.” (see: Alexander Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10.)

- It has been stated that dinosaurs are in the Bible. 

- There is other evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted. Creationist 21:48, 28 November 2006 (EST)creationist


 * Fine, dinosaur is still alive today. However, this is not the end of the problem. A lot of questions will follow. Has anyone addressed any consequential question yet? For example, why are they so few and so illusive today? If they were abundant, why are they so scarce today? We pushed many species to struggle for their lives in remote area or even into extinction. How come there was nothing recorded that human beings developed their territory into dinosaur's habitate and made them almost extinct? OK, dinosaurs are very few after the Flood due to the dramatic change of climate etc. so that they have hard time to populate. Fine. But it also suggests that those people who wittnessed dinosaurs would mean those few dinosaurs do can survive in the environment where they were spotted. Then what are those environment? Why a few dinosaurs can still live in those environments? How different are those enviroments from the majority of environments in which dinosaur is not known.
 * These and more other questions are nearly impossible to answer. To me, I rather take the extinction of dinosaurs as an easier way out, even problems raised by this assumption are not any easier. --Juvenis Sun 22:56, 28 November 2006 (EST)


 * This particular topic would almost certainly require a dedicated page and may grow to the point where it must be divided into more than one page. Start with a rather generic title that would accomodate both recent and potentially living dinosaur, such as:
 * Recent dinosaurs
 * Other suggestions? --Mr. Ashcraft 23:13, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Edit problems
''The natural instict of man to kill threatening animals is located in a part of the brain called the limbic system. This part of the brain is very much similar that seen in other predator species but this should not be seen as evidence for the theory of evolution, as evolution has been refuted by thorough research by non-secular scientists. Although no proof exist of the hunting of dinosaurs by man, no scientist has ever been able to show that this was not the case.''

The above edit is an unnecessary detail. In addition, the reference that was used does not support the statement, and was not formatted using the footnote reference system being used on the page.--Ashcraft - (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2011 (PST)