Is there evidence that Dinosaures were cold blooded?

This is often the argument of YECs to explain that the Dinos all died after the Flood in the so called "ice age" that followed because,as cold blooded large creatures,they could not adapt to the much colder temperature of the earth after the "water canopy" was removed. But what if dinos were not actually cold blooded animals but in fact warm blooded. I realise that they are called reptiles but maybe it has more to do with their general shape than with their nature. In fact,they seem to have more traits in common with birds than with todays reptiles...and birds are warm blooded. just a thought

If dinosaurs were cold-blooded and died out during the "ice-age" after the flood, most reptiles would have also been wiped out- thus- we would see a clear lack of diverity in the reptilian family.And if god knew that an ice-age would ensue after the flood, why bother bringing dinosaurs on the ark?And very finally, I do not think that many sane creationists insist on an ice-age folloeing the flood. This would cause serious problems for the highly sensitive koalas migrating back to their home in australia through what would have been intolerably cold areas.And according to the Bible, noah had himself a grape vinyard in turkey once he had arrived (this is the origin of the "cursed-black" theory, but has nothing to do with the current topic), hardly the thing you'd be planting in the middle of an arctic ice-age.

well in either model reptiles did survive but their chances are greatly decreased in evolution because creationism can call it a miracle and still be right. Evolution wouldnt allow them to survive through it unless they got very very lucky or the ice age didnt affect the entire world, which it obviosly did.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

KP, the glaciers didn't get any further south than Kentucky (and Kentucky is pushing it, I'm not aware of any glacial deposits there). Not cold enough to kill reptiles.

Lud,
I know this is prematue for me to promote somthing I do not have all typed up and ready to go but last week I found out the Fouier was far smater than Cantor had led me to believe and I now know why Cantory based his transfinites materially out of Fourier series analytically but as the relates to the dino question in a long round about way you will have to bear with me as I try this from memeory and not as I have pieced typings to gather so far.First is that Fourier divided heat in to three cateogries that during horizontal evolution may not exist organismically. That requries the biological attitude that animates much dino-herp etc thermoregulation issues debate. Next by use of predation on fish and not fish behavior effect on cold-blooded forms it seems possible that UNIFORMLY one of the three Fourier categories if a proper population genetics work be undertaken can show how differentiation produces a mass that may operate the same heat other wise by conductance is generated and trasmitted but not conducted to another place.So far there is nothing specifically "creationist" in the beginning attempt as I place this direction and magnitude within a relaxable Lotka-Volterra content and it would be wrong to simply blank out creationism at this point for knowing something of the history in herpetology as opposed to the number of fish digits it was evolutionists who whether sociobiologists or not took behavior out of the field and into the lab lost some natural history to specialits such that the dinos being warm blooded requries some dimensional adherence which is nearly impossible to obtain from fossils and what data is available is often used to support geological correlation rather than the difference of environmental and strucutral form-making which Croizat differentiatied whehter Gould understands the differnce of centric, central and internal to the root or not.Which goes to mean in the message that with Cox on fossils or not I have always kept and preferred to keep this issue among argumentation of living kinds. It seems that the science must be about the 1st law of thermodynamics vs any other visualzation the kinetic theory of gases can give but biologists do not agruge out this more physical surface so it seems higher to me that creationists are being blamed rather for not following selection selection or group selection calculus here when only attempting to retain the science as it was prior to speculations about allometry that would be an escape word ALL METRY for evolutionists in the same sense that BARA MIN is neither the single optimum that Fisher thought wrongly he could restrict to Wright.So whether this paragraph is understood or not, it mirrors history and is not objectionable except perhaps to an anthropomorphized rex for triceratops that I speak nothing the repentance of and try less to keep the pent up idea that the energy involved acutally is the electo-motive one but then by "brain" would not be Changeauxs etc. Hope this helps

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
well in either model reptiles did survive but their chances are greatly decreased in evolution because creationism can call it a miracle and still be right.

---

You're assuming that all who believe in miracles believe in creationism.
The belief in such miracles is just as possible in theistic evolution.

quote:

---

Evolution wouldnt allow them to survive through it unless they got very very lucky or the ice age didnt affect the entire world, which it obviosly did.

---

I fail to see how that would work. Adaptation is not a static circumstance; it is not in a place to "allow" things. It is an effect, not a cause (same with evolution). In fact, adaptation is the principle by which the reptilian creatures WOULD have survived.Note: this is all under the hypothetical situation that what KP says would be true. Gene's comment seems to refute it, however.

​

[This message has been edited by Xombie, 03-19-2002]

"This is often the argument of YECs to explain that the Dinos all died after the Flood in the so called "ice age" that followed because,as cold blooded large creatures,they could not adapt to the much colder temperature of the earth after the "water canopy" was removed."
--I don't know why you felt like inserting the 'vapor canopy theory' in there."But what if dinos were not actually cold blooded animals but in fact warm blooded. I realise that they are called reptiles but maybe it has more to do with their general shape than with their nature. In fact,they seem to have more traits in common with birds than with todays reptiles...and birds are warm blooded. just a thought"
--If dinosaurs and the rest of the ancient reptilians had anatomically more characteristics with birds than reptiles, than I don't know why they came up with the idea that they were reptiles. I would be interested in seeing evidence for them being cold-blooded."If dinosaurs were cold-blooded and died out during the "ice-age" after the flood, most reptiles would have also been wiped out- thus- we would see a clear lack of diverity in the reptilian family."
--Actually it was during the flood. and your right that most reptiles would have been wiped out, though your downfall comes in when you say 'thus- we would see a clear lack of diversity in the reptilian family'. Everything not on the ark kind died, so it would have had no effect."And if god knew that an ice-age would ensue after the flood, why bother bringing dinosaurs on the ark?"
--It wasn't 'after' the flood, this is why we see the Mesozoic extinction."And very finally, I do not think that many sane creationists insist on an ice-age folloeing the flood. This would cause serious problems for the highly sensitive koalas migrating back to their home in australia through what would have been intolerably cold areas."
--Quicksink, must I seriously stress speciation any further?"And according to the Bible, noah had himself a grape vinyard in turkey once he had arrived (this is the origin of the "cursed-black" theory, but has nothing to do with the current topic), hardly the thing you'd be planting in the middle of an arctic ice-age."
--To have an ice age, you need only to lower global temperatures by 6^oC, hardly a drastic effect in the land of turkey or the rest of the middle east.Gene-
"KP, the glaciers didn't get any further south than Kentucky (and Kentucky is pushing it, I'm not aware of any glacial deposits there). Not cold enough to kill reptiles."
--Cold enough to kill reptiles if you have a 'snap' ice age, it wasn't a slow climatic effect, it was quite rapid to get to its potential. So there is room to lower the temperatures rather quickly. Also, they rely on the sun to keep warm, the sun would not have been present for a while with meteoric dust in the atmosphere.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"This is often the argument of YECs to explain that the Dinos all died after the Flood in the so called "ice age" that followed because,as cold blooded large creatures,they could not adapt to the much colder temperature of the earth after the "water canopy" was removed."
--I don't know why you felt like inserting the 'vapor canopy theory' in there.

​

LUD:Because there is not YEC theory without the vapor canopy. they are intertwined.

​

"But what if dinos were not actually cold blooded animals but in fact warm blooded. I realise that they are called reptiles but maybe it has more to do with their general shape than with their nature. In fact,they seem to have more traits in common with birds than with todays reptiles...and birds are warm blooded. just a thought"
--If dinosaurs and the rest of the ancient reptilians had anatomically more characteristics with birds than reptiles, than I don't know why they came up with the idea that they were reptiles. I would be interested in seeing evidence for them being cold-blooded.

​

LUD:But the fact of the matter is that today,many paleontologist are comming around the idea that Dinos and birds had much in common. Early conclusions about dinosaures may have been drawn strictly based on their appearance at first glance. But the fact is that if they were not cold blooded but in fact endothermic creatures like mammals,they would have survived just as well,if not better than mammals,mainly because their sheer size would have allowed them to completely dominate the food chain. Show me a lion or a tiger that could kill a diplodicus.

​

"If dinosaurs were cold-blooded and died out during the "ice-age" after the flood, most reptiles would have also been wiped out- thus- we would see a clear lack of diverity in the reptilian family."
--Actually it was during the flood. and your right that most reptiles would have been wiped out, though your downfall comes in when you say 'thus- we would see a clear lack of diversity in the reptilian family'. Everything not on the ark kind died, so it would have had no effect.

​

LUD:actually,there were quite a few dinosaures who were marine dinos so a flood would have no more effect on them than on whales.

​

"And if god knew that an ice-age would ensue after the flood, why bother bringing dinosaurs on the ark?"
--It wasn't 'after' the flood, this is why we see the Mesozoic extinction.

​

LUD:i think he was refering to the dinos who were suppposadly brought aboard the ark. Why save them if they were all gonna died out right after the flood anyway.

​

"And very finally, I do not think that many sane creationists insist on an ice-age folloeing the flood. This would cause serious problems for the highly sensitive koalas migrating back to their home in australia through what would have been intolerably cold areas."
--Quicksink, must I seriously stress speciation any further?

​

LUD:you can stress speciation all you want TC,you have yet to produce evidence that Koala's did not exist in their present form and with their present dietary needs 4500 years ago.

​

"And according to the Bible, noah had himself a grape vinyard in turkey once he had arrived (this is the origin of the "cursed-black" theory, but has nothing to do with the current topic), hardly the thing you'd be planting in the middle of an arctic ice-age."
--To have an ice age, you need only to lower global temperatures by 6^oC, hardly a drastic effect in the land of turkey or the rest of the middle east.

​

LUD:i really think you need to look up the word ICE age in a dictionary...lowering the world temperature by 6 degrees is nowhere near sufficiant to have huge ice caps advancing over Canada and halfway through the US. more like 20-30 degrees

​

Gene-
"KP, the glaciers didn't get any further south than Kentucky (and Kentucky is pushing it, I'm not aware of any glacial deposits there). Not cold enough to kill reptiles."
--Cold enough to kill reptiles if you have a 'snap' ice age, it wasn't a slow climatic effect, it was quite rapid to get to its potential. So there is room to lower the temperatures rather quickly. Also, they rely on the sun to keep warm, the sun would not have been present for a while with meteoric dust in the atmosphere.

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"This is often the argument of YECs to explain that the Dinos all died after the Flood in the so called "ice age" that followed because,as cold blooded large creatures,they could not adapt to the much colder temperature of the earth after the "water canopy" was removed."
--I don't know why you felt like inserting the 'vapor canopy theory' in there.

​

LUD:Because there is not YEC theory without the vapor canopy. they are intertwined.

​

"But what if dinos were not actually cold blooded animals but in fact warm blooded. I realise that they are called reptiles but maybe it has more to do with their general shape than with their nature. In fact,they seem to have more traits in common with birds than with todays reptiles...and birds are warm blooded. just a thought"
--If dinosaurs and the rest of the ancient reptilians had anatomically more characteristics with birds than reptiles, than I don't know why they came up with the idea that they were reptiles. I would be interested in seeing evidence for them being cold-blooded.

​

LUD:But the fact of the matter is that today,many paleontologist are comming around the idea that Dinos and birds had much in common. Early conclusions about dinosaures may have been drawn strictly based on their appearance at first glance. But the fact is that if they were not cold blooded but in fact endothermic creatures like mammals,they would have survived just as well,if not better than mammals,mainly because their sheer size would have allowed them to completely dominate the food chain. Show me a lion or a tiger that could kill a diplodicus.

​

"If dinosaurs were cold-blooded and died out during the "ice-age" after the flood, most reptiles would have also been wiped out- thus- we would see a clear lack of diverity in the reptilian family."
--Actually it was during the flood. and your right that most reptiles would have been wiped out, though your downfall comes in when you say 'thus- we would see a clear lack of diversity in the reptilian family'. Everything not on the ark kind died, so it would have had no effect.

​

LUD:actually,there were quite a few dinosaures who were marine dinos so a flood would have no more effect on them than on whales.

​

"And if god knew that an ice-age would ensue after the flood, why bother bringing dinosaurs on the ark?"
--It wasn't 'after' the flood, this is why we see the Mesozoic extinction.

​

LUD:i think he was refering to the dinos who were suppposadly brought aboard the ark. Why save them if they were all gonna died out right after the flood anyway.

​

"And very finally, I do not think that many sane creationists insist on an ice-age folloeing the flood. This would cause serious problems for the highly sensitive koalas migrating back to their home in australia through what would have been intolerably cold areas."
--Quicksink, must I seriously stress speciation any further?

​

LUD:you can stress speciation all you want TC,you have yet to produce evidence that Koala's did not exist in their present form and with their present dietary needs 4500 years ago.

​

"And according to the Bible, noah had himself a grape vinyard in turkey once he had arrived (this is the origin of the "cursed-black" theory, but has nothing to do with the current topic), hardly the thing you'd be planting in the middle of an arctic ice-age."
--To have an ice age, you need only to lower global temperatures by 6^oC, hardly a drastic effect in the land of turkey or the rest of the middle east.

​

LUD:i really think you need to look up the word ICE age in a dictionary...lowering the world temperature by 6 degrees is nowhere near sufficiant to have huge ice caps advancing over Canada and halfway through the US. more like 20-30 degrees would be required.

​

Gene-
"KP, the glaciers didn't get any further south than Kentucky (and Kentucky is pushing it, I'm not aware of any glacial deposits there). Not cold enough to kill reptiles."
--Cold enough to kill reptiles if you have a 'snap' ice age, it wasn't a slow climatic effect, it was quite rapid to get to its potential. So there is room to lower the temperatures rather quickly. Also, they rely on the sun to keep warm, the sun would not have been present for a while with meteoric dust in the atmosphere.

​

LUD:But again TC,thats assuming that dinos had cold blood and could not generate their own body heat,a conclusion which more and more evidence seem to contradict. And if they did have warm blood,then there is no more reason for them to have died out rather than smaller mammals.

​

---

[QUOTE][b]--Cold enough to kill reptiles if you have a 'snap' ice age, it wasn't a slow climatic effect[/QUOTE][/b]What evidence do you cite to claim it was not a slow climate effect.
And if it was a fast effect, such as an impact winter, you have the fact that reptile eggs don't need care to hatch and have a tendency to be buried in the ground. Also many reptiles are small, all are cold-blooded (low energy requirements) and many can hibernate. Then of course you still have the tropics, which won't get cold in a standard ice age and which will only be temporarily affected in an impact winter. [QUOTE][b]Also, they rely on the sun to keep warm, the sun would not have been present for a while with meteoric dust in the atmosphere.[/QUOTE][/b]It's a concern of ambient temperature, not direct sunlight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
This is often the argument of YECs to explain that the Dinos all died after the Flood in the so called "ice age" that followed because,as cold blooded large creatures,they could not adapt to the much colder temperature of the earth after the "water canopy" was removed. But what if dinos were not actually cold blooded animals but in fact warm blooded. I realise that they are called reptiles but maybe it has more to do with their general shape than with their nature. In fact,they seem to have more traits in common with birds than with todays reptiles...and birds are warm blooded. just a thought

---

Look at::
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/metabolism.htmlIt has some of the arguments for cold and warm bloodedness
of dinosaurs.This is an OPEN issue and hotly debated ... I don;t beleive
it can shed any light in the great debate, since it is itself
controversal.IF dinosaurs were warm-blooded they would have had an equal
chance with any other warm blooded animal during a Great Flood.Marine creatures like elsamosaur etc. should NOT have had any
problem surviving (nor should any creature that lived in
the oceans) ... but that doesn't help either side of the
great debate either, since we know so little of the life which
currently exists in the oceans, some of these creatures may
still be about and awaiting discovery.Even amongst evolutionists there is debate as to whether the birds
are descended from dinosaurs or not ... check out some avian
biologists who site things like the ordering of toes.The main problem with dinosaur metabolism is ... we don't
have any living dinos to check {Added by edit}Just found this too::
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/dinos000420.html

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-25-2002]