Dinosaurs from a YEC's viewpoint

That would be film. Film reacts to light and needs developing. Videotape images are created on magnetic tape.

Well, how do you lose a dinosaur?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's easy when it's an Anekdoatalsaurus ... (they're much smaller than an Ankleorsorus).Edited by RAZD, : second punishment for the wicked

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

there is no vanity, only xulon.seriously, though, there's something odd about christianity that it calls on people to publish every lit bit of "i think i've got something," even if it's the same old stuff we've all heard before. i think part of it is the "quack" aspect of the fundamentalists sects (new agey types, ufologists, atlanteans, and all kinds of people holding views generally not well accepted all do the same), combined with the strong call to evangelism.i don't think it's vanity at all. they do it for their percieved greater good.

---

hello phillip, welcome to the board. hope they're not piling on too hard here. dinosaurs are absolutely still alive today. thought probably not in the way that you are thinking. the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds is so strong that it's now going a bit beyond all paleontologists saying that "birds are dinosaurs" and into most saying that "for all intents and purposes, dinosaurs are basically older forms of birds." we are finding more and more in common by the day -- turns out the earliest forms of dinosaurs were feathered, warm-blooded, and were even capable of flight as early as the triassic. the big boys we're all familiar with, like t-rex, evolved from ancestors that could fly.this makes the functional difference between "non-bird dinosaur" and "bird" a very subtle one, mostly based on skeletal anatomy that is not fused and pneumatized, and a bunch of tiny things that even if i mentioned would seem quite insignificant (proportions of the premaxilla and maxilla, for instance).even creationists typically accept a dinosaur like archaeopteryx lithographica as "just a modern bird." yet its skeletal anatomy is virtually identical to every other theropod dinosaur. if archie is a modern bird, so is coelophysis bauri, or velociraptor mongoliensis, or even tyrannosaurus rex.as to whether or not "classic" dinosaurs are still alive today, it wouldn't prove much in terms of creationism or evolution. we have tons of "living fossils" alive today. take for instance the nautilus. they've been around since the ordivician -- they're actually before the dinosaurs. they're less "advanced" than the mesozoic ammonites, which grew incredibly complex during the jurassic and cretaceous. but the kt event came and wiped out the filter-feeding ammonites, and left the scavenging nautiloids. what does this say about evolution? only that "more advanced" isn't always "better."so while mkele mbembe, a living sauropod in the african congo, would be an amazing discovery, it wouldn't rock the boat on evolution at all. it would just be another example of something that survived the kt extinction. and trust me, i would be the first person interested in photos or video or film of mkele mbembe.

---

also, i see this is your first and (so far) only post. if you plan to return, i'd like to go over some things in more detail. for instance:

quote:

---

Although many researchers dispute the very idea of living pterosaurs, due to their evolutionary beliefs, I support the possibility of living pterosaurs.

​

http://www.flyingdragons.livingdinos.com/

---

what evolutionary beliefs would cause researchers to reject the very idea of living pterosaurs? extinction is surely something that even a YEC can accept, as we human beings have caused an extinction or two ourselves. that some things die out is not an opinion that relates to religion -- it's a fact of nature, and one easily observed.perhaps the "evolutionary belief" is the fact that no pterosaurs are observed in the fossil record above the kt boundary?

quote:

---

The Bible says that Noah took pterosaurs on the ark and if they got on the ark then they got off the ark.

---

now, you haven't been on this board very long, but you should be warned that there are a lot people on this board who are very fluent in the bible, and will call your bluff on things like this. i happen to be one of them -- i have particular interest in the book of genesis and the hebrew language.where, exactly, does it say that noach took pterosaurs on board the ark?also, points for not bringing up the french railway story (a well known hoax), but those points are deducted back for conflating pterosaurs with dinosaurs. pterosaurs and dinosaurs are separate subgroups of archosaurs.

---

Could I have some more information on this? If you're thinkings of Protoavis, it's extremely dubious, and as for T. Rex having ancestors which could fly, I'll grant you the possibility, but where's the evidence?

My first impression was that this was first and foremost a blatant self-promotion in violation of the forum guidelines even if it is a book - that the purpose is to sell copies, not discuss the contents.If he wanted to discuss contents he would provide more information eh?I also see no consideration for whether the facts are true or not. Let's all write books for children that are full of anecdotal hype and misconceptions of reality ... after all it is for the good of the children eh?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

OMFG, I didn't even catch that!

as far as warm-blooded and feathered, or capable of flight? certainly they were warm-blooded, as the earliest dinos were bipedal and elevated from the ground. and feathered makes a lot of sense for small warm-blooded animals. ornithischian dinosaurs show secondary adaptations derived from feathers, like horny bills, which means that feathers were likely present in dinosaurs prior the saurischian/ornithischian split.as for flight, my paleontology professor describes herrerasaurian (five-toed) tracks from the triassic that get more and more spaced, and then abruptly stop. i'm unaware of any specific fossils of such dinosaurs myself (protoavis is a theropod, not a herrerasaur), though the body plan of the smaller herrerasaurs certainly allows for primitive flight -- given long enough arms, they are quite similar to theropods which did and still do fly. i'm not sure how sound this is, of course.though, should protoavis (or one of its component species) check out, it would further support this idea. what is it with chaterjee and chimeras, anyways? earlier theropods are capable of flight. from the record we have, it seems dinosaurs evolved flight and secondarily lost it a number of times. we see this happening in deinonychosaurs -- basal archaeopteryx can fly, but more advanced velociraptor can't.t. rex, on the surface, looks pretty far removed from flight capabilities. indeed, it's secondary flight loss gone completely wild. but the earlier tyrannosaurids we have possess feathers, and are much smaller and lighter forms, with longer arms. [edit: remove information that is very probably in error] tyrannosaurids also possess furculae, which would be next to useless for them. what good is a fused collar bone if your arms are incapable of the reach-and-grab hunting motion of say, dromaeosaurus. and that seems to be a flight adaptation co-opted into a secondary function by a flightless dinosaur.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.Edited by arachnophilia, : horrible typo omg

---

lots and lots of anecdotal stuff. sounds cool and all, but my eccentric claims (above) are better documented than this stuff. why do we have no credible pictures, no corpses, no recent skeletons? no chunk brought back for genetic testing, or stored in a jar somewhere?my skepticism should not be mistaken for closed-minded-ness. for as long as i can remember, i've been fascinated by the loch ness monster. i've always loved dinosaurs and other mesozoic creatures -- how very cool would it be for something big and exciting from that time period to be rediscovered alive today, when we thought it was extinct? i would love to see someone catch a live mesozoic marine reptile, or even pull up a good corpse (not that basking shark garbage). i would be thrilled to see pictures of a sauropod living in the congo ---- but science tells us that these things are quite unlikely. we know the diet and habitat of plesiosaurs and sauropods from the fossil record. and plesiosaur don't like in isolated mostly fish-less cold lakes. and sauropods niether live in water nor in dense rain forest. and so logic then tells us that, since we have no good evidence, and the anecdotal accounts are contrary to what we do know in the detail (but not, say, popular misconceptions), that the accounts are in error.but please. prove me wrong. i want to believe in the loch ness monster and mkele mbembe.

---

I'd say "end" instead of "stop" -- it's not like the track-maker stopped.Are the track spacing similar to those of waterfowl taking off?Cormorant Takeoff 13878 photo - Gordon W photos at pbase.comEnjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

yes, or albatross, or any larger bird that takes a running start. i'll ask for specifics if you'd like.[oof, i just noticed i made a horrible typo on "herrerasaurian." i'll have to go back and fix that!]Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

video tape didn't exist until then, but moving picture film existed before still photographic film. (there were other forms of still photography that were earlier, but not film.)

this thread is really kind of not at all related to it's intent (clearly being the mental masturbation of a 15 year old), but i think it's becoming a fun topic. so i'd really like to see it not closed. maybe it should be moved, or maybe not. but don't close it.