Life in the time of the Dinosaurs was different to modern life

[Shemjaza]

To avoid derailing a thread about Creationist ideas with random arguments about evolution and paleontology I have started a new thread. I hope @Platte can comment here.

Prior to the flood life expectancy was much longer - that is why animals, especially reptiles grew very large. As life expectancy dropped after the flood, the size of animals greatly reduced also. That is why you no longer have dinosaurs today. There was no comet and it wasn’t millions of years ago.

Dinosaurs were structured differently to modern animals.
Dinosaurs came in sizes from tiny to titanic.
Not a single modern species is ever found in the same layers as a dinosaur.
Dinosaurs bones have fossilised and turned to stone.

Look up lions, pigs, rhino and pretty much every other animal. They have super size fossils of all of them. Great big elephants and tigers and of course huge sharks. But we don’t see them that size anymore. Imagine a blue whale 1000 years old. Would be way more massive than it is today

I’m sure some were structure different. But there are many massive fossils of lion, tigers, elephants, sharks, etc. what would a Komodo dragan look like if it was growing for 1000 years. Probably would have some changes in structure.

The problem is that we also have fossils of small dinosaurs with different structures to modern animals and we also have baby and juvenile versions of some of the giant varieties, meaning they can't simply be normal animals grown huge in a different environment.

Komodo dragon is a good example, because there was an enormous version of a monitor lizard in Australia... but it was still clearly a giant lizard and not a dinosaur.

By the way almost all fossils are of extinct animals. So of course modern fossils wouldn’t be in the same layer (there are no modern animal fossils). Imagine a flood that killed every animal on earth at the same time. Billions of animals all die. No scavengers to clean up. Many buried in sediment. Animals that lived much longer than they do today and were much larger. Not surprising that almost all fossils are huge compared to today animals. This scenario has really messed with the minds of scientists. And this is how they’ve treated this. Remember. All animals in earth died at the same time. That’s your fossils

I don't understand why you would expect to only find extinct species.

If all the animals were killed why wouldn't all the lions, tigers, cows, elephants and rhinos be mixed in with the dinosaurs?

There's also the really big problem in that there isn't any evidence for a world wide flood.

The world is full of fossil and sedimentary layered rocks that show signs of thousands and millions of years of small changes, not a single gigantic layer of floodwater.

 

[Platte]

To avoid derailing a thread about Creationist ideas with random arguments about evolution and paleontology I have started a new thread. I hope @Platte can comment here.

I don't understand why you would expect to only find extinct species.

If all the animals were killed why wouldn't all the lions, tigers, cows, elephants and rhinos be mixed in with the dinosaurs?

There's also the really big problem in that there isn't any evidence for a world wide flood.

The world is full of fossil and sedimentary layered rocks that show signs of thousands and millions of years of small changes, not a single gigantic layer of floodwater.

Most of the fossils we have found are from extinct animals (factual statement) - I attribute that to aninals before the flood were different (not necesarily extinct) and so of course the fossils would appear to be from animals that no longer are living. All the lions, tigers, elephants, etc ARE mixed in with the dinosours....they were just much older and larger so they looked different than a typical animal looks today...tigers had much larger teeth since they were much older - we call them Sabertooth Tigers....I think elephants were much much larger and we call them Mammoth elephants...but these are the same species that exists today...just looked different due to age and environment of the pre flood day

 

[Shemjaza]

Most of the fossils we have found are from extinct animals (factual statement) - I attribute that to aninals before the flood were different (not necesarily extinct) and so of course the fossils would appear to be from animals that no longer are living. All the lions, tigers, elephants, etc ARE mixed in with the dinosours....they were just much older and larger so they looked different than a typical animal looks today...tigers had much larger teeth since they were much older - we call them Sabertooth Tigers....I think elephants were much much larger and we call them Mammoth elephants...but these are the same species that exists today...just looked different due to age and environment of the pre flood day

But there are not sabre toothed tigers or mammoths mixed in with dinosaurs, those are animals from distinct environments.

A dinosaur is not just a giant lizard, they are fundamentally different kind of animal. In fact the different varieties of dinosaur are as diverse as mammals are today.

 

[Larniavc]

we call them Sabertooth Tigers.

I’m concerned that some one in this debate uses the term ‘sabre tooth tiger’ may lack the academic chops in this field to have an effective discussion.

 

[Platte]

But there are not sabre toothed tigers or mammoths mixed in with dinosaurs, those are animals from distinct environments.

A dinosaur is not just a giant lizard, they are fundamentally different kind of animal. In fact the different varieties of dinosaur are as diverse as mammals are today.

The fossil records of dinosaurs and Sabre tooth tigers are formed from the same event and time frame. They are not located in the same area as expected most animals of the same species tend to gather together.
Most dinosaurs have characteristics very similiar to known animals today.

 

[Platte]

I’m concerned that some one in this debate uses the term ‘sabre tooth tiger’ may lack the academic chops in this field to have an effective discussion.

Those are interchangeable terms.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Most dinosaurs have characteristics very similiar to known animals today.

And yet they share so few characteristics with reptiles. Their hip placement for one thing, meaning that they have straight legs rather than the splayed out legs that other reptiles do. Then there's also the sauropods with their gigantic necks and tails, Parasaurolophus with its distinctive head crest, triceratops with its three horns and neck frill, Spinosaurus with its crocodilian-esque snout and unique back sail/fin.

Those are interchangeable terms.

Not really since sabre tooth tiger is a very outdated and erroneous name for the smilodon, which shares very little relation to modern felines, large or small.

 

[Platte]

And yet they share so few characteristics with reptiles. Their hip placement for one thing, meaning that they have straight legs rather than the splayed out legs that other reptiles do. Then there's also the sauropods with their gigantic necks and tails, Parasaurolophus with its distinctive head crest, triceratops with its three horns and neck frill, Spinosaurus with its crocodilian-esque snout and unique back sail/fin.



Not really since sabre tooth tiger is a very outdated and erroneous name for the smilodon, which shares very little relation to modern felines, large or small.

I'm being simplistic intentionally - ever seen an old guy - always have really big ears and huge nose....not the typcial characteristic of a normal person...but age does this - the ears and nose keep growing. Imagine animals hundreds of years old...characteristics would as expected be different - probably very different and to a much higher degree. Again being simplistic but think in those terms

 

[Platte]

Not really since sabre tooth tiger is a very outdated and erroneous name for the smilodon, which shares very little relation to modern felines, large or small.

This is a very informal discussion - I understand your comment but allowance should be made in this informal/friendly discussion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm being simplistic intentionally - ever seen an old guy - always have really big ears and huge nose....not the typcial characteristic of a normal person...but age does this - the ears and nose keep growing. Imagine animals hundreds of years old...characteristics would as expected be different - probably very different and to a much higher degree. Again being simplistic but think in those terms

That's not the same thing at all. Biology does not work like that since there is such a thing as the square cube law. When that law is applied to biology like animals, animals would no longer be able to survive because their muscles would be crushing their respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Whales can only grow as large as they can because they have the buoyancy of the water to support them. Take a whale out of water and its lungs are crushed because of its giant size.

Dinosaurs only were able to grow to the great sizes that many were capable of were because of the change in oxygen levels in the world at the time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is a very informal discussion - I understand your comment but allowance should be made in this informal/friendly discussion.

I can be friendly about it but you are using incorrect terminology and that needs to be corrected.

 

[Platte]

That's not the same thing at all. Biology does not work like that since there is such a thing as the square cube law. When that law is applied to biology like animals, animals would no longer be able to survive because their muscles would be crushing their respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Whales can only grow as large as they can because they have the buoyancy of the water to support them. Take a whale out of water and its lungs are crushed because of its giant size.

Dinosaurs only were able to grow to the great sizes that many were capable of were because of the change in oxygen levels in the world at the time.

I 100% agree the oxygen levels in the world contributed to "allow" but its the age and time that caused the large growth

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I 100% agree the oxygen levels in the world contributed to "allow" but its the age and time that caused the large growth

Except that age and time are not the sole or main contributing factors that allow animals to grow excessively large. You need the right amount of food, the right amount of water, the right atmosphere, the right genetics and the right body plan something to grow to something like the size of an Argentinosaurus.
Time and age alone are not enough.

 

[Astrophile]

Most of the fossils we have found are from extinct animals (factual statement) - I attribute that to aninals before the flood were different (not necesarily extinct) and so of course the fossils would appear to be from animals that no longer are living. All the lions, tigers, elephants, etc ARE mixed in with the dinosours....they were just much older and larger so they looked different than a typical animal looks today...tigers had much larger teeth since they were much older - we call them Sabertooth Tigers....I think elephants were much much larger and we call them Mammoth elephants...but these are the same species that exists today...just looked different due to age and environment of the pre flood day

What about the large Mesozoic marine reptiles, the ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, pliosaurs and mosasaurs? What modern marine animals did they correspond to?

 

[Platte]

I can be friendly about it but you are using incorrect terminology and that needs to be corrected.

Not sure what you mean - I used the term sabertooth tiger...nothing needs to be corrected about that. Unless you think saber tooth tiger or saber-tooth tiger is more appropriate - either of which is silly and unimportant.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not sure what you mean - I used the term sabertooth tiger...nothing needs to be corrected about that. Unless you think saber tooth tiger or saber-tooth tiger is more appropriate - either of which is silly and unimportant.

I said what it is. It's an incorrect term for animal that did not exist. The animal you are thinking of is the Smilodon.

 

[Astrophile]

I'm being simplistic intentionally - ever seen an old guy - always have really big ears and huge nose....not the typical characteristic of a normal person...but age does this - the ears and nose keep growing. Imagine animals hundreds of years old...characteristics would as expected be different - probably very different and to a much higher degree. Again being simplistic but think in those terms

According to Chapter 6 of The Dinosaurs Rediscovered by Michael J. Benton, the annual rings in the bones of dinosaurs show that even the largest species did not live much beyond 50 years, and that their growth slowed down or stopped during about the last ten years of their lives. These annual rings also imply that there were seasons during the time that the dinosaurs were alive.

 

[Platte]

According to Chapter 6 of The Dinosaurs Rediscovered by Michael J. Benton, the annual rings in the bones of dinosaurs show that even the largest species did not live much beyond 50 years, and that their growth slowed down or stopped during about the last ten years of their lives. These annual rings also imply that there were seasons during the time that the dinosaurs were alive.

Thats funny

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thats funny

Why is it funny?

 

[Platte]

An

I said what it is. It's an incorrect term for animal that did not exist. The animal you are thinking of is the Smilodon.

So you are correcting me on a term for an animal that did not exist? LOL OK I got it.