Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Print Friendly and PDF
Hypsilophodon-120227

Did Crocodiles Dine on Dinosaurs?

Posted on

Hypsilophodon-120227

By R. L. David Jolly

According to evolutionary theory, crocodiles first evolved about 240 million years ago.  Dinosaurs first evolved around 230 million years ago.  Over the next 165 million years, dinosaurs experienced a fair amount of evolutionary changes, while crocodilians, on the other hand, experienced relatively little evolutionary changes.  When the supposed asteroid struck earth some 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs were wiped out and the crocodilians survived virtually unchanged.

Based upon this basic myth, evolutionists try to piece together a past that never happened.  They take good scientific facts and then plug them into their flawed evolutionary program, which then spits out interpretations that are no better than those of a gypsy fortune teller.

For instance, a recent report from researchers at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, that looked at the possibility of crocodilian predation on young dinosaurs.

A number of predators and scavengers leave teeth marks in the bones of their prey.  In many instances, those teeth marks can be identified, letting the researchers know what animal either killed or scavenged on the animals belonging to the bones.

The South Dakota researchers used that information to examine dinosaur bones that were unearthed at the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah. On the thigh bone of a small herbivorous dinosaur known as a hypsilophodontid, the researchers discovered a small conical tooth actually embedded in the bone.  The tooth measured less than 0.1 inch in diameter.  It matched the teeth of a small crocodilian found in the same strata.

They determined that the dinosaur only weighed about 28-46 pounds and the crocodilian measured between 3-6 feet long.  Clint Boyd, a vertebrate paleontologist at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology commented about the findings, saying:

“I was very surprised to find such clear feeding traces on such small bones.  It shows the importance of carefully evaluating all the fossils collected from an area, and not assuming that some fossils won’t be important just because they are very small or not completely preserved.”

“Usually people tend to focus on the dangers that big, adult dinosaurs were having to deal with, but this study shows that even though dinosaurs were the dominant animals during the Cretaceous, they still had to worry about predators as soon as they were born.”

Good evidence and good science conducted on the bones.  The problem is that they dated the bones to around 75 million years ago during the Cretaceous.  They also refer to the crocodilian as an ancestor to modern crocodilians.

So often, I’ve seen good science ruined by erroneously trying to plug it into the evolutionary paradigm that may be accepted as fact today and changed tomorrow.

On the other hand, I interpreted the evidence as having taken place during the flood.  I view the Cretaceous not as an ancient time period but as an ecological zone that was created as the Genesis flood rose and covered different habitats.  The dinosaurs and crocodilian occupied the same ecological life zone which was subsequently covered up at one point during the flood.  Prior to the flood, the crocodilian fed or predated upon the small dinosaur and evidence was preserved by the rapid siltation of the Flood.

Same evidence and same science, different interpretation based upon a biblical foundation instead a godless evolutionary foundation.

Reference:

Choi, Charles.  Crocs Dined on Young Dinos, Scientists Say, Live Science, Feb. 27, 2013.

Rocks, Fossils, and Dinosaurs

It is interesting to note that absolutely no transitional forms have been found in the fossil record connecting any of the major groups of living creatures before or since Darwin for which peer reviewed support can be offered. Most fossils appear very similar to their living counterpart. It is as if they were created yesterday. Rocks, Fossils and Dinosaurs is a fresh look at this age-old controversy, written in a nontechnical way.

“Dr. Tom Sharp has captured a mighty evidence for creation and he has accomplished this task in a highly readable fashion. The fossil record emphatically does not provide support for evolution, but instead points to creation – not very long ago, and by a Designer like the One we read of in Scripture. Students confronted with agressive evolutionary claims would greatly benefit from reading this book. ” Dr. John Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research

Print Friendly and PDF
 

This entry was posted in Age of the Earth, Apologetics, Biology, Christian Values, Creation Worldviews, Evolution, History, Origins, Science, Theology, Worldviews and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

    It is the same evidence, but it is hardly the same science. Simply claiming something occurred during an imaginary flood is not science, it is science fiction.

    • SirWilhelm

      Calling the Flood imaginary, requires ignoring all the evidence that there was a world wide flood, including the evidence that has been misinterpreted as evidence of ice ages. Science fiction has led to many practical scientific advances. It’s the theoretical sciences that lag behind, because they fail to abide by the very scientific method they espouse, because they ignore the observations, gathered by the instruments developed by practical scientists, that falsify their theories. Evolution, is one of those theories, and by choosing to support evolutionary interpretations, you support a belief system very similar to a relgiion’s.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        No, it is stating a fact. The flood could not have occurred as described.

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

      • Seymour Kleerly

        How would the authors of the Bible know it was a worldwide flood? They knew nothing of other continents and still believed the earth was FLAT. Sadly some of you guy’s still might believe that!

        • SirWilhelm

          I was not referring to the Biblical version of the Flood. It is a condensed and edited version of other ancient texts, in which the leader of the gods ordered the other gods to let the coming Flood destroy humanity, which they had created with genetic engineering. The god that had conceived of creating man, did not want to see his creation destroyed, and warned one of his sons, by a human woman, and helped him build the ark, and some of his lesser gods, crewed it. The gods boarded spacecraft and went into orbit to avoid the Flood, and wait out it’s effects. Does that sound like I believe the world is flat? There are over 250 versions of the Flood that have been documented to exist, from all over the world, before their societies had heard about the Bible, and it’s version. They differ in detail, but not in the theme of a world wide catastrophe, that has become known as the Flood. The rising and falling of land, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, debris falling from space, cosmic scale lightning, movement of the Earth’s crust, were also some of the events of that catastophe. None of that is in the Bible, but, the information is out there, if you care to look for it.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            spacecraft? rotflmao

          • Esther
          • SirWilhelm

            We have spacecraft today. Is it so hard to believe someone had them in the past? Admittedly, ours are very primitive, but, we’ve only had civilization for circa 6,000 years. Do you think we are the only intelligent life in the Universe? Do you think it’s not possible that life, even intelligent life, existed in the Universe before life appeared on Earth? If life can spread across our planet, and exist, and survive in the most unlikely places, do you think life could not find a way to spread across the Universe, if the Universe is anywhere near as old as our scientists think it is? I’m glad I gave you a good laugh, now use the intelligence the Creator gave you, to consider possibilities outside your belief systems.

          • Seymour Kleerly

            I’m sure catastrophic floods did occur worldwide, but probably not at the same time (era) or by the same event. Early man describes these separate events in similar fantastic metaphors.

          • SirWilhelm

            That’s your opinion. Is it based on evidence, or just your desire to believe there was no world wide Flood as the Bible maintains? Are those seperate events, or the same event seen from different perspectives, because they had different effects, in different parts of the world? Are they fantastic because the scale of the events were so huge, they were barely comprehensible to “early man”? Were they metaphors, or attempts by people to describe something they, and no one else, had ever seen, or experienced, before, or since?

          • Seymour Kleely

            It could have been a world wide flood which looks like it might happen again with the Ice caps melting. The problem is believing each different culture’s Mythology about the event. They’ll all Metaphors!

          • SirWilhelm

            That’s you’re belief. You choose to believe they are metaphors. On the other hand, they could be metaphors for real events they didn’t have the ability to describe any other way, because they were beyond their experience.

    • edc

      Jeff, read the preceding article, “Cheating With Chance”, and see how logical your theories are.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        I did read it. You cannot compute the odds of the first life occurring occurring when you do not even know what the first life looked like. The entire article is silly.

        • Esther

          Just being life it is going to be quite complex, single cell life, single stands of viruses are complex, Jeff.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Which does not change the reality that no one knows what the first life looked like.

          • Esther

            Computing the odds of formation of the first living thing is what I meant, regardless of what the first life looked like.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You cannot compute the odds of something occurring when you do not even know what it is that is being described.

          • Esther

            I suggest you consider the complexity of any life form whatsoever. I know the computation of two atoms in doing the simplistic task of a harmonic oscillator is extremely complex mathematics. I did that myself. It took 3 years to complete the calculation. So life, vastly more complex then two atoms interacting, would therefore, as the article “Cheating with Chance” states, imposes many magnitudes of limitations. I just don’t know Jeff. I just have faith in my Father in heaven. I can’t help it any more than you can not believe.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That still not make any difference since we do not know what the first life looked like. Apples and oranges.

          • Esther

            Doesn’t matter what it looked like, the only thing that matters is that was life, and life if complex.

      • Esther

        That article needed to be published in this forum. Thank you.

    • edc

      It is people like you that really have an “imagination”. Too bad it is used in the wrong direction.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Of course I have an imagination. Everyone does. That has nothing to do with using science and pretending to use science. Creationists do not even do science studies. They merely read what actual scientists do and then claim it is wrong since it ignores god.

  • Robert

    Jeff, no one is denying you your wish to be a monkey’s uncle. Just don’t try and put us in the same bottle of denial.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Your ancestry with primates exists whether you like it or not. Science is not concerned with what people want but with reality.

  • blackhawk

    Why does science work so hard to prove the unprovable??? Is it ego or just plain foolishness ?NOTHING CAN EVER BE MADE FROM NOTHING . Prove that FACT before you look for a fountain of youth .

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      The Big Bang theory does not say anything came from nothing. It says all matter and energy in the explosion was contained in a singularity. the matter and energy always existed.

      It is actually Christians who claim their god created everything from nothing.

      • blackhawk

        Is this guy for real / There must be an empty space where his brain should be located.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          I am merely explaining what the theory states. That you misunderstand it is your problem, not mine.

      • Jimmee41

        How about PROVING that THEORY?????

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Theories are never proven. They can only be shown to be wrong.

          • Jimmee41

            I know that…you know that…but do they????…let them try!!!

      • SirWilhelm

        What made it explode?

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          We do not know yet.

          • SirWilhelm

            Then how can you claim that a singularity exploded? That there was a Big Bang?
            Or, don’t you have to consider the possibility that something created the Universe, because something had to initiate it, for it to exist? I’m not a Christian, but, I believe in a Creator of All Things. A spiritual entity. Not one of many flesh and blood entities, that passed themselves off as gods to primitive humans that were like children to them, because they had advnaced technology.
            Life, like the Universe, had to start somehow, and that starter being a Creator, makes more sense than random chance.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            How do we know the Big Bang happened?

            Astrophysicists have uncovered a great deal of compelling evidence over the past hundred years to support the Big Bang theory. Among this evidence is the observation that the universe is expanding. By looking at light emitted by distant galaxies, scientists have found that these galaxies are rapidly moving away from our galaxy, the Milky Way. An explosion like the Big Bang, which sent matter flying outward from a point, explains this observation.

            Another critical discovery was the observation of low levels of microwaves throughout space. Astronomers believe these microwaves, whose temperature is about -270 degrees Celsius, are the remnants of the extremely high-temperature radiation produced by the Big Bang.

            Interestingly, astronomers can get an idea of how hot the universe used to be by looking at very distant clouds of gas through high-power telescopes. Because light from these clouds can take billions of years to reach our telescopes, we see such bodies as they appeared eons ago. Lo and behold, these ancient clouds of gas seem to be hotter than younger clouds.

            Scientists have also been able to uphold the Big Bang theory by measuring the relative amounts of different elements in the universe. They’ve found that the universe contains about 74 percent hydrogen and 26 percent helium by mass, the two lightest elements. All the other heavier elements — including elements common on earth, such as carbon and oxygen — make up just a tiny trace of all matter.

            So how does this prove anything about the Big Bang? Scientists have shown, using theoretical calculations, that these abundances could only have been made in a universe that began in a very hot, dense state, and then quickly cooled and expanded. This is exactly the kind of universe that the Big Bang theory predicts.

            http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

ABOUT US | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY COPYRIGHT © 2014. CREATIONREVOLUTION.COM IS A MEMBER OF Liberty Alliance. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.