How do creationists explain the whole "dinosaur fossil record" thing?

Question

If all dinosaurs existed at the same time and all died in a giant flood, then why are "earlier" dinosaurs found deep in the earth and "later" dinosaurs found near the surface?

Answer 1

The only way to make a fossil is for it to get buried very quickly where scavengers can’t find it and oxygen can’t get to it. It also takes the right amount of water and the right kinds of minerals to be buried in. If this happens correctly, you just might get an imprint or some bones or bone fragments that become mineral rock.

Now, all those computerized documentaries on dinosaurs makes it look like we know quite a bit about them. The truth is, we usually just dig up bone fragments and they don’t come with a label and a Polaroid picture telling us when and how they lived and what they looked like. Most of it is guesswork.

As Michael Lemonick has said, “Paleontology is much like politics: passions run high, and it’s easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts.”

That is why they sometimes put the wrong head on the wrong dinosaur (like with the Brontosaurus). That is why they argue if the T. rex was a predator or a scavenger, and some are now suggested that there were T. rex that even ate plants as well. And that is why debate has raged about whether dinosaurs were warm or cold-blooded. It’s even difficult to tell whether a dinosaur is male or female from its bones.

Now, because fossilization usually requires large quantities of water, many scientists are starting to think that local flash floods caused them. Creationists of course believe they are better explained by Noah’s worldwide flood. There is all kinds of evidence that extreme flooding causes layers of sediment like we find in the “geologic column.” We can see it in real life and reproduce it with flume experiments.

So what do we find? We find marine organisms in the lower layers and then vertebrates in the higher levels as you go up. Evolutionists say that shows the history of evolution. Creationists say that shows the organisms that could survive longer and were not buried till later in the flood—it makes sense. And as Scott Huse has said, “In the field every conceivable contradiction to the proposed ideal sequence of the geologic column is found.” They are constantly having to explain things away like the Cambrian explosion, or fossils too low or too high in the geologic column, or polystrate fossils (fossils that extent through several layers of strata), or sedimentary strata found in the wrong stratigraphic order, or missing strata, or thousands of feet of strata that is bent and folded without cracking (which must have happened while it was all still wet), or strata that are supposed to be millions of years apart that are inter-bedded.

Now many and probably most of the fossils we find today were laid down in the flood. Most of the fossil record is the graveyard of the flood. As Ken Ham has said, “If Noah’s flood really did occur, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.” And guess what we find? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

Let’s think for a second—it takes a lot of sediment to cover a huge dinosaur. And dinosaurs fossils are often found in large bone-beds or dinosaur graveyards, where many dinosaur bones are packed together in a chaotic jumble. These are found in places through the whole world. The existence and characteristics of dinosaur graveyards provides strong support for the Genesis Flood. The evolutionists of course have to say these happened in catastrophic local floods.

Again, fossils don’t come with labels telling you how old they are. So, what about radiometric dating methods; don’t they prove millions of years? Well, these are far from infallible—they are indirect methods based on quite a few assumptions, and evolutionary geologists themselves will often not accept a radiometric date unless they think it’s correct (i.e. it matches what they already believe). There are plenty of scientists who question their accuracy. For instance, the “RATE” project has discovered several striking examples of contradictions in these dating methods. If you want, you can get their book or movie called Thousands...Not Billions and learn about some of their remarkable results. If you do a bit of research, you will find that there is a lot of proof of radiometric dating not being accurate (like dates of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades).

OK, is there evidence of younger dates for dinosaur fossils? Oh yeah.

In 1981, scientists identified unfossilized dinosaur bones which had been found in Alaska 20 years earlier. Philip J. Currie (an evolutionist) wrote about this and some similar finds, “An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.”

As Dr. Margaret Helder has said, “How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived.”

In 1990 a sample of various dinosaur bones were sent to the University of Arizona for a “blind” Carbon-14 dating procedure. “Blind” in the sense that they didn’t tell them what the bones were. The oldest date they got was 16 thousand years. Now I don’t think they are even that old, but that’s a far cry from the millions of years evolutionists suggest. If dinosaurs became extinct more than 65 million years ago, there should be no carbon-14 left in their bones. Evolutionist of course say the samples must have been contaminated.

In 1990, Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized and even found what appeared to be blood cells in them. Dr. Mary Schweitzer said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” How indeed?

And then in 2005, they found an even greater discovery. Science Daily website said (March 25, 2005): “Dr. Mary Schweitzer . . . has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.”

As Dr. David Menton said, “It certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.” Wouldn’t that be a hit for the meat industry if we could figure out how to preserve meat for so long?

This evidence fits much better with Noah’s flood 4-5 thousand years ago, and a recent extinction of dinosaurs.

So, where are all the human fossils with dinosaurs? Actually, where are all the human fossils with any animals? Human fossils are extremely rare, and that’s what you would expect since they would have survived the longest in the flood.

As Dr. Jonathon Sarfati said, “The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure...”

With your line of reasoning, you can’t prove that man and Dodo birds lived together since their fossils are not found together. If human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren’t buried together. It is pretty unlikely that humans and dinosaurs would live together for the most part (Would you choose to live near a large carnivorous dinosaur?).

Answer 2

Never said there were no dinosaurs. What about the people fossil record thing? Oh were still here. If you read the book of Job it describes a dinosaur. Why is it not called dinosaur? The KJ Bible 1611 the word dinosaur was never used until the 18 th century. Have a great night find the truth and Peace out............

They did not die in the flood they were on the Ark with Noah and his family. Job is after Noah. Noahs in Genesis first book of the Bible Job is some books later. Peace out once again...........

Answer 3

It's interesting to note that all the "credible scientists" used to contradict the theory of evolution are fundamentalist Christians and Biblical literalists. This very fact annihilates their objectivity completely. It's like asking an Islamic Jihadist holed up in a cave in Pakistan to comment upon the wisdom of Free Speech law in Switzerland.

Answer 4

When you talk about the fossil record, don't forget to include those fossils in which human foot prints are intermingled among the dinosaur foot prints. They are real!

Dinosaurs still exist; however, since the flood, all life has been shortened, so they don't live several hundred years to grow so big any more.

Horses, humans, dogs, etc, grow to a certain size then continue to age without getting bigger.

Lizards, turtles, alligators, certain fish, and certian other animals continue to grow larger as they age.

By way of example, if you allow a lizard to grow 200 years, you'll have your dinosaur. Right now, they just don't get old enough.

Answer 5

Who told you that Creationists believe that all the dinosaurs died in the great flood? I don't remember seeing that in the Bible?

Answer 6

First, you have to ASSUME that your carbon dating and radiometric dating methods are correct.....

"There are various...radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates.

TO DERIVE AGES FROM SUCH MEASUREMENTS,
UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE TO BE MADE SUCH AS: [emphasis mine]

The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

Decay rates have always been constant.

Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

There Are Patterns in the Isotope"

Answer 7

I have heard this once, and it does not represent what my Church believes or teaches or what I believe, but it is something to think about.

All things must be done in order, you can't make something out of nothing, you need atoms, molecules, etc. God follows those rules. Thats why it took so long to create the Earth. what i have heard is that Parts from different worlds were put in this earth to provide for the future, so fossils are used for Gas. It's just a thought from someone I heard once. But it does make a little sense.

Answer 8

They claim that all fossil strata were sediments laid down successively by a global flood.

They say the fossil record appears stratified because the heavier animals and plants fell to the bottom first and the lighter ones later.

Errr.... Yes, I know..... but you asked.

Oh, and Ned: you might enjoy this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtFULWXjHJes.yt7EYiR_.Dsy6IX?qid=20070824171500AASIxT3&show=7#profile-info-OSNxR7UDaa
.

Answer 9

1. By misdefining terms like natural selection, that it is based on chance.
2. Misrepresenting disputes between scientists as proof that evolution isn't consistent.
3. Taking quotes from scientists out of context.
4. Making straw man arguments.
5. Preying on the ignorant and supersticious.
6. By ignoring the fossil record, and discoveries made in geochemistry, genetics, zoology and allied fields.
7. By publishing phony science magazines like "Answers" that have a "National Geographic" look to them.
8. By seeking out the handful of scientists who reject evolution and parading them around as true scientists victimized by the secular establishment.
9. and anything else they can think of......

.

Answer 10

Result of bones buried during the flood.

Answer 11

Poorly ,usually they invoke Satan and say it is all a plot just to trick you!
Though I'm sure there a re few that do not need to have a literal interpretation. I've never met any but..................