Daughter doing a project on how the Dinosaurs became extinct. She is in 2nd grade & has to develop a theory?\nShe has come up with the theory that the volcanoes erupting were what actually ended up killing most of the dinosaurs after the asteroid hit. Now I read a new theory that scientists think that there were two asteroids 300,000 years apart and it was the second one that finally finished them off. Any scientists out there who can give us their imput on how the dinosaus became extinct? Theories only, please...because she has to learn how to compare her theory with that of other scientists theories. Don't think they made ME do this in 2nd grade...GEEESH!
210558
Holy cow-thats a Master's thesis project at least!  Ok, there are lots of theories out there concerning a cataclymic hit-and since both she and the people she is comparing also believe in the asteroid theory, we have to just think of all the things that could happen, reasonably:\nThe ashes from the volcanoes could block out the sun so drastically that it became too cold for the dinosaurs to live\nThe ashes blocked the sun out sufficiently to kill the major plant life, so the herbivorous dinos starved, and then the carnivores starved.\nThe volcanoes spewed out sufficient CO2 that the dinos suffocated\nThe volcanoes spewed out toxic gas that poisoned the dinos.\nThe volcanoes subtly changed the climate so that over thousands or hundreds of thousands of year, other lifeforms, such as mammals, birds, and the surviving reptiles, gains a major advantage and caused the dino extinction.\nAbout the meteor:  Either you could hypothesize that the volcanoes erupted spontaneously, and it had nothing to do with meteors, or that the meteors by themselves weren't a killing force but disrupted the crust of the Earth sufficient to open up volcanoes all over the Earth, or that the meteor alone killed most of the dinosaurs, and the resulting volcanoes killed off the rest.\nI didnt mention the effects of tsunamis and earthquakes caused by the volcanoes because that wouldnt reasonably be enough to kill off all the dinos.\nHope those ideas help-good luck.
215878
i don't understand why some atheists think that the existence of dinosaurs is some huge earth shattering knock against the bible.  yeah they existed.  do you have a point you are trying to make?\n\nedit: dude, you think penn and teller are funny?  what's next, pimping carrot top?
9071
We can't really prove it. All their insides were decayed, so the only evidence of them being reptiles is their bone structure. But for all we know, they could have been fuzzy, warm blooded, dinosaurs. There is no way to determine either way scientifically, because we can't see a live one.
619537
That has absolutely no sense at all...\n\nHow do you think the Rocky Mountains and the Andes were formed but by millions of years of earthquakes????\n\nWas it hot then?\n\nOf course not! Some of them occured during the glacial era. No SUVs then!\n\nStop listening to stupid people such as Greenpiss!!!
366123
Why is it that so many Christians are so terribly uninformed about the nature of science?\n\nDo you honestly believe that radio carbon dating is the only dating method used by scientists? Do you know nothing about stratigraphic layering?\n\nVery well.... a basic science lesson...\n\nIf you know about the movement of the earth and the effect water and wind has on wearing away and moving soil to different areas, then you'll understand what such things as sediment are.\n\nThen please take into consideration such things as volcanic eruptions, and the movement of the techtonic plates (which I'm going to assume you understand since it's what causes earthquakes).\n\nWith all of these it's safe to say that older rock is farther down on a rock wall.\n\nNow, when you look at this rock, that means that the newer rock will be on top of the older rock. By looking at the rock, you can safely place the rock into different layers based on the prevaling earth conditions at that time.\n\nSo, animals that die at that time, will fall into that layer of rock. Such as, animals that die this year, will be found in the layer of rock that's laid down this year.\n\nAnimals that died 1000 years ago will be found in the layer of rock that was laid down during that time.\n\nAnd yes, the layering tends to be very noticable. For example... if you had a volcanic eruption at that time, the fallout from the eruption will fall on the earth in that area, creating a discoloration (and obsidian which is created only by volcanos) rock in that time period.\n\nWhat this is called is stratigraphic layering.\n\nSo, stratigraphic layering is one method of determining age.\n\nHowever, it only shows that one fossil is older than another, it doesn't show the exact age of the fossil.\n\nBut there are other methods.\n\nThe one that the Christians seem to fixate on is radio carbon dating (which btw, is reliable to samples in under 60 000 years of age, and within a time period of a few thousand years on either side of the possibile age). \n\nHowever, there are many other methods that are unknown or completely dismissed by Christians.\n\nUranium-thorium dating\nPotassium-argon dating\nargon-argon dating\nFission track dating\nCosmogenic isotope dating\nRubidium-strontium dating\nSamarium-neodymium dating\nRhenium-osmium dating\nLutetium-hafnium dating\nPaleomagnetic dating\nThermo-luminescence dating (quartz exposure to heat)\n\nBut then we add other methods of dating such as\n\nDendrochronology\nIce cores\nLichenometry\nVarves\n\nAnd that only begins to scratch the surface of dating methods used by scientists. All these methods are based on mathmatics and chemistry. Which methods are used depends on whats found in the area and where the sample is found. Such as, something found on the ocean floor will require different dating methods than something found in the mountains.\n\nSo.... we don't know the age and there's no possible way to find out because you're closed mind and uneducated guess says that the only dating method we use is radio carbon dating? I beg to differ.\n\nThere are many many ways to scientifically prove the age of a sample. But you have to be willing to use them instead of dismiss them because "the only thing accurate can be the bible".\n\nYou see, I intended on being a paleontologist for a living and, though I never did finish the degree, I have something of a clue about all this.\n\nThe long and short of it is, religion is wrong and education is the only way to solve that problem. But you have to be willing to become educated. Knowledge is power.\n\nThe fact that you also completely dismiss such things as DNA, x-rays, lasers, etc, shows just how uneducated you are.
360666
Whoa! slow down, there is fossil evidence a transition from reptiles and birds. Most famously Archeopteryx with reptilian skull, teeth, digits, claws, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, and mainly unfused bones, and a few bird traits like a wishbone, wings and feathers!! In older sediments, there are theropod dinosaurs with skeletal similarities to Archeopteryx. In younger sediments, there are several fossils with more birds-like traits, such as Sinornis and Shenzhouraptor and dozens more (wikipedia "fossil birds").\n\nFossils of scales and feathers are very very rarely preserved. Imprints of the Archeopteryx feathers are only preserved because the fossils are embedded in very rare, very fine limestone that used to be used in lithography. It is unreasonable to demand fossil evidence of a transition between scales and feathers. That said, there are several theropod fossils with feathers that have been recently discovered in a fine Chinese deposit, things like Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx and Beipiaosaurus.\n\nBut sure, every detail of the the transition from reptiles to birds isn't documented. Other than demanding an excessive amount of evidence, I really don't know what arguments you can use, I don't think there are any true ones. But you might find some convincing sounding ones on Creationist propaganda websites. It depends on your audience.
216903
Perhaps... the weather during the early part of the Cretaceous was warmer than today (and more uniform.)  I'm actually in the process of writing a paper exploring the possibility of hadrosaur hibernation in northern Alaska.\n\nI took a tour of a dinosaur resource center today.  The tour guide said that ability to adapt is what saved KT survivors.  Crocodiles can go months without eating.  Birds migrate.  Fish could swim to deeper water.\n\nIt is still highly debated to what caused the Cretaceous Tertiary extinction.
500362
That's a great question, esp. since creationists have tried to co-opt evolution to an extent, by saying "Oh, God just took longer than the Bible says" and other claptrap.\n\nI'm not a creationist, but am more interested in the new info on Neanderthals (I majored in Anthropology). Can you add some details to the question and give links to articles? I'd really like to read them! I'm rather behind the times regarding new discoveries, and the Discover Channel's programs about it are SO questionable! I've got to read more!(I'm serious).\n\n***********\n\nThanks---for the links! Can you believe some of the whacko ideas people have? You'd think it hadn't been 150 yrs. since Neanderthal was first found!
439733
You have got to be kidding me. I have a favorite 'prehistoric water-dwelling animal'? I believe in a young earth anyway, so they're not prehistoric. I guess maybe Leviathan.
117619
Man_with_a_Plan has no proof that there is no proof. His statement that no theories are sound or have proof is just his opinion and purely speculatory. There is no proof.\n\nI, on the other hand, like the "Murder on the Orient Express Theory". I think that there was huge changes in ocean circulation due to the continents coming together WELL BEFORE Pangaea formed. The geologic evidence suggests that the extinction happened in different places around the world at different times, which suggests that no single event is responsible. I believe that cooling events like plume volcanism in the Siberian traps coupled with warming events like methane hydrate release and greenhouse effect along with the continental positioning at the time may have worked together to cause extreme changes in ocean circulation at various parts of the world at different times, attributing to the extinction event.\n\nVariations in temperature due to greenhouse warming and on/off sulphide cooling would have had the greatest immediate impact on planktic (ocean surface) and shallow water organisms. I also think that ocean circulation was also greatly affected not only by the temperature variations but also the circumstantial orientation of the continents. Heat transport to the north would have been innefficient and consequently northern regions would have been subject to extreme cooling, even at relatively low latitudes. In the southern regions there would have been a huge temperature gradient between top and bottom waters. If this was enough to stop deep water formation and ocean turnover, benthic (bottom dwelling) species would have been destroyed by the lack of oxygen and intermediate to surface water species would have suffered from a lack of nutrients. Because most of the Earth's life at the time was in the water, I am quite sure that it was likely some change in ocean circulation that dealt the fatal blows to life. Obviously good carbon isotope data from the period would be needed to verify this hypothesis. \n\nLife on land would have suffered greatly by climate changes induced by changes in ocean circulation, as well as the extreme variations in temperature. Tropical species would have been devastated by cooling events caused by the plume volcanism.\n\nThere is lots of proof for everything; there just is no definite information that can, as of yet, say for sure exactly how it all happened. That's a tough thing to do, but I really dislike people who refute the claims of others without presenting any evidence themselves.
313792
Seriously, it's a nice question.\n\nUnfortunately, any worthwhile answer to the details you’ve provided is beyond the scope of Yahoo Answers. You’d do better scouring the web for books on the topic from both perspectives and/or joint perspectives, if you really want to understand what both sides and not just one believes and why.\n\nHowever, I can address your literal question, which is, “Why don’t people ‘get’ this?”\n\nOne of the arguments for why many people “don’t understand” the points you’re contributing is because there has been SUCH an extensive, detailed discourse over the validity of evolution for more than a century, there’s no way to stay abreast of every development and every argument (pro and con) unless one is either working professionally in the field or is committed to the subject as a full-time hobby.\n\n(I’ve dabbled in it on and off over twenty years myself -- just enough to know what it would cost me to really get my hands dirty and be able to rationally debate for either side. And even being the philosophy and knowledge junkie I am, I just have far too many other things on my plate.)\n\nAlong with the breadth of information that must be consumed by the average person is the degree of critical thinking skills needed to weigh such extensive and detailed arguments/evidence for each position, as well as determine which authorities are actually trustworthy and which are not. That’s another full-time job in itself – besides the fact that many people simply aren’t “wired” for that level of analysis.\n\nRealistically, I would NOT expect many people to be well-versed on the geological data regarding evolution, understand the biological and ecological impact, explore all the contexts for how things might most logically fit together, and so forth. The topic is simply far too time- and resource-intensive. \n\nCoupled with this is that your argument seems not to be concerned in the least with the question of “Why?” \n\nWhy are we here? What makes humans different, if we are? And how does this impact us personally in our day-to-day lives? To many people, the evolutionary debate is irrelevant to the daily demands of life and what they want to get out of it. \n\nEvolutionary theory has nothing to do with who they love, what they sacrifice for, who they care about, what they are willing to dedicate their energy to. It doesn’t help them figure out who to marry, or how to pay their bills, or how to help their kids back on a good track, or decide what car to buy. It doesn’t give them any sort of reason for them personally to live.\n\nIn fact, it rather runs counter to all that. If your supposition is completely true, then no inherent purpose to life exists, we’re all just animals cursed by the cosmos with irrelevant self-awareness, and death is the end. Yet most people want to live, and live meaningfully.\n\nThe narrative they want to create of their lives is actually the OPPOSITE of the narrative of evolution, which (to me and others) necessarily devalues human existence.\n\nWe can argue about whether your theoretical narrative is factually true or not (and people of course have been doing so for years); but in the meanwhile, the evolutionary narrative has no value to the majority of people out there, and it even undermines the meaning they believe exists inherently in their lives.\n\nSo I wouldn’t broadly call most people ignorant of evolution, as much as I’d call the details of evolution irrelevant to most people.\n\n(And if evolution's true as you've laid it out, why does it even matter that most people understand it anyway? Their understanding or lack of it has no lasting ramifications.)
207935
I think that you are right. Well you are right. Dinosaurs did get killed by a big comet that hit the earth. Also the sun was blocked out so the plants died therefore the plant eaters died. And if the plant eaters died then the meat eaters would starve and then they would die. And that is how the dinosaurs died. \nFrom KitKat
22241
Hot topic! Woo-eee. This is one of the creationist versus non-creationist hot potatoes!\n\nHere's why, some creationists say if the sun were shrinking steadily, then a  long time ago, it might have been so big and hot as to turn the surface of the Earth into a pit of fire. So nothing would be alive, say when the Earth was a billion years old.\n\nScientists who study the Sun believe that it is a huge ball of glowing gases and matter. Gravity wants to pull all the stuff together, to shrink it. Heat from nuclear and other reactions in the center of the sun wants to blast it all away, to make it grow.\n\nThe Sun seems to have reached a temporary balance point and so it is the size that it is right now.\n\nSome observations were thought to show that the Sun was shrinking during 6 years of monitoring.\n\nOther studies show that the Sun might sometimes expand and shrink at different times. Just like a candle flame will flare up and then settle down again.\n\nThere are no mainstream scientists claiming that the Sun has been STEADILY shrinking since the beginning. They are only investigating to see what might be happening.\n\nSome astronomy research about the possibility of the Sun shrinking has been used by some groups such as the Institute for Creation Research as evidence for a young Earth. The idea being that this research agrees with their way of reading Holy Scripture. Their view is that the Earth is not very old.\n\nOther writers point out that the astronomy research about the size of the sun is interesting and important work about small-scale, and SHORT-TERM changes in stellar structure. And it may or may not have anything to add to the creation debate.\n\nMost solar research and theory shows that stars are initially formed by coalescing matter -- they shrink. But only until a balance is reached. Then over long periods of time stars might oscillate in size as different types of chemical and nuclear reactions take place. Some stars become super-giants, others zoom outward and then crush inwards to tiny sizes. \n\nThese are just theories based on mathematical models and observations of different sized suns and novas. No one knows for sure in a secular sense.
148013
It would really help if you knew where he had found it, fossil assemblages vary from country to country, and even locally. If you know where it is from try contacting the local museum or geology department of the university in that area.
364203
One of your other anwerers mentions the fact that man has only been around for the blink of an eye in relation to the time that dinosaurs existed. Doesn't that make us pathetically arrogant to go thinking that we are the chosen ones? He could well be right and we could be here and gone in less than 200,000 years. As for why the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs; the men who wrote it had no idea that they had existed.
532377
I have studied earth science. \nFirst of all, their scientific name is a (best estimate) i.e. in their opinion. so the wee table is just their own version of what refers to modern day equivalent in science. \nThe only evidence they use to suggest the bible is talking about a dinosaur (rather than elephant or hippo) is a tail like a Cedar.  this could apply to crocodile but they don't mention that - apart from to say "oh -BTW it can't be a croc eh?" without actually giving any decent reason as to why.\nI don't know why I can't read Job 41 18-21without realising it breathes fire.  Such obviousness escapes me.  As also does the beetle chat. err...because one thing (and I haven't bothered to look up if it can) breathes fire, another surely can? What - how does that work? Because a flea can jump 50 times it's own heigth, can I? Also, all earth scientist would love to have a fire breathing lizard, but no studies have proved it's existance.   \nThen later (I'm skimming this now, there's loads of made up stuff), they say "Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information" - well I'd kind of like to see the other way round.  Proving a negative is, well, impossible.  If I said there is a planet made of jelly a milllion light years away, does that make me correct until proven wrong? \nthen they do that wonderful thing of "hmm yes we have evidence of dinosaurs being created one day before man etc etc...but in order to see it you have to read through pages and pages of more subjective chat", personally I gave up cos if they are that confident they would put there evidence right in their on their page, or at least give a description of how.  \nThis page is someone's belief and doen't make me think anything other than what I have studied through rational science.
321242
Most dinosaurs are extinct. The rest just got smaller & more adaptable. All reptiles are descendants from dinosaurs. Crocodiles, Alligators, lizards, snakes, turtles, tortoises, Komodo Dragons are "living" dinosaurs.\nNot counting the stuff that lives in interior (unexplored) africa and the amazon rain forest, and the loch ness monster, which is a pleiosaur or something.\n\nDinosaurs died out a while back. A huge meteor smacked into earth- you can see the impact crater from the hit in Arizona or Russia- the evidence is that earth takes a world-killer on the chin once every 10,000 years or so- which means we're about due for another one. \nThe meteor impact threw up a huge amount of ash and dirt- like when a volcano blows, or after an atomic weapon is used, and blocked out the sun's heat from earth, what they call "nuclear winter". The earth cooled and went into an ice age until all the dust and ash had settled back down from the atmosphere. Since reptiles & dinosaurs & dragons are all cold blooded, they went into hibernation and most died off. Only the smallest and most adaptable survived.\n\nIf it hadn't been for this, mammals would never have evolved into higher life forms, because we kept getting eaten by dinosaurs and dragons.