Did any sea dinosaurs live at the same time as the Mammoths?
470758
Nothing that was fully aquatic, but penguins, puffin relatives, fulmars, ducks, and many other sea birds would have evolved by then.\n\nIf you are referring to plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, etc., they weren't dinosaurs and were long extinct by the time mammoths came around.
708537
Other than dinosaurs? \n\nMammoths, Mastadons, Giant Sloth, Sabertooth tiger, Passanger Pigeon.
386614
Penguins, bears and seals. Whales. That is a consensus. As for the flaura, lichen ... try looking the remainder up.
542027
Reminder: 5n Theory, all continents used to be attached to one another- so in theory this is highly possible- if two of every species has moved from place to place. Also remember, animals have a good sense of unusual events happening, like earthquakes and things, so they might have had the sense to know where to go. Then you might ask about the unicorns, but it is said that they were too stubborn to get on the ship... dragons and pegasuses... I have no idea about.
477598
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.
613043
Probably not.  Though I've lost the reference, I remember reading once that large animals (wolves, saber-toothed tigers, mammoths, etc.) would only have to get stuck and die together once a decade to produce the number of bones that have been found there.
341956
I was taught that most dinosaurs died out in the flood, but there are references to massive creatures such as the Leviathan and Behemoth in Job that could have been dinosaurs.\n\nI wonder why every culture has tales of "dragons". One idea is that this is so because the early humans had contact with dinosaurs which are also "great lizards" and then some properties like breathing fire got added in the thousands of years that these legends have been around.\n\nAccording to some theories, the Loch Ness monster is a dinosaur.
169702
-they were excellent mothers\n-the most ferocious lived in the cretacious period in the ocean.\n-a t-rex bite was so powerful, scientists have found teeth marks on fossils.\n-when brontosaurus flicked its tail, the sound was so crisp, it broke the sound barrier.
292755
On land, the elephant.  In the sea, the whale shark, however, more and more evidence is pointing towards giant squid that, until recently, was thought to be just a myth.
729744
Yes there was, it was the richest Dinosaur on the Earth. It had "piles of money"\n\nI was having a pint with my mate when I told him I had to go as the wife was expecting me. He said have another pint and when you get home, creep upstairs, dive under the duvet and give her some oral. She will be so pleased she will forget that you are late.\nHe said it always worked for him.\nAfter another 5 pints, I did what he told me, she loved it, was moaning and groaning in Ecstasy. I thought that's great but decided to wash my face and clean my teeth before getting into bed. I went in the bathroom and my wife was sat on the toilet.\nI said "what the fcuk-- she said "Quiet you will wake my Mother
779028
No skeletal remains have yet been unearthed that match the classic dragon profile. However, there is some evidence that suggests a few dinosaur survivors may have coexisted with early man, and together with the occasional skeletal piece uncovered thru man's history, could provide the root to all the legends.
173408
Yes, or at least from some predatory archosaurs. There are currently two strong theories, each with their supporters: birds are dinosaurs (Padian, Chiappe, etc.), or birds are non-dinosaur archosaurs (Feduccia).\n\nIf they evolved within the Dinosauria, as much evidence seems to show (see link), then according to a cladistic classification they ARE dinosaurs (the same way that we are Sarcopterygians, even if we're not fish-like anymore).
193198
While it might be possible that some of these creatures exist, it certainly can't be said to be 'probable'.\n\nWe are still finding new species of mammals and birds all the time.  Genetic studies have even shown us that some of the critters we thought we knew are more diverse than we thought.\n\nRecently it was discovered that the species we know as the African elephant is in fact two species, a savannah species and a forest species.  So we have 'found' one of the largest species of land mammal just in the last few years.  Another study found that there was a population of the Bactrian camel (the one with two humps) that was actually a separate species too.\n\nSo it is possible that there may be some critter hidden off in the deep forest somewhere that we've never seen before.  But the chances of something like Bigfoot/Sasquatch remaining undiscovered in the rather well explored forests of North America are rather low.\n\nThe best chance for new, exciting and incredible discoveries are in the seas.  We really have barely scratched the surface in our exploration there, and there could be all kinds of new, even huge and exciting finds down there.\n\nJust in the last few years, the Megasquid was described, whose body is larger than that of the Giant Squid (although the tentacles aren't as long), actual live footage of the Giant Squid was finally taken, and Coelacanths were found off the coast of Indonesia, 10 000 km from where it was thought was the only place they existed.
398212
Check the old maps. Florida was underwater, There was a huge lake where Utah is today. The whale ancestors, alligators, cockroaches.
24541
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.
25686
It is theoritically possible to clone a dinosur from its bones, however it would have to be recent bones to still have marrow cells in the, and since no dinosaurs have died recently then no, it is not practically possible. Plus, you would have to have a surrogate mother large enough to carry a dinosaur feutus to full term.
1143318
no because by any logic those dinosaur couples would not only have crowded everyone else off the ark, but would also have sunk it. since the bible never mentions that the ark sunk due to overweight brontosaurii, dinosaurs are blasphemy.\n\nyou do know that we're both going to hell for being involved with this question? if you bring the sunscreen, i'll bring the shades and Jimmy Buffet tape.