if dinosaurs were still alive would they be used for rodeos like bull riding?
488791
Use them to find and stomp Osama
523945
Based on the accumulating evidence, mammals, birds, and dinosaurs all evolved from reptiles.  In fact, mammals are way older than birds and were contemporary with the dinosaurs.\n\nThe other evidence is that reptiles evolved to fill all ecological niches including the oceans (ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs, turtles, and crocodilians), the skies (pterosaurs), and dominant land animals (dinosaurs).\n\nThey have given live birth (ichthyosaurs), they've been cold blooded and warm blooded (dinosaurs).\n\nI guess the point is that you could go simplistic and make your race not very far evolved from what we think of as reptiles (scaly skin which must be shed, egg laying, cold blooded, forked tongue (snakes)).\n\nOr you could make the race some step in some other direction, scales but with mammary glands, warm blooded, with feathers kind of like velociraptor.  Maybe they developed the truncated rib-cage like that of mammals which allows for tortional twists."\n\nWhat if monkeys were marsupial with scaley skin and they killed their prey by sepsis caused by the nasty bacteria that live in their mouth transfered when they bite their prey (like komodo dragons)?  What if these creatures were the progenitors of humanoid reptiles?
263930
Good question and one for which there is really only a lot of conjecture. Based on the fossil record, there is some belief that some of the dromaeosaurs (Deinonychus, Utahraptor, Troodon, etc.) may have been capable of fairly complex vocalizations. Some of the best evidence, though, comes from fossils of Parasaurolophus. The ellaborate head crest contained a series of air passages that were believed to produce sound, not unlike a trombone. The CNN link below contains a nice article. Beyond vocalizations and the hooting and honking of dinosaurs like parasaurolophus, there is a school of thought that says that the sauropods (the long necked plant eaters) may have cracked their tails like a whip which could have been used for communication with the herd.
194652
Actually, there's a very simple explanation.\n\nDinosaur fossils have been around for tens of millions of years.  They include fossilized bones and teeth, but also fossilized impressions of skin and footprints.  \n\nThousands of years ago, our ancestors stumbled uppon such fossils just as we do today.  They knew nothing about bones turning to rock and they certainly had no idea about the age of these things.  The fossils could have been a month old or a decade.  Still, they never saw any living dinosaurs.\n\nThey made the best assumption that they could - there were huge lizard beasts that used to be common but now were rare.  All of them - some with feet, some without, some with wings, some without - got lumped together, thrown into the blender of folklore and came out as dragons.\n\nAnd since dinosaur fossils are everywhere on earth, dragon myths are everywhere as well.\n\nNow, doesn't that make sense?
130882
Crocodiles or Alligators are the obvious answers... don't forget the Komodo Dragon either, they're a bit on the old side too!
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.
672165
No, Dinosaurs are not a myth.  We have thousands of specimens of fossilized dinosaur remains that indicate that these were indeed real creatures that once lived on our planet.\n\nI have no idea what a "Dimo" is, so I can't answer whether or not the 'Anatomy and Physiology of the Dimo' supports the existence of Dinosaurs, however the anatomy and physiology of archosaurs, avians, and the dinosaurs themselves certainly supports their existence.\n\nThe bone of an animal does not out weigh the flesh.  The skeleton of a 150 pound man would only weigh 10 to 15 pounds.  That comes out to at most about 10% of the weight of the flesh.\n\nWhy wouldn't the creator make carnivores before man?  The bible even says he created the animals before he created man.  Even if you believe the flawed, illogical sequence of creation put forth in the biblical account, there's no reason not to believe that dinosaurs could exist.\n\n'What flood?'  Exactly!  What flood?  There is absolutely no geological evidence that there has ever been a global, total flood that covered the entire Earth in water.  Even if there were, it has nothing to do with the existence or not of dinosaurs.\n\nDinosaurs did not kill themselves off.  The hypothesis with the widest general acceptance in the scientific community is that a massive impact with a meteor or comet at the end of the Cretaceous in conjunction with other stressors brought about the extinction of the dinosaurs.  Certainly no one has ever suggested that the dinosaurs somehow deliberately caused the meteor to crash.\n\nWhat doesn't look natural about their construction in the various re-constructions you have seen?  I have seen some that look very good, and others that look like cheap Hollywood effects (mostly because they are).  I've also seen cartoons where people are depicted with yellow skin, giant bug eyes and three fingers.  That doesn't mean that people don't exist, just that the depiction is not very accurate.  Critters like three-toed sloth, pangolins, sea cucumbers and walking sticks don't look 'natural' either, and yet they do indeed exist.  Just because a creature doesn't meet your expectations of beauty or conform to your notion of what a proper animal looks like doesn't mean they are mythical.\n\nNo one has to lie to get people to 'believe' in evolution.  People who actually look at things like physical evidence and scientific experimentation without jumping to pre-drawn conclusions based on religious dogma are almost invariably convinced of the validity of evolutionary theory.  The only lies are spread by those who refuse to accept evidence that they erroneously believe attacks their religious beliefs.\n\nMan doesn't come directly from a fish.  If you look at the morphological and anatomical similarities between a Sarcopterygian fish and an early amphibian, between an amphibian and a reptile, between a synapsid reptile and an early mammal, between an early mammal and an insectivore, between an insectivore and a prosimian lemur, between a lemur and a monkey, between a monkey and an ape, between an ape and an early hominid, between the hominid and Homo erectus and between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens, you too will see the constant, slow and gradual development of some characters and the conservative retention of other characters that indicates a long and gradual evolutionary process from fish to man.\n\nThe Big Bang theory is a whole 'nother topic, even bigger, you might want to post another question about that.  It too has little to do with the reality of dinosaur existence.\n\nMaybe the book "Jarasic Park" talks about the "myth of Dinosaurus", but the novel "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton which was made into a series of increasingly bad films certainly does not.
150103
>>>>>What color was Tyrannasaurus Rex?\n\nWe have no absolutely no way of knowing.  It almost certainly varied with the age of the animal.\n\nThe young animals almost certainly had feathers, and given their small size it seems reasonably that both the feathers and the skin would have been dark brown or black to enable them to heat from sunlight. The addittion of spots or stripes would add in hiding. The young of most large birds and mammals today are stipe dor spotted so it seems reasonable to assume the same for tyrranosaur chicks.\n\n\nThe adults seem to have lacked feathers, at least for the most part. In that respect they seem to be like elephants rhinos, whales and other large mammals where the young retain at leat sparse hair that is almost totally absent from the adult.\n\nWhat colour the adults were we simply can’t know. Animals of that size generally have little use for camouflage colouration so they can be whatever colour they like. The big question is how much of a role vision played in courtship. If tyrannosaurs were like modern birds we would expect the males at least to have extremely brightly coloured heads at the very least. \n\nSo an olive grey Tyrrannosaur with a bright blue head and big red circles under the eyes is no less likely than any other colour scheme.\n\n\n\nCellar door said “They were just large versions of the lizards we have today.”\n\n\nThey most certainly were NOT large versions of the lizards we have today. They are only very distantly related to modern lizards. The closest living relatives are, not surprisingly, birds. \n\n\nWe aren’t entirely certain what the lifestyle of a T. rex was, they seem to have been a combination of predator and scavenger. In terms of lifestyle the closest living comparison would probably be a lion or hyaena.\n\nThey were in no way lizard-like.\n\n>>>>They went extinct because of a meteor\n\nThat is one theory, but one that is rapidly losing credibility.  There were probably multiple factors leading to the mass extinction that took T. rex along with numerous other species. A comet or meteor impact just doesn’t explain all the observations
212910
It is possible, but unlikely. Either way, I wouldn't go kicking rattlesnakes in rubber boots.\n\nRattlesnakes are really very docile creatures. Unless you're being stupid, your chances of getting bitten are very low. They know they can't eat you, so they aren't going to specifically go out to attack you. They'll only bite if they feel it's necessary for self defense. They aren't stupid - if they waste their venom on you, they don't get any dinner. They will also warn you any time they are scared. You'll usually have plenty of time to back away from them and give them their space so they don't feel threatened.
418542
Pterosaurs do indeed rock.\n\nBut my favorite Mesozoic creatures are the ammonites.  I love those shells with their complicated septa (dividers) inside!  So beautiful, so mysterious.\n\nWhy are they extinct?  WHY?  *sniff*\n\nI'm also fond of a reptile (like the pterandons, not a dinosaur) called Longisquamus.  I just like to say Longisquamus.  It's neat!  It's got huge... somethings sticking out of it's back.  We don't really know what, skin flaps maybe.  It looks weird, what more do you want out of an extinct animal?  :-)
923345
Crocadiles...\n\nSupposing that an impact was the cause of the dinosaur's demise, it would not have been an imediate death.  \n\nAn impact would have thrown dirt into the upper reaches of the atmosphere.  The Sky would have been dark day gray for a long time, and the Earth would have grown cold for years...\n\nThose animals that needed the most food would have died first, and in that order of sucession until the only survivors would have been the small scavengers.  The dinosaurs that could feed on the starved carcasses of the dead.\n\nAnd so the decendents of those survivors have had to continue to evolve to survive this colder and crueller Earth.  \n\nThe would have needed to develop an insulating layer...  Some will tell you the Birds evolved from those survivors, and if they are right then those feathers are a post-Impact survival trait...\n\nThe question has to be if there was an intelligent races of Dinosaurs...  I mean, if we suffered an equally destructive impact today, we wouldn't have the forewarning to see it coming even now...  How much of humanity would survive?  Forty Years of darkness and artic cold...
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.
414778
T. rex (Tyrannosaurus rex) was a large, meat-eating therapod dinosaur that lived during the late Cretaceous period of the Mesozoic era (about 70 to 65 million years ago).\n\nThere is no question that it ate meat, with huge steak-knife like teeth, binocular vision and other adaptations, but paleontologists have argued over whether or not it was a scavenger or active predator.\n\nMany of the proponents of each theory seem to forget that very very few animals are completely either/or.\n\nIn modern times, hyenas are considered scavengers while lions are generally considered top predators.  However, hyenas quite often kill their own prey, coopertating to take down wildebeest or zebras by themselves.  And lions often chase the hyenas off their kills, and scavenge the meal themselves.\n\nSo T. rex could indeed have been an active predator, hunting down or ambushing prey, but also could have been a scavenger, tracking down dead dinosaurs with its keen sense of smell, and it would have been well equipped to drive off almost any other predator that was already at the kill.  Even something as formiddable as a pack of Deinonychus probably would have backed off when T. rex came charging over the hill.\n\nThe fact that T. rex shows adaptations that could have been useful for either lifestyle says to me that they were probably flexible.  They may have acted primarily as scavengers in an area where other predators were common, but would have been able to become the dominant predator in other regions.  \n\nAnimals tend to be more complex than simply either/or statement.  Especially large, adaptable animals.  I think it's likely that T. rex was a predator in some regions, under some circumstances, and in other regions, with different circumstances it was primarily a scavenger.  Even the same animal may have changed its habits over the course of the year as it moved to different regions.
297520
No, not likely. \n\nCoal is formed from (coalified) plant material. Petroleum and natural gas are formed from organic remains of plants, primarily microscopic phytoplankton, and small marine animals called zooplankton. \n\nIn the rare instance that a dinosaur's dead body might have been carried by water into an oxygen poor (anaerobic) environment and quickly buried by catastrophic deposition of shales, there might have been some protein or lipids from that carcass that eventually converted to oil, but it is far more likely that the body of a large organism like a dinosaur would become food for decomposing bacteria and other scavengers long before it had the opportunity to be converted to oil by the process of heat and pressure known as catagenesis.\n\nThere is no truth to the answer that the "traditional theory is that petroleum formed during the same period as dinosaurs" as most of the world's petroleum reservoirs are known to be younger than that, and many are known to be older. One deposit of oil has been found that is only about 4,000 years old. \n\nDr. Thomas Gold's hypothesis of abiotic oil has never been substantiated by any evidence of oil that is NOT from biological sources.  Very few geologists agree with Gold, and none have been able to prove he was correct. There is considerable evidence in the form of molecular structure, isotopic fractionation, and more that proves that little if any oil is from the abiotic mechanism Gold hypothesized. The big problem with Gold's hypothesis is that oil and gas ARE NOT found in igneous rocks, as one answer here suggests.\n\nI'm a petroleum geologist.
1064624
Good point!\nAs for them being veggi beforehand...LMAO! (I wonder what that fossilized *meat* was, found in a dino's stomach? T-Rex, anyone?)\nIt's not just animals either, it goes right down to the microscopic level. I could point out the fact(scary word for xtians!)that there's more prey than predators too...but I won't. \nNature is cruel to be kind.\n\n:)
691388
Since dinosaurs are believed to be reptiles and birds, then yes, all would have been hatched from eggs.
445984
Dinosaurs were very abundant, I couldnt swear that they were the MOST abundant vertebrate.