Answers in Genesis posted a great find in their weekly News to Note. They've highlighted a gem from New Scientist titled, “Watery secret of the dinosaur death pose.” Here's the gist of the article: when scientists are lucky enough to find the complete skeleton of a dinosaur, there's a good chance it will have its head thrown backward and its tail arched upward. The position is so common, it has earned its own name, the “opisthotonic death pose.”
What causes the pose has been much speculated. An enduring opinion has been that the pose is the result of the dying creature's death throes. A team from Brigham Young University recently attempted to recreate the condition. Leaving the carcasses of plucked chickens on a bed of sand for three months did not produce the muscle contortions. However, when the scientists placed seven chickens in cool, fresh water, their head was thrown back in seconds.
The article ends saying, “Cutler has confidence in her freshwater study: "Although the roads to the opisthotonic death pose are many, immersion in water is the simplest explanation.”
Needless to say, the finding is significant to the creation theory. Creationists have long held that the majority of fossils were created during the global deluge described in Genesis. These results seem to support that idea. It could be that the dinosaurs were immersed in water (the Flood), their muscles contorted as did the chickens, then they were buried rapidly in sediment – forever preserving their grim posture. And since the pose is so usual and is found everywhere in the world, it suggests the cause was global.
I like NewScientist's opening line, “Recreating the spectacular pose many dinosaurs adopted in death might involve following the simplest of instructions: just add water.” That should be on the mind of every scientist as they examine the world around us. As they consider why the world is as it is, they need to add water to the equation. They need to add the Flood!
16 comments:
Don't you think that jumping from this to a global flood is a tad ridiculous? Water is ubiquitous without a global flood, so no need to invoke something for which there is evidence to the contrary.
PB,
I don't think it's ridiculous in the least. I further disagree with your characterization that it is a "jump" to suggest the Brigham Young findings are consistent with a global flood. Finally, I wonder why you seem quick to reject one, very obvious conclusion on the flimsy grounds that some other explanation exists.
Thanks for your comments and for visiting. Please come back.
God bless!!
RKBentley
I don't think the Palaeobabbler was denying that the Brigham Young findings were consistent with a global flood. He was raising the question of whether a global flood is the most reasonable explanation for them, given that there are many possibilities for a carcass ending up in water that require only local floods, or only flash floods in seasonal streambeds, or only local, non-flooded ponds or creeks. The Great Pyramid is "consistent" with the hypothesis that it was built by thousand-foot high children playing with blocks, but it is at least equally consistent with hypotheses that don't require thousand-foot-high children.
As for why one would reject a global flood, there are various reasons. The current volume of water on the Earth's surface and atmosphere would have to be quadrupled to cover the high mountains. If one posits lower mountains in the past, of course, one ought to be able to provide signs of the massive fracturing and faulting that would be needed to raise the mountains to their present height within the last few thousand years. One ought to be able to point out the channeled scablands and vast drainage canyons along every rim of every continent. And so forth and on.
Steven J,
You said, “I don't think the Palaeobabbler was denying that the Brigham Young findings were consistentwith a global flood. He was raising the question of whether a global flood is the most reasonable explanation for them, given that there are many possibilities for a carcass ending up in water that require only local floods, or only flash floods in seasonal streambeds, or only local, non-flooded ponds or creeks.”
Given that the death pose is a nearly universal feature of dino skeleton finds, I'm not sure local floods are the more reasonable explanation. Remember, it's not simply that their heads were thrown back and their tails arched, they were also PRESERVED that way. Animals left in water tend to decompose or be scavenged rather quickly. For them to be preserved, they had to be submersed in water and then buried before they decomposed.
Besides, PB is bright enough to make his own points. He is the one who used the word “ridiculous” and said it was a jump to go from BY's experiment to the conclusion that this is evidence for a flood.
You said, “The Great Pyramid is "consistent" with the hypothesis that it was built by thousand-foot high children playing with blocks, but it is at least equally consistent with hypotheses that don't require thousand-foot-high children.”
Once in a while, I watch “Ancient Aliens” on TLC. Some of the engineering feats of ancient civilizations have stumped modern engineers. We have found structures with stones weighing as much as 1,000 tons. Even today, we would have trouble moving stones this large. These “scientists” argue that such structures are evidence for aliens having visited the earth and gave aid to the ancients.
I believe ancient man was probably more intelligent than modern man (though they lacked our technology).
You said, “As for why one would reject a global flood, there are various reasons. The current volume of water on the Earth's surface and atmosphere would have to be quadrupled to cover the high mountains. If one posits lower mountains in the past, of course, one ought to be able to provide signs of the massive fracturing and faulting that would be needed to raise the mountains to their present height within the last few thousand years. One ought to be able to point out the channeled scablands and vast drainage canyons along every rim of every continent. And so forth and on.”
Of course I'm going to posit lower mountains in the past. This too is consistent with the evidence since marine fossils are found at the tops of even the tallest mountains. This kind of fits in the “duh” category of scientific conclusions. I could talk a little more about your other points but it's a little outside of the subject of this post.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
RK, Steven is correct, I am not denying the consistency with a global flood, but it seems as though you are denying that this is consistent with an old Earth and no global flood. I am quick to reject a global flood as an explanation because there is no evidence for such a deluge, yet practically every geological observation clearly contradicts one ever having happened. Focussing on one bit of data from dinosaurs and ignoring practically the whole field of geology is foolish.
Your explanation can be rejected because it can only account for this data and falls apart when we look at more data. This finding is not evidence for a global flood, it is evidence that dinosaurs often died and were preserved in conditions involving water (which is no surprise when palaeogeography is taken into account).
PB,
I just think it's funny that you and Steven J seem to be following all over yourselves to deny an explanation that is very obvious to anyone else.
And I will repeat a point I've made before: there is no "evidence to the contrary." You have a different explanation for the SAME evidence.
Thanks again for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
RK, yours is not an obvious explanation, especially when there is evidence to the contrary.
You claim that we have the same evidence, but that is a claim of ignorance. There are things which a global flood cannot explain in the rock record, but that is not all, there is evidence of a very rich and varied history of the planet, with no large gaps to stick a global flood into. There is no positive evidence for a global flood, it is completely absent. All of this is very, very obvious to anyone with even slight geological understanding, especially if they have taken the time to go out into the field.
It is clear that you are denying the obvious explanation in favour of the fantastical. You're going to need some extraordinary evidence to back your claims and it simply does not exist. When your explanations cannot suffice, as yours cannot, then you need a better explanation. Study a bit of geology and you will find that explanation.
PB,
Thanks for your comments but I feel I'm beating a dead horse. I'm not sure how it can be any more clear that we have the same evidence. You have dinosaur skeletons in the “opisthotonic death pose”; I have dinosaur skeletons in the “opisthotonic death pose.” To say they're not evidence for a global flood is akin to saying, “they're not evidence for your theory because they're evidence for my theory.” I'm sure you're absolutely convinced that your theory is the better explanation of the evidence but you do not have a monopoly on the fossils.
I suspect that nothing on this side of heaven could ever disuade you of your views so I'm not really trying to convince you. It's not my job anyway. I'm just trying to plant the seeds; God gives the increase. I also know that sometimes the seeds fall onto stony ground.
Thanks for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
RK,
You are looking at one isolated piece of evidence and ignoring the vast amount which utterly contradicts you. Your explanation cannot go beyond this tiny example. Not to mention, this particular example is not universal in the fossil record.
There is some evidence which only supports one view and not the other (the distribution of trace fossils for example). Creationism cannot explain those things, but evolution can. Creationism therefore has evidence against it and has been falsified.
As for having the monopoly on the fossils, it is true, I do not. However, I actually bother to look at them and try to understand them. You and many other creationists look at fossils and make up all sorts of nonsense, but what use is that? Trust those who actually work with them, who dedicate their lives to the fossils, who can get mind boggling detail where most people would think "that's a curly wurly fossil". The vast majority who work with fossils and have access to them disagree with you.
PB,
You said, “You are looking at one isolated piece of evidence and ignoring the vast amount which utterly contradicts you.”
Really? Do you think I based my belief in creation and a global flood on “one isolated piece of evidence”? This one post may have discussed a particular piece of evidence but my believe in creation does not rest on this one example.
You said, “Your explanation cannot go beyond this tiny example.”
I've posted other examples and many more exist. Remember: the purpose of a theory is to explain all of the evidence. Somewhere or another, ALL of the evidence available has been discussed by creationists.
You said, “Not to mention, this particular example is not universal in the fossil record.”
Did I say it was universal? I was careful to avoid giving that impression. I was also careful to not say something like, “This PROVES there was a Flood.” Indeed, I didn't even say the conclusion was conclusive. For all I know, water isn't the culprit – the study is simply consistent with a global flood.
You said, “There is some evidence which only supports one view and not the other (the distribution of trace fossils for example).”
I think trace fossils are good evidence for my theory. I've discussed some examples already on my blog. I've also read some very interesting articles written by creationists on the subject which are very compelling. So, when you say trace fossils support one view and not the other, you must mean they support my view and not yours OR you've never read creationist papers dealing with the subject.
You said, “Creationism cannot explain those things, but evolution can. Creationism therefore has evidence against it and has been falsified.”
OK. I see which it is. You've never read creationist papers dealing with the subjects like trace fossils.
You said, “As for having the monopoly on the fossils, it is true, I do not. However, I actually bother to look at them and try to understand them. You and many other creationists look at fossils and make up all sorts of nonsense, but what use is that?”
Hmmm. You've created an interesting mix of straw man and ad hominem.
You said, “Trust those who actually work with them, who dedicate their lives to the fossils, who can get mind boggling detail where most people would think "that's a curly wurly fossil". The vast majority who work with fossils and have access to them disagree with you.”
There are theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying God. IT ISN'T EVIDENCE FOR GOD. So please don't tell me that all of these people who study “evolution” is somehow evidence for evolution. It's a blatant appeal to authority.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
RK:
"Really? Do you think I based my belief in creation and a global flood on “one isolated piece of evidence”? This one post may have discussed a particular piece of evidence but my believe in creation does not rest on this one example."
Nothing in geology supports a global flood. You have to resort to cherry picking isolated incidences in order to claim support. You do it, Henry Morris did it, every so-called flood geologist has done it.
"Somewhere or another, ALL of the evidence available has been discussed by creationists."
Then can you please find me some discussion on trace fossils? I've read plenty of creationist propaganda, they ignore swathes of evidence. The more I learn about geology, the more I see that they have ignored.
"I think trace fossils are good evidence for my theory. I've discussed some examples already on my blog. I've also read some very interesting articles written by creationists on the subject which are very compelling. So, when you say trace fossils support one view and not the other, you must mean they support my view and not yours OR you've never read creationist papers dealing with the subject."
Links please.
"Hmmm. You've created an interesting mix of straw man and ad hominem. "
Are you a palaeontologist? Have you had any sort of geological, biological or palaeontological training?
"There are theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying God. IT ISN'T EVIDENCE FOR GOD. So please don't tell me that all of these people who study “evolution” is somehow evidence for evolution. It's a blatant appeal to authority."
That was clearly not my argument. My point was: trust the experts when they unanimously agree on something! I did not use them as evidence for evolution. Not even close.
PB,
You said, “Nothing in geology supports a global flood. You have to resort to cherry picking isolated incidences in order to claim support. You do it, Henry Morris did it, every so-called flood geologist has done it.”
You've contradicted yourself. You said, NOTHING in geology supports a global flood. Then you said we “cherry pick” isolated incidences in order to support it. So if there are isolated incidences, then you can't credibly say “nothing” supports it.
Regardless, I've discussed one example in this post. There's also the fact that marine fossils are ubiquitous and cover even the tallest mountains, nearly the entire earth is covered with sedimentary layers, there are exquisitely preserved fossils all over the world which indicated rapid burial and preservation, etc. There are many facts like this but you don't see them as evidence for creation because circular reasoning blinds you to all other explanations. You explain these things according to your theory and then you see them as evidence for your theory. I've said before, your attitude could be described as saying, “these things aren't evidence for creation because they're evidence for evolution.”
You said, “Then can you please find me some discussion on trace fossils? I've read plenty of creationist propaganda, they ignore swathes of evidence. The more I learn about geology, the more I see that they have ignored.”
I have an idea, why don't you look for them and explain them to me. One thing I've noticed about many evolutionists is that they grossly misunderstand creation. Think about this for a moment: pretend I said to you, “I think the Bible is full of errors.” You then ask me some for examples of errors and I said, “I don't know, I've never read the Bible.” Wouldn't that seem kind of strange to you? That's the impression I have of most evolutionists. Most of them obviously don't have a clue about creationist theories explaining the evidence. They believe in evolution without having even considered arguments to the contrary.
In another forum once, I became frustrated with the militant evolutionists' rude behavior so I decided to play a game. I started a thread called, “Let me show you how it's done.” On that thread, I pretended to believe in evolution again. I wanted the evos to pretend they were creationists and ask me questions. I would show them how they could defend their theory without resorting to insults and logical fallacies. Many of them were shocked that I could cogently discuss evolution and give reasoned arguments why people could believe in the theory. They had simply assumed that I didn't know anything about the theory. In their minds, people who don't believe evolution just don't understand evolution or have never heard the evidence. The funny thing is, a couple of evolutionists tried to do the same (pretend they believed in creation) and quickly found out they couldn't answer even simple questions about it. It seems to me, they were guilty of the same offense of which they accused me.
– continued --
You said, “Are you a palaeontologist? Have you had any sort of geological, biological or palaeontological training?”
Did you know that I've graduated from a Bible college and had many college level courses dealing with Scripture? I also can read Greek and have translated large portions of the New Testament. So why do you continue to question my explanations of Scripture to you? You haven't had formal training in these subjects so just trust my opinion or say, “I don't know.”
You said, “That was clearly not my argument. My point was: trust the experts when they unanimously agree on something! I did not use them as evidence for evolution. Not even close.”
If this is not an appeal to authority, it doesn't even make sense. You seem to say, “Even though the majority of scientists believe in evolution, I know it's not evidence for evolution but since the scientists believe, everyone else should believe too.”
I've gone too long. God bless!!
RKBentley
RK:
"Did you know that I've graduated from a Bible college and had many college level courses dealing with Scripture? I also can read Greek and have translated large portions of the New Testament. So why do you continue to question my explanations of Scripture to you? You haven't had formal training in these subjects so just trust my opinion or say, “I don't know.”"
Is Scripture not available to all? Is theology not something all can engage in? Additionally, theology lacks the objective nature of science. With my own area of study one can be an amateur and contribute enormously and not need to say "I don't know" but you seem to think that finding a few shells and looking at a few creationist websites gives you license to talk authoritatively.
"If this is not an appeal to authority, it doesn't even make sense. You seem to say, “Even though the majority of scientists believe in evolution, I know it's not evidence for evolution but since the scientists believe, everyone else should believe too.”"
That's not a bad summation, makes sense to me. We should accept what they say because they study the evidence. When they tell us what the evidence means, then we should not dismiss it out of hand as you do. How is that not making sense to you?
I accidentally overlooked the first part of your response...
"You've contradicted yourself. You said, NOTHING in geology supports a global flood. Then you said we “cherry pick” isolated incidences in order to support it. So if there are isolated incidences, then you can't credibly say “nothing” supports it."
They don't support it, but are consistent with it. I say nothing supports a global flood because evidence should never be taken in isolation.
"I have an idea, why don't you look for them and explain them to me. One thing I've noticed about many evolutionists is that they grossly misunderstand creation. Think about this for a moment: pretend I said to you, “I think the Bible is full of errors.” You then ask me some for examples of errors and I said, “I don't know, I've never read the Bible.” Wouldn't that seem kind of strange to you? That's the impression I have of most evolutionists. Most of them obviously don't have a clue about creationist theories explaining the evidence. They believe in evolution without having even considered arguments to the contrary. "
I've read plenty of creationist propaganda. I've seen numerous explanations offered to explain body fossils (hydrological sorting, different ecological niches, smarter and faster animals avoiding the flood waters more efficiently and so on). These explanations do not suffice even for body fossils, which can be moved around and transported post mortem. Trace fossils, on the other hand, particularly burrows, cannot be hydrologically sorted, they cannot migrate on their own, and they show drastic changes in habitat in a single location. They also show evolutionary change. How do creationists explain this? I might do a blog on this topic soon.
As for your game, I've done that too. It is easy. Never seen a creationist properly understand evolution and your posts have shown very little grasp of the subject, even with the basics. Your claims about the fossil record might fool laymen, but not just laymen read your blog.
PB,
You're becoming unhinged. Eight comments? Really? I'm going to resist calling it spam but you could at least scale it back a little.
PB, you're a bright guy - but then again, many evolutionists I know are bright people. Even so, they fail to grasp the simplest points. Appeals to authority, red herrings, circular reasoning, bald assertions, and intellectual snobbery - you've demonstrated them all in your recent comments. Did you read my series on logical fallacies? That might help you.
With it being Christmas eve and all, I'm not going to have time to respond to all of your comments. After the holidays, I might get to them but I've devoted a lot of time to these points already and I feel I'm not getting anywhere with them. We'll have to see how I feel.
In the meanwhile, have a wonderful, Christ-filled Christmas and a blessed new year!
RKBentley
Post a Comment