If you got any form of answers form wikipedia then theres a HIGH chance that its incorrect.

I dont think thats really true. i think that we need to look more on the facts and theries that scientists have came up with like volcanioc gases, and an astroid.

I dont think that the disease would wipe us out. i just think its all a big myth that were going to die in 12/12/12. those people need to realize that its not goin to happen. peoplre are just saying that to get us all scared. and shit like that.

Any serious extinction theory must explain both the organisms that died out and those that survived.

Large dinosaurs and archeosaurs died out; those that had evolved into birds survived.
Mammals survived. Crocodilians survived, as did most amphibians.
Some plants died out.
A whole bunch of small sea critters died out. But not all of them. (I got that from one of Stephen Jay Gould's essays, but I don't remember which one.)

So far, the meteor theory is the best fit I've read, although it doesn't answer all my question. Certainly, a virus wouldn't have killed everything that went extinct.

(This is my first post here. I'm used to arguing on a board where people regularly ask for references, but they're not all that interested in dinosaurs. If necessary, I will dig up my references.)

I would say lots of mythical creatures were the works of imagination sparked by the discovery of fossils. How else would people explain them? They had no living examples to compare them too except snakes and lizards and crocodiles and things like that but they had bones and skulls and things like that so they knew these creatures were alive at some point.
It must have terrified and awed them. So now we have the stories of dragons and gryphons and titans that ruled the earth as well as heroes who tamed them, enchanted them and killed them. The stories evolved down the centuries until they became far more than what we recognize as dinosaur fossils.


never mind, I didn't check the date on the original post...just ignore me

I agree that the theories I've read about don't explain everything. Some explain very little. One thing I do wonder about is how many large dinosaurs do we think there were? Did the population approach our current one (human population) or were there alot more? It seems that such large animals would have a tremendous impact on the environment. I mean a large herd of elephants can really destroy a forest in a very short time. If you scale that up to dinosaur sized herbivores, its almost unimaginable and they probably didn't move too quickly so I would imagine they pretty much ate everything they could reach. Add herds of medium sized dinos crunching through lower vegetation and you get some pretty awesome damage. I can't imagine many large plants recovering enough to keep the big guys fed and they would get weaker.
The boom in large weak animals would have been a holiday for the predators. Why work to hunt duckbills when you can basically eat one of the big guys as it walks along. When it finally fell, every predator for miles could feast until they bust a gut. Now the predators have a population explosion and the young ones aren't big enough to take down a large animal so they put pressure on the smaller and medium sized ones. Gradually all the herbivores are thinned out and there is less prey. Now there is a predator die off. The world population of dinosaurs falls very rapidly over the course of time, maybe it fluctuates back and forth a few times but the really important thing is the change in the rain forest environment. We know that modern rain forests don't recover quickly if at all once the big anchor trees are gone. If it behaved that way back then then there would have been a serious starvation problem for the herbivores. Each time the boom-bust cycles renews itself there are fewer animals in total.
Some types of animals were exempt from the over all destruction because of their habits. I would think insect eaters would do well.(early birds,mammals) Scavengers are pretty strong too (sharks, crocodiles)Amphibians have a toe hold on dry and wet environments giving them access to lots of food and survival options.
Maybe dinosaurs would have continued on for a long time beyond the Cretaceous but BOOM...rock from space hits and changes the whole planet environment just enough so that some weakness in dinos comes into play. They are under stress already and in decline in general. This is just the final straw.
I have no references. This is pure brain vomit. I'm sure someone else has thought of it already but I thought I'd put my two cents in anyway.

I agree that disease probably won't wipe us out but it could certainly 'thin the herd' and make the modern way of life a moot point. It could certainly happen. It has before. as for the 2012 hoopla...I'm with you, its a bunch of hype and people will make fortunes off it.

The simple answer is the 'climate change'. Donosurs and other large animals that have lived when the climate was....have died away as it changed. Because they cannnot adopt themselves ahve extint

Thank,
Joe Wasia

I think that the meteorite knocked the eart off it's axis and thus we have seas where there was land and visa versa. That's why dinosaur bones are found in arid areas.

I found new evidence concerning dinosaurs , if your interested check out genesis park . org

Now I understand you may have a problem with English, not being your primary language, incidently, your comments about what happened to the species that used to inhabit our planet, from fossil records. Are you aware a full study of seabottom core samples reveals the earths cycles to repeat until the sedimentation is no longer readable----It goes something like this, the earth survives in ice ages which last for hundreds of millions of years, where the last living survivors are the coldblooded creatures in the oceans, and few others, if any, then the earth heats up again and warmbloodied mammals and plantlife reappear, then its back to the ice ages. This cycle has reoccurred perhaps half a dozen times until we can no longer read the results of below oceanic strata. The warm periods last for only 10's of millions of years. There may be some credibility, the inuit, or "people" according to native american legend are the only ice age survivors of man. They have adapted to live in homes of ice and live on the blubber of sea creatures. All the other theoretical axioms are awash in supersticion and unfounded suppositions. now thats time travel, and the new hubble lens has revealed astronomical bodies more than 13 billion light years old, if you can believe the theoretical math. No one knows where we have been or where we are going, but it looks as if there may be some variable we are unaware of, since it takes more than 200 million years for us to orbit the center of our galaxy, and who knows how true this is exactly, we may come near other planetary phenomena which affects the amount of sunlight the earth receives. The seabottom core samples are the nearest practical scientific time study made of the planetary cycles i am aware of, and they are recent, and they explain a lot of old conjecture that no longer has a place in publication, ethically or logically

2 words!
global warming!
OR
ice age!

But question is how only dinosuars are evolved as birds , why ther not in other animal

I think, change in climate made them instinct them from this world. They were not able to handle themselves as per climatic change, those who manages to change are still alive.

It could've been a star that was close to Earth when it just gave out. That definitely could have killed them all off along with other animal and plant life cause of the radiation, or somethin.

I somewhat beleive in that theory because Supercrocs existed and they don't now we just have gators and cros so I think that they had to evolve because whatever food source they had died off and they were no longer threatend by bigger animals so they got smaller. Birds also, Teradakdals probably evolved into birds during the Ice Age.

The dinosaurs were killed after an enormous meteorite that felt in Mexico thosand and thousand of years ago.

Lack of intelligence. Instinct is not enough. You cannot put a city slicker out in the woods, He would not be intelligent enough to survive for long. But put a mountain man in the woods and he will live a long life.

I have a website that describes my theory of evolution. It attempts to link evolution to the amount of carbon dioxide and oxygen available to animal life throughout the last 1,000 million years or so.

The theory says that no new life form can come into existence unless 1) there is a low enough level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to allow all necessary carbon dioxide to be expelled from the animals tissue, and 2) there is sufficient free oxygen available to support its metabolic rate.

The opposite is also true. If either carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases beyond the level beyond which an animal fails to expel all necessary carbon dioxide from its tissue then the atmosphere no longer supports that animal and it will die out. This prediction points to animals which have recently evolved a higher metabolic rate and/or they have a very large tissue mass being most at risk.

At a cellular level the genes which control the animals development need a very precise pH level in which to do their work, lowering the pH by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the cell's environment will destroy the cohesion of the genetic code. All kinds of genetic problems arise, not least of which is our current greatest enemy, cancer. Soft tissue cancers will leave no fossil evidence, but fossils have been found that show evidence of cancers which have attacked the bone!

Now how the carbon dioxide got into the atmosphere is neither here or there. It is just a fact that carbon dioxide was there in greater quantities that when the larger animals evolved. Ergo, goodbye, larger animals with the highest metabolic rates!!

We are currently living in a time when the level of carbon dioxide is well above that when the higher mammals evolved. Should we expect to see higher numbers of cancers than in previous centuries in all ages in mankind? In my opinion we should - and we do!

What do we learn from this? CO2 is not just responsible for global warming, it is responsible for the mass extinctions and is now effecting human beings and other animals with a greater mass and those with a higher metabolic rate.

This is a more important reason for reducing CO2 levels, if we don't, we will die out as a race along with many other animals. We will have caused our own extinction, long before global warming can kill us off.

Look at freespace.virgin.net/edward.crooks/ if you need further information on my theory of how animals evolved including how dinosaurs died out.

Dude really get a life y r u on here when u can be out side enjoing the fresh air or can be getting a date.. so dude really get a life.

This is aimed at the reply I received from "comicalgirl" and not at anyone else in this conversation. So please do not take offence at anything I say below, if you are not her.

I have had my life. Having had MY life, I know there is more to the life experience than shallow enjoyment of the day-to-day humdrum.

The first thing I needed to do was to master my dyslexia because I was aware that you can get nowhere without being able to communicate properly with anyone and everyone in the English speaking world. A lesson you could do well to learn.

My dyslexia ensured that I would gain nothing from my schooling. At that time it was not a problem that anyone had ever heard of.

The second thing I had to do was to find out more about the world. I did this by taking a BA degree in science and the philosophy of inquiry, later as a businessman I took an MBA so I could run a business effectively.

During all this time, from when I was about 24, I became interested in why cancers could be found in every part of the human body. I reasoned that there could not be individual cancer causing elements for each part of the body but that a common factor must be responsible. After many years of study and thought I was able to conclude that CO2 was the factor that, by its reduction in the atmosphere, allowed animal tissue to get rid of more of the gas and therefore higher metabolic rates were encouraged.

Conversely, higher levels of CO2 discouraged those higher metabolic rates by the disruption of genetic control due to very slight increases in the acidity. The site of a cancer in a person's body points to where CO2 has a very great effect and is probably linked to the blood supply being less than adequate for the removal the CO2. For example, I had an operation in 2003 for the removal of prostate cancer. Two sites of cancer growth were found in my prostate. The sites most commonly found to have been affected in women are the breast and the cervix. I would be prepared to bet that these three sites are among the poorest in the body for blood supply. For me that indicates that CO2 levels in those tissues would have been higher than anywhere else in the body and where genetic breakdown was most likely to occur.

While I hope to live at least a little longer. I would say that I have lived a life. I have at least four children plus one adopted son, seven grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

I have had a life, I hope you can get a life as full and rewarding as the one I have had when you look back from the dizzying heights of old age.

One last thing, but to my mind the greatest. I became a Christian in my 65th year after a lifetime of denying God. I have come to terms with the fact that I am a sinner and in need of Jesus' help to repair my life. No longer do I deny God but praise him and pray to him for help with my life and for all the problems that we, His people, face on this planet. If you want to get a life I would strongly recommend that you become a follower of Jesus, assuming that you are not one yet. My life has been transformed and for the first time in my life I have experienced real joy.

I remain a scientist looking at God's creation.

A Mammoth was found in Lake Pleasant near Waterford (Erie County Pa. A scuba diver found a fossized tusk sticking out of the bottom of the lake. They were able to dig out the Mammoth. I think that it is in Buffalo, New York now. This fascinated me because I live within 20 minutes of the lake.
I was surprised when I researched Mammoths and Mastadons because the information provided said that Mammoths were only about the size of a Large African elephant and a Mastadon was only about the size of a large Indian elephant. I had always imagined the prehistoric beasts to be much larger. So It was a learning experience for me.

Edward...or do you prefer Ed?

I've been reading your theories about CO2 and cancer as well as a vehicle for perhaps the end of the dinos. It is interesting. I don't have a medical background, but I am given food for thought and will ransack the library in search of evidence of these links.

I am a novelist and thus ferociously interested in 'outside the box' ideas. This is definitely one. Let me, perhaps, return the favor.

I have done much research into global warming, which you allude to. I have to say, CO2 maybe an INDICATOR of a warming condition, probably because, as the planet warms, biomass increases, all that exhaling and farting and so on...but, I have found no evidence that CO2 CAUSES a warming trend.It actually seems to cause cooling. Water vapor content causes warming, not green house gases.
I have some excellent links that show the CO2 graph mirrors the warming graph but actually lags behind it slightly (about 800-1000 years behind). I will sort the detritus of my hard drives and get you those links, if you like.

what I have found is a direct cause of global warming/cooling trends on both macro and micro scale is first, solar activity (direct warming) then activity in the galactic core (which affects our sun)Both things can cause an atmospheric inversion (warm air, cool ground rather than what we currently have;warm ground cool air)when the radiant solar energy changes from uv to infrared as dust from core activity enters the solar system and shrouds the sun.

the galactic core effect is far more relevant to current global trends than previously suspected.We seem to be experiencing the beginnings of a wave of trouble emanating from the core. The first of htese waves consists of electrons and perhaps gamma waves and the geo record seems to indicate this will cause major distruptions in the tectonic structure of the planet...earthquakes, which are on the rise now. THe worst stuff seems to be scheduled to arrive in 2012 just as solar flare output reaches maxium cyclic levels.

I recommend Earth Under Fire by Paul LaViolette PhD as well as the collected works of Fred Hoyle PhD., an astrophysicist and author of "steady state theory"
as a christian you will appreciate the creation science view point of both men. I am not a christian but have found my own Amazing Grace and I know I loved these books...they changed my thinking about so many unsolved problems from extinction events to glaciation cycles to Unified Theory.

welcome to the insanity of the sane

Dawn

Weather, astroid,

Disease, sun asteroid starvation

Most educated guesses are very huge phenomenon. but the dinosaurs probably just were not intelligent enough to survive for too long.

Ah, they died dumb...

but, what might have evolved from them? raptors?
what would that intelligence be like?

if humans evolved from apes, who are mostly gentle, yet we still consider ourselves the most violent and aggressive species on the planet, what would a species that evolved from something like a raptor be like?

imagine the violence such a creature would be capable of...

I say, it is not intelligence that destroyed the dinos...it was their natures as violent animals...
the violence of our species may be what eventually destroys us...how long would raptors have lasted given nukes?

food for thought
Dawn

Despite popular belief -one species does not evolve into another species.
Each species was genetically programmed and then brought to earth after the atmosphere was set up and the plants (plants were also genetically programmed and brought here) interacted with the atmosphere. Many different types of humanoids and animal life were tried and many died off because they were not as equipped and lacked intelligence for survival. Homo Sapiens were the only humanoid intelligent enough to survive.

So...you have a view that life was transplanted here, it didn't evolve from here, as is conventional wisdom?

This is an interesting concept. I have considered this myself, as have many others.
My idea is that it was evolution that supplied the life here, strict evolution, that's why it took so long to get complex life (plant and animal) and for that complexity to evolve into the beginnings of species that had the potential to manipulate things...the hand.
This is why I bring up raptors. They had long arms and grasping hands...and they are the correct size (some of them) for the easy manipulation of fire, if they had gotten that far. They were also pack hunters and so would have developed social structure and social rules....fire manipulation and society are the two most important factors in evolved intelligence...being a hunter helps too, you have to develop strategy to hunt prey...chomping grass and leaves doesn't do it. But, the dinos died and thus ended that potential evolutionary track.
The planet began over again, this time with mammals eventually leading to apes then to proto humans

Now, here's where I get weird.
The evolution of apes into proto man led to Neanderthal then suddenly Cro-magnon appears like a bolt form the blue. We have found fossil links to Neanderthal, but not to the more advanced human who eventually took over and dominated.
Maybe, this is where the insertion of genetics took place. Perhaps we are a blend of what this planet produced naturally and something else...a kind of genetic experiment.

Dawn

One species does not evolve into another species. fish are not growing legs and walking on land. chimpanzees are not changing into humanoids. We don't see transition. each species is still the same as it was, because each species is genetically programmed. Mutations would become worse not better. You and everyone else would be much better off following the life transplant education rather than believing in fairy tale evolution theories. We are created with design. You do not get design from chemicals left on their own. This is my position. and I will not believe in the fairy tales of modern science. Science is only another religion to persuade people to believe a certain way. And they are experts at coming up with explainations for the fairy tales they want to be true.

Science is the only honest method of progressing knowledge. People who engage in science test and re-test theories until the theory breaks. At this point another theory is developed and that is subjected to the same relentless testing. The process continues, bringing new insights to humanity and allowing progress in all technological fields.

Just imagine where the world would be if every crackpot idea like yours was accepted and acted upon. I am sure we would not have got past just looking at fire never mind using it in the many different ways we do today without the rigour of the scientific method.

Do not criticise science, which you obviously know nothing about, and I am sure science will leave you well alone. If you need to believe such trash, better call it a matter of faith then you can start a new religion and we can all pity you.

By the way, Dawn, mammals had to evolve from something. I don't know what, but by following a tried and well tested theory, evolution, there has to be a precursor which has not been identified thus far.

Forget this rubbish about other world influences, there has been enough time on this planet for the miniscule steps taken generation by generation to move from one life form to another. This happened all the way from single cell animals, through the use of calcium to clear the tissue of CO2, to the formation of a backbone, to directed swimming through the use of light sensitive cells and so on all the way up to birds which are the latest addition to animals that live or have lived on our planet.

These changes happened to prosper only when the environment was right for them to pass on their genes so creating another, slightly different life form from the parent. More that 4 billion years of Earth's life passed before we see evidence of multi-cell animals in the geological record, yet much less than a billion years to get to where we are today. So why the speed up in evolutionary change?

Robert Dudley published a paper in March 1998 which discusses the evolution of gigantic insects and relates this to increases in O2. His paper goes a long way to supporting my theory, as yet unpublished, that it is the changes in the atmospheric gasses, in particular O2 and CO2 over the last 600 million years or so that has supported life form changes by permitting faster metabolic rates to evolve. Less CO2 in the atmosphere means that animal tissue will contain less. More O2 in the atmosphere will allow energy releasing processes to work faster, giving those animals with faster metabolic rates grater advantages over others. The faster metabolic rates generate much more CO2 and it is only when atmospheric CO2 falls to such an extent that allows the animal to rid the body of this excess CO2 that it would survive as a mutation.

If the atmosphere can promote faster metabolic rates it can also inhibit them when the relationship between O2 and CO2 goes the opposite way. The fastest metabolic rates are destroyed when CO2 banks up in the animal's tissue. The life form is wiped out, becomes extinct. This has happened many times in the past and it will happen again in the future, without a doubt.

It sounds like you worship science.
Science is not an honest method. Scientists have been trying for years to get people to believe in their theories.
My idea is not crackpot because it has been written throughout history. In Tibet,in China, In India, In Egypt, In Israel.It is not an idea, but a communicated fact.
Time will never change one species to another, except through manipulation. The environment will never be right for evolution.
Your last two paragraphs prove that science has become great at explaining a fairy tale theory they want others to believe and follow.

Science is the only honest method of advancing human knowledge of the Universe. It is based upon observation, hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, further observation, modifying the hypothesis and so on. Most knowledge we have about our Universe is transient in the sense that the scientific method will always provide a way to improve a hypothesis by test upon test upon test of its content. If the hypothesis survives many such attempts to break its content, it is said to be “robust” and is used as the basis of establishing new hypotheses. In such a case human knowledge is said to have moved on a little.

Notice I used the word “robust” and not “true” for such a hypothesis. That is because it is always accepted within science that something could have been overlooked that may break the hypothesis in the future. On the other hand a test which breaks a hypothesis is also useful because it has closed off a blind alley. Falsification of a hypothesis is the only scientific result that may be accepted as true, because while many positive results are possible and the hypothesis carries on, just one negative result will break the hypothesis, or at least force a slight change in its content to allow it to be “saved”.

Let me give you a little example. I will create a hypothesis. It is this: “All adult swans are white”. Having published this hypothesis, colleagues start to test it. They find support for it by looking at all the swan populations they see around them and agree the hypothesis.

Everything is going well until a little girl, a fairly precocious young lady it may be said, living in Australia hears about this hypothesis and knows this is wrong because all the native adult swans around her are not white but black. She writes to me telling me this. Wow! Am I in trouble, a little girl has defeated my hypothesis. But wait a minute maybe I can modify and save it by changing it to: “All adult swans native to the Northern hemisphere are white and all adult swans native to the Southern hemisphere are black”.

I, and my fellow researchers in the Northern hemisphere have learned something new, black swans exist. Something we may never have known if an incorrect hypothesis had not been published. So the sum of human knowledge has increased somewhat despite the original hypothesis being wrong. Observation and testing triumph once again! But who knows, maybe in the not too distant future swans of a different hue maybe found on a remote part of the planet and the hypothesis will bite the dust! That is what happens when you use the scientific method to try to describe the Universe, nothing is ever sure. Hypotheses live until some new information comes along to either break them or modify them.

This is where your fairy tales fail for all but BELIVERS. Because there is no testable evidence available, you cannot produce a scientific hypothesis. Your ideas are then classified as beliefs. You KNOW they are correct because you believe them to be so, this is the realm of FAITH, not knowledge. To get your ideas out of this realm you have to produce a testable hypothesis that can be subjected to testing which will then either agree or break your hypothesis. Until you can do this, don’t be surprised if such ideas are ignored by the knowledge-based world.

I forgot to mention. I also have beliefs that are outside the knowledge-based world. I am an Evangelical Christian with Faith in the one true and faithful God.

I BELIEVE that Jesus died on the cross and was raised on the third day and by so doing we have had our sins forgiven by God the Father. This cannot be tested, I BELIEVE this happened.

I BELIEVE there in a omnipotent God who cannot be subjected to scientific testing.

I BELIEVE in the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

I am also a scientist who sees no conflict in using the scientific method to describe God's Universe as far as one can, to help increase the sum of human knowledge. Something I am very proud to be able so to do.

I give God praise for all his works and use the tools he has given me, a scientist, to discover all I can to see and understand even more of his wonders.

The important thing is to know where the boundary is between BELIEF and KNOWLEDGE and treat them appropriately and you won't go far wrong.

Direct knowledge is greater than the scientiic method.
for example- I can experience a car accident whereas a man in a car will run a red light and hit my car. One observer might say He saw that the light was not red when the other man hit my car. another observer might say that I was speeding and the other guy could not move out of the way in time and it was not under the traffic light. Another observer might say that I did not have my lights on in the rain and fog,etc. The police might have one theory that I was hallucinating when I thought my light was green and the other man did not have a red light. But I know the truth by direct experience.
Another example might be that I stood right next to big foot in the woods. By the way he smells,breathes grunts and the way his eyes look, and his gigantic structure, shows me by direct experience that he is not a bear, the scientist will come up with all kinds of hypothesis that he cannot prove by saying, I was hallucinating, I was mistaken, I had no witnesses, I was on blood pressure medecine, I am gullible, I need to see a psychologist, or it was a man in a big foot suit, I don't understand nature as well as I should , etc.
I can even experience God in meditation and no scientist will believe me because they are convinced that I must have evidence. so you see----direct experience is greater than believing a scientist.

I also believe in God by direct experience, some religious people only trust in an up and down faith relationship. But I say to get to know God by talking to Him, by listening to Him, by meditating on Him, direct knowledge is much more joyful than blind faith.

Sadly, it is clear to me you have no understanding of the scientific method. You have no intention of moving away from the apocryphal, stories which may in themselves be true but add nothing to the store of scientific knowledge.

I have a friend who is 87. He was a conscript during the Second World War. During his induction a dental surgeon removed three rotten teeth. Since that day he has refused to attend the dentist opting instead to remove his own teeth by tying a strong fine cord around his tooth and the other around a door handle. He swings the door shut and the tooth is pulled out. He has about three teeth left in his head and "gums" his food.

Now you have a choice, next time you have toothache you can follow how my friend Jim deals with his teeth or attend a dental surgery which has advanced beyond recognition thanks to advances in scientific knowledge related to every aspect of dental craft. Its up to you make your decision. Let me make the decision for you. You will decide to take advantage of the scientific progress made since Jim was so badly treated in 1942.

You will do the same in any medical situation, you will take advantage of the scientific progress by opting, nay, insisting on the latest and most up-to-date scientifically developed techniques available. You want the best cell phone with all the up-to-date apps possible. You wouldn't have even a cell phone if technology relied on the apocryphal instead of the scientific. Scientific understanding of anything is the only way forward in all aspects of life.

There is a difference between the science practiced of those who believe in God and the science practiced by those who do not believe in God- whether you want to admit it or not. Therefore you need to make a decision.
I choose to stick with the true science of those who believe in God. We study creation not false evolutionary ideas.

Mammals first appeared sometime around the Permian in mammal like lizards. It seems that the first trait of mammalian life was heat regulation which makes sense because the planet has been pretty schizophrenic about heat or lack there of for most of its life. The mild climate of last 41k years is aberrant, not normal, geologically speaking. In fact, I specifically single out dinosaurians as potential evolution toward intelligence because the best modern evidence suggest they may have had some degree of warm bloodness (yes there are degrees of this)which would have made them far more adaptable than say lizards, which also appeared around the time of the dinos.

I must say, the idea that one form of life doesn't evolve into another is pretty nonsensical. How does one explain the hip structure of birds which is first seen in dinos? How does one explain the lost legs but remaining bones in whales or snakes? How do you consider the hoof of a horse and the remnants of its other toes going up the leg which is actually an elongated toe?

clearly these animals evolved from something different from the way they appear now.
Of course not all animals evolve once they reach a form that can survive despite the harshness of the world like salamanders (permian) and crocodilians and sharks and horsehoe crabs and many species of plankton as well as certain types of plants like conifers and ferns. Evolution and adaptability go hand in hand and when there is no need to adapt, there is no need to evolve. Plus, both things happen on time scales that we can barely comprehend let alone visualize.

and, while I understand that the idea of alien intervention is...out there, there are good cases for the concept in regards to civilizations myth and legends, knowledge of high astronomy in supposedly primitive cultures and other forms of passed on knowledge that seem to have no basis in logical diffusionary visions.

the fact is, cro-magnon seems to arrive in a fortuitous time and then sweep across the world with record speed. Up until then, things seemed to progress in a natural slow way. Mankind, in short, set this world on fire. We have found fossils linking Neanderthal to Earth's evolution but every anthropologist on the planet would tell you that there is a 'missing link' from the evolution of that species to the reality of homo sapien...and we have evidence going from Cromagnon to Homo erectus too.
Christians like to say God did it. Maybe he did, but, His ways are mysterious indeed. Is it beyond God to use another race to bring man kind here? Is it arrogant to think WE are the only chosen ones?

Dawn

You are looking at what you have been taught by secular scientists who will do anything to explain their theories to get us to believe them. If you have studied creation science at all you can know the answer to all your questions. Right now I have to hurry off to work so I do not have time to get those answers for you. However, just because a person is clever enough to explain their theory to you in a convincing way does not make it the truth. Remember that! God bless you. Talk later

I beleive in that wholly!

Proof that dinosaurs still exist!!!!! I saw a couple of old fossils walking down 5th Ave. just the other day!!!!

Fossils are imprints in rocks or maybe even something petrified. What evidence do we really have that dinosaurs died quickly as in a catastrophe? Since it is believed that they lived a long time-it is easy to assume that it took time for each species to die off. If every type of dinosaur died at the very same moment-it would be quite an occurance. Look at the planet Venus- It most likely had a magnetic field in the past. It could have had life and beauty, and then something happened and now Venus is destroyed, and it can be assumed that it died quickly.

At last we are back to topic. There is evidence in the rocks that dinosaurs were on the way out long before the meteor impact. After the meteor impact, a thin layer of material containing iridium was deposited just about worldwide. That layer is the marker beyond which there are no more dinosaur fossils.

I suggest you type "k t boundary" into your search engine and select the Wikipedia articles from the list. You should find these articles very interesting.

An interesting offshoot is Planet X, or Nibiru (sp?) ... Google "Free Energy Info" ... go to the first result, and read chapter 15!

Over the billion+ years since dinosaurs were created, there have undoubtedly been many natural catastrophies that wiped out a great portion of them, but never to the level of extinction that now exists. The most calamotous event was the flood that occurred about 2500 BC. Before that time the earth had a perfect climatic environment for the abundant proliferation of vast expanses of vegetation needed as forage for the dinosaurs. With the changes that took place after the sky opened up and the temperature, humidity, and barometric environment was so drastically altered, most of the vegetation needed for the dinosaurs survival died out. They went into final extinction by starvation.

The flood actually occured on 3239 B.C. Most chronologies cannot be trusted. the name dinosaur was created in the 1800's A.D. Before then- they were just called reptiles. Reptiles grow their entire life until they die. So in order to get the huge dinosaurs that we are use to seeing in dinosaur books-the reptiles would have to have lived a very long time. So things about dinosaurs are different then I had pictured them in the past. Maybe some of it was a lie?

So you have yet to read the Wikipedia articles on the K-T boundary, pity.

Reptiles are a class of animals which include the animals called "dinosaur". The name dinosaur meaning "terrible Lizard" .

There is no evidence of dinosaurs in the geological record after the K-T boundary, and many other large animals, for that matter.

The flood came a tad late to be the mechanism for their destruction, about 65.5 million years too late in fact.

Sunsphere,

There were no land animals "Over the billion+ years" ago, let alone dinosaurs. Evidence for land animals, along with land plants, in the geological record is not present before about 450 million years ago.

If you are serious about learning more about this go to "Evolutionary history of life" in Wikipedia. There you can study all aspects of evidence of the time line of animal life.

Evidence, evidence, evidence, that is what makes this evolutionary story come alive. While there are a lot of big words used to describe the process don't let that put you off. Get in there and dig around, fill your mind with evidence based facts. You will soon become excited about the splendour of it all and want to know more and more. Best of luck.

Edward Crooks

I was referring to all time with dinosaurs not just after k-t boundary.