Gish Garbage About The So-called Living Dinosaurs
Then, Gish on page 16, claims,
"Are there dinosaurs living today? That's an intriguing question, and you can count on it to start a lively conversation any time this question is discussed. If dinosaurs really did lived 70 to 225 million years ago as evolutionists suggest, it would be pretty hard to suppose that dinosaurs still exist today. But if earth were just a few thousand years old and two of each kind of land animal survives on Noah's Ark, then it is possible a few could still be living today."
Dinosaurs did lived millions of years ago. In reality, they lived from 230 to 65 million years ago, leaving behind birds as their only saurian descendants to enter Noah's Ark, survive the Flood, and live among us today. However, on pages 16-17, Gish presents claims made of alleged dinosaurs and pterosaurs living in modern times other than birds and gives out 3 examples to prove his claim.
Gish Garbage about an Alleged Pterosaur
The first is a claim made in 1890 about 2 cowboys encountering a large pterosaur with large teeth in its beak. They shot it down and took a piece of wing off of it as a trophy. The book claims the pterosaur they kill was Quetzalcoatlus, the largest known pterosaur in the world, at that time. The claim is false as Quetzalcoatlus never had teeth and bore a crest at the back of its head. It lived 65 million years ago and was one of the last pterosaurs to die out. It is very likely that this story is a hoax, as the whole tale sounds like the creationists got their inspirations from a scene in the classic 70s B-movie "The Valley of Gwangi," where a band of cowboys encountered a large Pteranodon which they eventually brought down.
According to one resource coming from a man who knew one of the 2 cowboys as a child, the 2 cowboys actually encountered a huge bird, possibly a condor that escaped from a zoo with a wingspan of about 20-30 feet long and tried to shoot it down. They failed. So they went back to town and invent a story, published in an old tabloid magazine, that claims they shot down a massive bird like creature with an exaggerating wingspan of 190 ft or 160 ft and a body that measured 92 feet long. They dragged the dead creature into town where they describe it to have a large, thick, almost transparent wing membrane on each side of its smooth leathery body.
They claimed to have the creature photographed, but the photograph is non-existent. Yet, some people claimed to have copies of the photograph, but none were found to confirm their claim. The alleged photograph taken had 6 men holding a large bird either right side up or upside down depending upon the sketch drawn by people who claim to know the photo. Judging by the appearances of the photo, there is no doubt this bird-like creature was not a pterosaur. Pterosaurs lack feathers, let alone a feathery tail. The bird in the picture looked more of a stork with condor-like wings than a pterosaur. Pterosaurs have hair on their bodies and wings made up of opaque skin that stretched from the 4th finger all the way to the either the hips, knees, or ankle. Pterosaurs can only carry their prey with their beaks, not their feet. Their feet of pterosaurs are too weak to clutch prey, holding prey with their feet would throw off their centers of balance, rendering themselves incapable of flight. So, it is most likely that the story of the 2 cowboys encountering a pterosaur is really a direct fabrication of a tabloid story about the 2 cowboys and their encounter with a large bird that's perhaps either a condor, eagle, heron, or a stork. No pterosaurs.
References:
http://www.rense.com/general3/thun.htm
http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/1999/Autumn/Thunderbird
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa100801b.htm
Loch Ness Fallacy
Then, on page 17a, Gish claims the famous Loch Ness Monster of Scotland Yard is really a Plesiosaurus, a Jurassic marine reptile. There is no evidence for it as shown below.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0729_030729_lochness.html
http://www.loch-ness.org/sections/themystery/evidencepages/candidates.html
http://www.plesiosaur.com/lochness.htm
Now this below makes much more sense about the Loch Ness Hoax than anything else.
Elephantine Theory Stirs Misty Waters of Loch Ness
Alleged Dinosaur From Africa
And finally, on page 17b, Gish claims that somewhere in Africa, there is a dinosaur still living in somewhere in Africa known as Mokele Mbembe. Mokele Mbembe is an alleged 'modern' dinosaur that's said to live in the swampy areas of the Congo basin in Africa. The creature is described to have a barrel shaped body, brownish-gray smooth skin, 4 legs like tree trunks, a long neck, a small head, and a long tail as powerful as a crocodile's. But what YECs, especially Gish, deliberately leave out is the fact that Mokele mbembe bore a horned spike on its nose and a frilled comb like a rooster. Something sauropods completely lacked. Plus, the Mokele creature is known to have left behind footprints that featured 3-clawed toes on each foot. Sauropods actually have 5 toes with 2 or 3 claws growing on the first digits on each hind foot depending upon species. The front legs have little to no toes depending on species and bore only one claw growing on the first digit of each foot. Mokele mbembe has been known to kill hippos, rhinos, and people when provoked but never eats them because it's a strict vegetarian. It lives mainly underwater except when traveling from one swamp to another or when eating. YEEs constantly insist that the creature is a living dinosaur. But there is a major flaw to this claim.
Long ago, people used to think that because of their huge, massive, mega-ton size, sauropods weren't able to support themselves on land. So, they have to resort to live an amphibious life, spending most or all of their lives in the water. Especially underwater, eating water plants, and keeping themselves safe from predators. During the 1970's, however, people began to question the amphibious view. Scientists began to restudy the sauropod fossils and discovered that the sauropods were not at all as amphibious as they're once thought to be. Sauropods, scientists learned, were all well equipped to live on dry land.
Unlike the alleged swamp dwelling Mokele mbembe, sauropods are now known to be terrestrial dwellers, living on dry land and avoiding the swamps altogether lest they get helplessly bogged down by their massive weight. Their feet have compact toes, unlike the hippopotamus that have splayed toes. Also scientists learned that if a sauropod stood underwater with their necks held high, the water pressure would crush their lungs making them unable to breathe and would drown in their own tissue. They also have strong bones that have special holes inside of them called pleurocoels, which help to reduce the weight of the sauropods making it easy for the dinosaurs to walk on dry land. Their noses are now known to be in front of their faces instead of the top of their heads, just like the noses we have.
Plus, they learned that the teeth of the sauropods are not weak. Yet they are worn, indicating that the sauropods most likely have eaten dry plants instead of water plants. They, in most cases, must have stretched their necks far and wide to reach for high growing plants like giraffes do. But they can't chew them. Instead they rely on gastrolith stones they swallow or special bacteria inside their bodies to help grind and break down their food. Mokele Mbembe may look like a sauropod according to its descriptions, but it has features sauropod dinosaurs don't in fact have such as a spike nose-horn, a smooth skin, and a rooster like comb. Sauropods, in real life, have rough scaly skin. In some cases, sauropods have a row of spines growing on their neck, back, and tails like Armargasaurus, and Agustinia, while in other cases they have large bony bumps and studs on their backs like Saltasaurus has for instance.
It is much likely that Mokele Mbembe is nothing more than a distorted view of a rhinoceros that have wandered occasionally into Congo basin and give the natives such a scare that they begin to invent stories based on the rhinoceros to keep rival tribes away. Still, YEEs kept right on insisting that the Mokele character is a sauropod dinosaur thus 'disproving' the notion that dinosaurs, other than birds, have died out 65 million years ago. If that is the case, then where is it? Where are their eggs? Where are their fossils found dating back to post-Mesozoic times found? Where are their valid photographs? If they are "often" sighted, then why are we NOT seeing them? In order for the existence of the alleged sauropod and other monsters of the Congo basin and other cryptids like Bigfoot and the Yeti to be confirmed true, scientists wants absolute VALID proofs that confirms them to be all real, like a fully intact living or dead dinosaur for instance. But none are found!! And since none are found, then why should we believe in Mokele Mbembe's existence?
Reference:
The Pseudo-Dragons of Genesis Park Part 12
Family Life
The next chapter is Dinosaur Family Life found on pages 18-19 which describes the 2 discoveries of dinosaur eggs and nesting grounds of Protoceratops and Maiasaura in Montana and in Mongolia. It also tells of how Maiasaura raises her eggs and young based on fossilized clues found at the Montana site dubbed "Egg Mountain". This illustration depicts a mother Maiasaura bringing food to her young. Note Maiasaura's wrongful hand arrangements. The nails of first and fourth outer digits is not supposed to be sharp and pointed and the 2nd and 3rd middle digits is not supposed to be forged together into one big finger.
The 2 artists who illustrated the book probably got that idea from observing many well known Maiasaura paintings made by Douglass Henderson. Still, what is shown in the image is not what is shown in an actual Maiasaura skeleton.
This chapter is kind of out of place because it is between the previous chapter about "How long ago did dinosaurs live?" and the next chapter "Are there Dinosaurs in the bible?"
Behemoth Fallacy
On pages 20-21, in the next chapter Are There Dinosaurs Mentioned in the Bible? has Gish stating that yes, there are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible. But, he never believes that birds are dinosaurs and are the only dinosaurs that are mentioned in the bible. On page 21, Gish shows a image of an Apatosaurus shown in comparison with an elephant. If you think this has to do with size comparison, think again. Gish shows this image depicting the dinosaurs' tail in comparison with the tail of an elephant in order to convince the lay readers that Behemoth is a dinosaur because it has a tail as big and thick as a ceder tree unlike the tail of the elephant. This is Gish's way of distorting verse 17 of Job chapter 40 that says, "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." The verse only refers to the tail's movements, not to its size. As a matter of fact, the "tail" in the passage is not what people think it is. Instead the word "tail" is used as a euphemism for 'penis' that stiffens, moves, and sways like a trunk of a ceder tree either pointing up skywards or laying on the floor when it's chopped down. Thus, the "tail" is not really a tail at all.
This makes sense! Especially when Behemoth in the passage is not described as a dinosaur, but a ox-like monster of Jewish Folklore since dinosaurs don't have penises and belly buttons outside their bodies and mammals, like the ox, do.
Like DBD, DTTL on pages 16-17 also tells about the dino-bible myth, but it features a sauropod in the lake on one page and a mastodon standing by the lake shores on the other.
A Contradiction
Next, on pages 18-19, in DTTL, there is a chapter called What did Dinosaurs look like? No one knows for sure what do they look like because they've been dead for millions of years long before man made his appearance on earth. Yet this chapter tells us that dinosaurs lay eggs and abandoned them to hatch by themselves. It's a direct contradiction to DBD's descriptions of Maiasaura and how she raised her young. But keep in mind that the book was published in 1977, a year before the discovery of Maiasaura and her nesting grounds in 1978. Then, it talks about the many different types dinosaurs that are known. DBD doen't have such a chapter. Instead, it has a chapter called Early Fossil Discoveries on pages 22-23 that gives a one page simplistic account on the history of Dinosaur discoveries on page 23, unlike DTTL which has none.
What the books leave out
Next in DBD come the descriptions of 13 major dinosaur genera. But, it leaves out the important facts about dinosaurs which includes them living during the time period known as the Mesozoic era, which spans from 250-65 million years ago. It is divided up into 3 periods. The Triassic, the Jurassic and the Cretaceous. Not all dinosaurs lived at the same time. For example, Stegosaurus never saw Triceratops in real life because Triceratops lived 70 million years ago during the Cretaceous Period and Stegosaurus lived 150 million years ago during the Jurassic period, which is 80 million years apart from each other. So, the 2 never met at all.
DTTL only describes 10 dinosaur genera.
DTTL in almost each and every description of the dinosaur genera denies the existence of every transitional or in-between form that's ever known.
But click on those links and you will see a page that has chock full of transitional forms including transitional forms of plants, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, dinosaurs, and man.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
DBD has Iguanodon to be the first dinosaur to be described. DTTL has Triceratops and the Horned Dinosaurs described first.
DBD has lots more dinosaurs described on each genera. DTTL, in most pages, has only 1, 2, up to 4 dinosaurs in a few other pages described on each genera.
DBD also has descriptions of marine reptiles and pterosaurs within its 4 pages. DTTL has none.
Comparison list of the dinosaur genera chapters n the order as shown in the 2 books.
DBD
- Iguanodon p.24-25
- The Lightweights p.26-27
- Horned Dinosaurs p.28-31
- Plated Dinosaurs p.32-35
- Armored Dinosaurs p. 36-37
- Duck-Billed Dinosaurs p.38-41
- Bone-Headed & Parrot-like Dinosaurs p.42-43
- Meat-Eating Dinosaurs p.44-49
- The Terrible Claws p.50-51
- Big Plant-Eaters p.52-57
DTTL
- Horned Dinosaurs p.20-23
- Plated Dinosaurs p.24-25
- Armored Dinosaurs p.26-27
- Duck-Billed Dinosaurs p.28-30
- Bone-Headed & Parrot-like Dinosaurs p.31
- Meat-Eating Dinosaurs p.32-37
- Big Plant-Eaters p.38-43
- Iguanodon p.44-45
- The Lightweights p.46-47
DBD Dinosaur Genera Page Review
The Iguanodon chapter, on page 24, contains a claim about over 30 Iguanodon fossils being dug up from the Belgium coal mine in 1877 in which Gish states that the fossils were formed during Noah's Flood. DTTL makes the same claim as DBD. However, the claim is false. Paleontologist Dr. David Norman (1987), an expert on Iguanodon have studied the area and found no evidence of a catastrophic event of any kind that caused the fossils to form. Each fossil was from 4 different layers, which means that the dinosaurs died in different periods of time, not in a one-day period.
Reference:
Norman, D. B. 1987. On the history of the discovery of fossils at Bernissart in Belgium. _Archives of Natural History_, 14(1): 59-79.
In The Lightweights chapter, on page 27, there is an image of Leallynasaura being misidentified as Podokesaurus, a relative of Coelophysis from the Triassic age. Leallynasaura was a mid-late Cretaceous Hypsilophodontid that lived in Australia about 100 million years ago.
In the Horned Dinosaurs chapter on page 29, there is a quote taken out of context about the fate of a Eucentrosaurus (synonym of Centrosaurus) herd which according to Gish implies that the herd drowned in Noah's Flood, while the quote in context is actually describing a stampede in a river at flood stage in an event similar to the wildebeest herd stampeding across the river, only for some to get confused, trampled on, and eventually drowned or get eaten by crocodiles.
Page 30 shows a drawing of a Triceratops skeleton impersonating the Triceratops skeletal drawing as shown in The Great Dinosaur Atlas: A Pictorial Guide to the Prehistorical World now retitled as DK Great Dinosaur Atlas.
In the Plated Dinosaurs chapter, there is an illustration of an outdated Stegosaurus skeleton drawn after Charles Marsh found on page 34. Nothing what the Stegosaurus skeleton actually looked like based on the most recent of fossilized evidence from a 1992 Stegosaurus fossil unearthed in Sheep Creek, Colorado. You can view a model of the most recent reconstruction of Stegosaurus based on the 1992 discovery below.
In the Armored Dinosaurs chapter on page 36, there is a claim that says an Ankylosaurid fossil, Antarctopelta, was found buried in ice in the frozen wastes on Antarctica, which is false. The fossil is actually found in sedimentary rocks in an area known as the Santa Marta Formation that's dated about 70 million yeas ago.
The Duck Billed Dinosaurs chapter, on page 39, claims of dinosaur mummies being rapidly buried to the point where the soft parts of the hadrosaurs did not have the time to rot away. That claim is false, too. The dinosaurs actually became what scientists call "fossilized mummies" when the dinosaur died in a dry desert like condition with their bodies contorted, neck thrown back in a rigor mortise fashion, and have patches of skin attached to much of the torso. The skin imprints cling tightly to the tendons and the skeleton as it dried in the sun. The carcasses have gone though a considerable time of decay and desiccation before burial occurred (Lull and Wright 1942: 110-117, plates 7, 8, and 9; Bakker 1986: 146-159).
References:
Bakker, R. T. 1986. _The Dinosaur Heresies_. New York: William Morrow.Lull, R. S.
N. E. Wright. 1942. "Hadrosaurian Dinosaurs of North America." _Geological Society of America Special Paper_, No. 40, pp.1-242.
In Bonehead and Parrot like dinosaurs chapter on page 43, there is an image of Psittacosaurus that's drawn wrong to look more of a Hypsilophodontid than a Psittacosaurid.
In the Meat Eating Dinosaurs chapter, on page 44, there is a remark made up by Gish about the habits of meat-eating animals being not what God have desired for them when He first created them and put them on earth in the Garden of Eden. If so, then why did He made them all to all have features of a carnivore if He didn't really wanted them to kill other animals for food in the first place? If it isn't what God has desired when He put them in the Garden of Eden, then why did He made them to be this way? If God has not desired for them to be flesh eaters, then why did He made them to be exactly what God have no desire for them to be that way to begin with? That doesn't make sense at all.
There is also a claim, on page 48, being made of 40 Allosaur fossils, found in Utah, being buried together as a result of Noah's flood, which is not true. In reality, the Allosaurs all died due to being caught in a mud trap while trying to feed on the carcasses of a few plant eaters that have wandered into what appears to be a large lake to drink in, but found out too late that it was a mud trap, a sinking mud pit like quicksand, trapping the thirsty dinosaurs within it. Helplessly, they sank into the mud pit and died there. Soon, scores of meat-eaters that are attracted to those carcasses went in and tried to eat the carcasses only to wound up being stuck and perishing in it themselves.
On page 49, there is a classic, yet inaccurate drawing of a Tyrannosaurus. This is a real famous dinosaur that's wrongfully measured to be 50 ft long and 20 feet high based on the famous classic mount of T.rex at the American Museum of Natural History. He's actually 40 ft long and about 18 feet high and wrongfully pictured to have an upright kangaroo like posture with his tail dragging on the ground. In fact there are many dinosaurs that are drawn in this book exactly the same way. Upright, tail drags, you get the picture.
In DTTL on page 37, Gish stupidly asserts that at least some scientists believe that all dinosaurs were plant eaters. Name one example of this, Gish? Which scientists believe that all dinosaurs are plant-eaters? or is this is you making things up just to spread lies about the actual diet of the meat-eaters because you don't have the brains enough to acknowledge the fact that God created carnivores and condones, upholds, even instegated carnivory for His own ends?
In The Terrible Claws chapter, on page 51, there is a scenario of inaccurately drawn naked, scaly-skinned "Raptors" ganging up on a helpless Tenontosaurus (Note how the name is misspelled.) wrongfully having a very short tail in the picture instead of a long one.
In Big Plant Eaters, on page 55, there is an fistional scenario of an Apatosaurus browsing in a shallow part of a lake with a young boy in front playing in one of the large footprints a sauropod other than the Apatosaurus have left behind. Another unlikely scenario is on page 56-57, where on the edge of town, there is a middle-eastern man standing next to 3 super giant size Jurassic dinosaurs; Brachiosaurus, Supersaurus, and Ultrasaurus /Ultrasauros (name now classified to be nomen dubium; bones of the supposed Ultrasaurus turned out to be the same as Supersaurus).
In Flying Reptiles chapter, on page 58, there is a false claim about most pterosaurs being wiped out in Noah's Flood and the rest be killed off by "post-flood" extremes, which is false. Pterosaurs all died out 65 million years ago alongside of the dinosaurs and the marine reptiles that also perished at the same time. On page 59 we see what appears to be a crestless Quetzalcolatlus wrongfully drawn with teeth! Quetzalcolatlus don't have teeth and had a small crest growing on the back of his head.
In Marine Reptiles chapter, on page 60, there is a false claim about Plesiosaurus being the so-called "famous Loch Ness Monster" that has alleged to survived the Flood, which is false as mentioned in the previous post. Plesiosaurs, like dinosaurs and pterosaurs, all died out 65 million years ago. On page 61, there is a incorrect drawing of an Archelon depicted to have a bony shell on its back like a modern turtle. If it did had a very heavy, bony back, it will sink like a stone and drown. Archelon in real life had a leathery shell where, instead of bone plates, the shell was covered with thick, leathery skin, supported by bony struts to reduce the weight making it much easier for the giant sea turtle to move about in the water.
