Taylor's Blame Game
Page 50 and here: Taylor giving beneficial natural wonders such as "thorns and thistles, disease-producing germs and blood-sucking parasites, fighting and killing.." a bad name it seems. Claiming stupidly that they're all the result of sin. If so, then so is the bacteria that helps to digest food in our stomachs, fight off harmful diseases, and help herbivorous animals ferment their plant food after consuming them; so are the spikes that helps a cactus conserve water in the desert; so are the parasites that depend on their hosts for survival; so is the mushroom and other forms of fungi in which some are highly edible. Seriously, living organisms such as thorns, thistles, parasites, predators do have a beneficial purpose and are no way the result of sin.
Food for thought: How are they the result of sin when all these things are a major benefit to every ecosystem God has ever made?
Thorns serve a major purpose for plants by being defensive weapons against plant-eaters. In some cases, plants like the thorny spines of a cactus used their thorny spines to preserve moisture and water highly essential for the cactus' survival. Parasites, in some cases, are highly beneficial and relied their hosts for survival even in environments that are otherwise too hostile for them to be in. Some parasites even keep their hosts alive and make them help raise their young, including a parasite that gets a spider to help a wasp raise its young and another parasite that gets a lobster to raise its offspring the same way it raises a new generation of lobsters.
Predators are among the most beautiful (Being fast on their feet, sleek, and highly agile with their eyes faces forward in many cases to help zero in on its prey. In other cases, they are beings of great patience and wait for their unsuspecting prey to come by before they strike. Cunning. Clever. They in some cases will work together in packs to help take down their prey they are stalking for their next dinner.) and helpful of beings. Capable of keeping animal populations in check and prevent overpopulations of plant-eaters over grazing the plant kingdom into extinction as well as clean up the earth of dead bodies to prevent diseases and stench from permeating about. It's all there to complete the ingredients for a highly, healthy ecosystem. This claim about sin being blamed for the germs, weeds, death, predators, and diseases are all debunked in those pages down below.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH320.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis3.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/carnivores.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/paradise.html
If all these things are evil, then so is God because He ordained all these things, predation, parasites, thorns, weeds, etc, for the benefit of all Creation.
Page 51 and here: Taylor states that some animals became predators gradually after the Fall and the Flood. That's because in his make-believe world, after the Flood, the world became different than what it was before. Here Taylor claims,
"After the Flood the earth was a very different place. When Noah stepped off the ship, it must have felt like getting out on another planet. Nothing would have looked familiar. Most of the world was left covered with water. Seven out of every ten spots of the globe are still under water today."
I thought the Bible said "By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry." (Genesis 8:13-14) Don't you think Taylor's statement is highly a contradiction to what the Bible says? If there was a global flood, all of the Earth will be completely dry.
"All of the landmarks were destroyed. The Garden of Eden was gone forever. So was the whole land of Eden and every other land."
If any of those lands ever exist at all. Otherwise, these are all made up with no trace of evidence of their existence found.
"Mud and rock were everywhere. Cold forbidding mountains stood where none had been before. Earthquakes and volcanoes still continued to plague animals and man, even after the Flood was over—and still do today on a smaller scale."
Creationists entirely made up such concept of volcanoes and earthquakes occurring during the Flood and shoehorned them into the Bible to explain the evidence of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and formations of mountains in the fossil record that each occurred gradually over separate periods of time in reality. They also made up this concept by interpreting Genesis 8:5 to mean mountains surfacing up from the Floodwaters like a submarine while the verse actually refers to the floodwaters drying up to reveal the peaks of mountains (or hills).
"Temperatures had become extreme. Some parts of the world got much hotter after the Flood. This eventually dried up all the water and left great deserts. And in other places, snow began to fall for the first time because of freezing cold. A short ice "age" followed the Flood in some parts of the world. Harmful radiation from the sun (and space) probably came down in much larger doses after the Flood."
Noah's Flood had nothing to do with both the formation of deserts and the Ice Age. There would have been NO ice are or cold weathers whatsoever. Everything will be entirely burned up and evaporated.
"The original world may have been protected from this radiation by a special atmosphere. The earth's air may have contained a much higher amount of water which kept the weather warmer and more pleasant. Before the Flood, plants were watered by rivers, underground springs and dew—instead of by rain."
That "special atmosphere" - the vapor canopy - will bring Hell on earth literally if there was such a thing. Everything will be incinerated. Plants, animals, - everything! And all the waters of the world would be completely evaporated.
Whether dew or mist, it doesn't matter. Plants in most cases will not survive on just mist, rivers, or underground springs. Not to mention the fact that even if there was only dew or mist, creationists have yet to honestly explain, without invoking some empty miracles, how would dew and mist fill up all the rivers, underground streams, and oceans even if there was no rain back then before the flood. After all, both dew and mist are forms of rain that occur during the night and morning hours and this greatly contradicts the claims of no rain occurring before the Flood.
According to Taylor's next crank, all animals were plant-eaters until after the Flood which kind of contradicts the crank which claims that some animals become meat-eaters the moment Adam ate the apple. Sounds like Taylor's playing the Blame Game like a true young earth extremist by using man's sin as a scapegoat for all predation and carnivory. Two web pages on the GDM site here and here and Page 51 in the GDM book tells about this falsehood.
In this claim, Taylor lies and says,
"Today, there are many animals that kill other animals for food. Exactly when this habit first began is a mystery. But it could not have started until sometime after man's first sin. In the original Creation, all the animals ate plants, not meat (Genesis 1:30)."
An example of distorting Bible verses to fit young earthers' beliefs. Never mind the complete absence of any implications of it being a commandment from God.
"There was no killing before the Fall (when Adam and Eve rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden)."
Except the killing plants. When animals eat plants, they are //killing.. them! Plants are in fact living things like animals and people, you know.
"It was not until sometime after sin's "beginning" that the animals began to eat other animals."
In other words, all predation is blamed on Adam after he and Eve ate the apple (never mind the bible being completely void of verses that tells about no killing and predation prior to the Fall and never mind the bible being chock full of verses that clearly tells of God condoning, even instigating the art of predation), which gives the reader a false impression that God is evil since he made the animals to have the things predators have to eat meat and yet, He wanted them to eat plants. And when the animals disobey and turn their appetites on the animals, Adam and Eve, the 2 scapegoats, will be to blame for all this.
As I discussed in Part 1, If God wanted all to eat plants, then why did he create some of them to have razor sharp teeth, a stomach for red food, claws to tear at their prey, and strong muscular legs to chase after them? This is something YECs cannot honestly answer. Face it! If God wanted all animals to eat plants then He would've made them all to have cheeks to store up plant food in their mouths, molars to chew plants, strong, blunt teeth to pull up plants, and a huge gut with a complex digestive system to digest plants that are all made up of cellulose, tough fibers that made plants difficult to digest and bacteria to help ferment them.
Taylor's Flood Folly
At the bottom on page 51, there is a bottom back and white image of the back cover of the book. It shows a Parasaurolophus on left hand corner of the image. On the upper right hand corner, there is a caption that shows what the dinosaur is and wrongfully claims that the stomach contents of pine cones, pine needles, fruits, and seeds found in many hadrosaur fossils were their last meal they ate just before or during the Flood. This is total nonsense. How could Hadrosaurs eat as well as raise eggs and young, relieving themselves, migrating from place to place, and curled up sleeping, like Mei long was when it was smothered in an ash fall 130 million years ago, while they all are supposed to be running for their lives and head for the hills to vainly escape the flood? No doubt this claim made up by Paul is indeed flawed to the core.
A Waste Of Creative Features
Page 52 and here and continues here: Taylor claims,
"After the Flood, God gave people official permission to kill animals for food and eat them. Man could now eat everything, green plants and animals."
Giving into the assumption of Genesis 1:29-30 being nothing more than a commandment from God, while it's in fact not.
"This means that people from Noah's family could have eaten dinosaurs, if they tasted good."
They could but they never did.
"But God told the animals (including dinosaurs) that they should not kill people. If they did, they would have to answer to God for it."
No, He told only Noah that as part of His covenant He made with Noah after the Flood. What Taylor claims is a direct example of him making stuff up and shoehorning them into the Bible. One has to wonder how can dinosaurs not kill man and/or kill man while they've been really dead for 65 million years? How can Noah and his family taste dinosaurs other than birds, while in fact they never ever saw them alive let alone kill them? If animals like lions, tigers and Velociraptors have all that it takes to hunt and kill prey, yet they are told to eat only plants, then what good is it? They would all be totally worthless to have them. A big waste of creative features for them to receive the traits of a meat-eater, yet they're strictly ordered to eat only plants it will be.
Look how Taylor is explaining (in his own way) about how some animals become meat-eaters after the Fall. According to this crank, some animals didn't become meat-eaters until after the Flood which contradicts another crank notion of some animals becoming meat-eaters the moment Adam ate and apple.
In Taylor's crank, before the Flood, there wasn't a need for animals to kill other animals to live because there were plenty of huge, lush forests of plant life for them to eat with predation happening on very rare occasions. In Taylor's eyes, there is no need for animals to compete with one another for food since there's plenty of plants around for them to eat. But they will still have to compete with other animals, even among those in the same family, for space, which leads to fights and squabbles over territories. When one part of the forest is bare of plants, one group of animals travel to where there's more plants to eat, but the other group does not like them here, so they challenge the group over the territory. First, they make threatening displays and roaring sounds at one another to intimidate either one of the groups to back off and retreat. If that doesn't work, then all Hell breaks loose with animals fighting with one another that will subsequently ends with either one of both groups being driven out of the territory or killed.
There are a few cases of predation happening in the mythic pre-Flood world, all those bodies of animals that have died of natural causes would still fill the land with a very rotten stench and spread diseases that can kill anyone living around it. One has to wonder how did people and animals in the pre-Flood world manage to put up with rottenly stenched dead bodies littering the land, stinking up the area and spreading diseases around without making everyone sick and die off of them with little or no predation around to clean them up.
Even if there were plenty of plants to eat, the animals would still strip all of the vegetation bare, leaving every part of land completely overgrazed right down to the roots. With no roots to hold down the soil, the wind would blow all the soil away, rendering the whole world into a desert planet completely void of vegetation. The Plant Kingdom would face extinction and the animals relying on plants to eat would all starve to death. Predation is the plants' ultimate savior. There must be predators in the world to ensure the survival of plants and to maintain a healthy ecosystem by killing and eating other animals for food to help keep populations of plant-eating animals under control, prevent diseases, and give plant life a chance to thrive.
What happens If There Was A Global Flood
Taylor then claims,
"Meat-eating would have been encouraged by the Flood. The Flood was the world's greatest disaster. It destroyed all the world's huge, lush forests of plant life. Until new forests grew, there was much less food. The Flood would have left a certain number of decaying animal bodies unburied on the earth's surface. The bodies would have been tempting meals for hungry, sharp-toothed animals. Plants growing in the soils of the destroyed earth would have had less protein and vitamins than before, especially in certain areas of the world"
If there was a global flood, all plants will be destroyed - seeds in all. Plants that need little water, plants that need only fresh water, plants that are so delicate, plants that survive well in the desert, every type of plant will all be wiped off the face of the earth along with the soil needed to make the plants grow. If there was such a case as a global flood and when all the animals and people leave the ark, they will all starve to death due to lack of plants to eat and no soil to grow plants on. Even if some animals become meat-eaters and feed off all the carcasses of animals and people that have died in the Flood, they will all die eventually after they ran out of carcasses to eat and went about killing off all of the plant eaters and each other to vainly satisfy their hunger and then die of starvation.
Fish will not survive the flood either. Freshwater fish need to live in fresh water and saltwater fish need to live in salt water. Put each fish group in the opposite water and they will all die. Put them all together in one setting and they will not survive at all. If there was a global flood, there won't be any freshwater fish, coral reefs, or even saltwater fish found alive at all. If there ever was a global flood, the world will be a desolate uninhabitable place.
Even Noah and his family would have a very hard time trying to raise crops with all if all of the soil gets washed away and destroyed in the Flood so they will have to eat meat only because they will have no choice and watch all their livestock get wasted away due to lack of food and water and watch their own lives be wasted away and wind up dying of starvation themselves. By the time that happens, then the world will be a just dead lifeless planet just like all of the other planets out there in our solar system. Indeed it would be as Taylor puts it "an awful thing sin did to God's wonderful, [sic] peaceful Creation!" if what Taylor claims to be the case. Devastating! I'm glad I don't worship a mean cruel god who wastes his creativity that way and put fossils in the earth to trick us and make the young universe and the earth to look old. Some creation “groaning up to this present time (Romans 8:19-22 )! Thankfully, there is a much better interpretation of Romans 8:19-22 on this page from Rich Deem's site that you can see here.
Dinosaurs as "Fraidy Cats"
Page 54 and this page: Taylor tries to answer the question "Where dinosaurs really as ferocious as they are shown in books and in films?" Some of them were! Especially Dromaeosaurs with terrifying sickle claws and menacing jaws and teeth. However, Paul makes up a sickly, crank claim to say that the dinosaurs were, in a way "fraidy cats." Let me explain. Paul states that because we have only fossils, it is difficult to know for sure how dinosaurs behaved. If dinosaurs did lived with man, man would have kept an accurate record of them and their observations to give us a clear info on what they are really like. But no such record, let alone no such world, has ever existed. He then goes on to say that most dinosaurs have small brains in comparisons to their immense size. He says that just because dinosaurs have small brains doesn't necessary mean that they were stupid as animals go, but they were surely (in Paul's imaginary mind) no match for man's brain — at least until scientists discover and unearth a new species of dinosaurs that possess intelligence that match that of humans.
Size Doesn't Matter
He then discusses about dinosaurs that were quite small like Saltopus, a late Triassic dinosaur that is no bigger than a house cat. He claims that many of them that were allegedly wiped out during the Flood, which there is no evidence for, were less than 15 inches long not including their tails. How does he know? Answer: He don't! He only made it up! Saying this as if to say they were all Compsognathids or Mussaurids while in reality small dinosaurs in most cases were much longer than that. Paul may think that most people pay attention only to the giants and it seems to be so. But people nowadays also pay much attention to the small ones as well as to the giants. Who wouldn't want to pay attention to Dromaeosaurs, Troodontids, Hypsilophodontids, Heterodontosaurids, and Fabrosaurids, not to mentioned Compsognathids, Coelurids, and dinosaurs that are cloaked in feathers such as Sinornithosaurus for instance? When it comes to the enthrallment of dinosaurs, size doesn't matter.
Dinosaur Eggs
Page 55a: Taylor talks about dinosaur eggs and even though most if not all dinosaurs laid eggs, dinosaurs may not at all laid big large eggs because the larger the eggs, the thicker the shell has to be. And if the eggs were so big and thick then the baby would not be able to get out at all. If the eggshell gets so thick, then no oxygen will ever come in and the embryo would die and never hatch. Taylor claims that no eggs of Apatosaurus and Brachiosaurus have been found. But eggs of Titanosaurids have been found! They've been found in India and Argentina, Spain and France. The biggest dinosaur egg comes from Hypselosaurus, a Titanosaurid that laid eggs that are about one foot long by 10 inches wide. Despite Taylor's claims, baby dinosaurs grow up real fast. Evidence states that on average baby dinosaurs like Diplodocus can grow up into adults in a matter of 10-15 years and lived to a ripe old age of 100. The idea of people, especially Methuselah, living long lives before the flood may have been based on a sexagesimal system of the base 60. Something the Sumerian people have invented thousands of years ago. The reference to this is here.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/ancients.htm
Giant Animals Other Than Dinosaurs
Page 55b: Taylor states that there were other animals that became giants, too. There were giant birds, beavers, bears, bison, kangaroos, and deer. All these extinct megafauna dates from the early Cenozoic era all the way up to the time of the Ice Age. There was also giant dragonflies, too. These animals are dated back during the Paleozoic Era and the Triassic period as well. And plants were bigger as well like the tall giant horsetail plants from the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic Era and the Sequoia trees, giant trees that still exist today in the western part of the US. Not all of these Cenozoic giants existed at the same time as man. And no man ever saw giant horsetail plants either. But people never got bigger than only 6 to 7 feet on average. On rare instances, there were people that got as big as 9 to 12 feet tall. And that's as far as man could get. Nothing more.
No Way Are This "Very Good"
Page 56 and this page: Taylor asserts that the original dinosaurs were neither troublesome nor ferocious. He states that when God made everything he saw that they were "very good." Originally, in Taylor's imaginary world, all dinosaurs must have been harmless, created to delight mankind and benefit the world, eating only plants and fruits, buttering up with humans and other extinct and modern animals— all made up out of blatant ignorance of no traces of all animal species living and extinct and human mixing together. That scenario only exists in the young earth extremists' warped imagination. In reality, there's no way can dinosaurs be all harmless plant-eaters! Look at the <em>Dromaeosaurs</em>' sickle claws and the Tyrannosaurus' big powerful jaws and teeth! No way was these dinosaurs harmless plant-eaters! And as mentioned before no man has ever lived with dinosaurs and no one knows what color the dinosaurs were. So how can they be a delight to man and benefit the world when in fact the dinosaurs were all dead for 65 million years except birds? Birds are the one and only dinosaurs made and designed to delight man and benefit the world with their colorful plumages, their songs, their devouring of harmful insects, and their playful antics in the sky.
The Imaginary Fear of Man
Now this is where the dinosaurs are supposedly to be rendered as "fraidy cats" after the Flood. Taylor uses his warped imagination based on what he thinks Genesis 9:2 mean and claims that after the Flood, the animals and the dinosaurs were made to be afraid of people. The animals stayed as far away from people as they can because God wanted it to happen so He can protect them from each other after the Flood ended, which is totally stupid. How can THAT protect themselves while there's really no protection to it? He states that dinosaurs and man lived in separate areas of the world just like man and wild animals lived in separate worlds of today, which to him probably explains why there are human and dinosaur remains not found together in the fossil record. It doesn't.
Does he know that not all animals are afraid of man including bears, sharks, snakes, rats, not to mentioned dogs, cats, spiders, and insects? Probably not. Even monkeys are not afraid of man either. Next, Taylor states that there were traces of bones, teeth, and stomach contents of many large dinosaurs allegedly killed during the Flood have been found assuming that most dinosaurs were harmless plant-eaters hundreds of years after the Fall; not much different than an elephant and a giraffe in their ways according to Taylor's crackpot assumption. That's nonsense, too. No evidence of fossils being the result of Noah's flood found and no evidence of dinosaurs being around during the time of early man found either. Most dinosaurs were indeed harmless plant-eaters, eating only plants and fruit and some were ferocious meat-eaters killing and eating mainly other dinosaurs for food and the rest were omnivores eating all kinds of foods just like humans do. All are long dead except birds by the time man first appeared on earth around 4 million years ago.
Question About A Skeletal Image
Page 57 and this page: An image is shown of what appears to be a skeleton of a T.rex wrongly arranged with a 4 fingered hand and a caption next to it that reads,
"Did the dinosaur uses its sharp claws of killing brachiosaurs? Or were the claws actually used to holding certain types of plants and fruits? No one knows for sure."
Answer: Neither! Neither did the dinosaur killed Brachiosaurs, nor did he ate plants and fruits. His arms only have 2 fingers, not 4 and could not have reached into his mouth. Brachiosaurs lived during the Jurassic period and were long extinct by the time T.rex evolved. T.rex is unquestionably a full fledge carnivore. But did he kill live prey or did just eat only bug-infested carcasses? Likely he did both.
Taylor's Fictional "Veggiesaurs"
Pages 57 and 58 and here: A fictional scene unfolds depicting 2 Dilophosaurs wrongly eating berries and plants, makes a false and foolish claim that says meat-eating dinosaurs like T.rex could not be meat-eaters because they were clumsy movers compared to modern animals like lions and cheetahs who are slender sleek runners and their teeth would snapped off in battle. All made up. Never mind the latest in fossil studies showing us that the likes of dromaeosaurs, the tyrannosaurs, the allosaurs, and other carnosaurs were excellent sleek and slender hunters in their own right with strong running legs, eyes that see forward and olfactory glands being huge to help them smell prey for many miles around. One fossil of Albertosaurus has rows of teeth with no signs of wearing shown on them. True, but Paul claims that they were scavengers, eating carcasses that have already died if they were indeed meat-eaters, but thus far no stomach contents has ever been found inside of a T.rex fossil. That's a blantant lie. There's one T-rex fossil that contains stomach contents of a dead hadrosaur (See below for details). According to Taylor, some dinosaurs like Dilophosaurus have delicate features like crests and spiny sails that could break if they fought, never mind them being used as mating and territorial displays and their sharp teeth could not have been used to just tear up meat, but to cut up fruits and vegetables like the steak knives in the kitchen, never mind the bone crushing jaws, the muscular necks, and a simply built digestive track made only to digest meat.
Deinonychus and Velociraptor and other Dromaeosaurs are known to be very slender and sleek runners chasing after prey with great speed and agility. Even T.rex is known to run fast (about 18 MPH, slightly faster than an average human), but not as fast as the Dromaeosaurs and the Troodontids. Yet it's fast enough to catch and kill Hadrosaurs and Ceratopsians and other plant-eaters, who weren't at all speed demons either. The teeth of T.rex and Albertosaurus is very strong and long lasting and if a tooth breaks, it doesn't matter, for new ones can grow to take their place. T.rex could possibly be known as both a predator and a scavenger. There is a fossil Triceratops thighbone found with T.rex teeth marks shown on it as well as a Edmontosaurus skeleton found to have injuries inflicted by a T.Rex in the spine that have eventually healed afterwords.
There is a fossil of a T.rex with a chewed up hadrosaur inside of its stomach. (Varricchio, 2001) It is a fossil that belongs to a T.rex ancestor called Daspletosaurus. This is a dinosaur that lived 75 million years ago in the Cretaceous Period, 5 million years before T.rex evolved. Dilophosaurus' crests are not used for fighting but to attract mates and intimidate rivals.
The spines of Spinosaurus is very thick and may have been used as either a hump to store up fat like a camel or a bison or a sail to display or control body temperature. And speaking of camel, this link will take you to this site, where the real description of the camel's teeth clearly states that creationists don't know a doggone thing about animal dentistry and eating habits contributing to their dentistry.
Comparing dinosaur teeth with normal kitchen steak knives is entirely useless. T.rex and his kin has really thick, conical, strong, rigid, homodontical, long lasting, deep-rooted teeth that can easily cut through skin, flesh, and bones unlike those flimsy kitchen steak knives that are all thin and flat; they can bend, rust, break, go blunt when used a lot, and has to be sharpened on a wet stone from time to time. Dilophosaurus may have a weak jaw but his teeth are incredibly sharp and capable of slashing and biting through flesh and skin and the teeth of Spinosaurids, like Baryonyx, are all straight, not curved, unlike most meat-eating dinosaurs. Perfect for spearing and catching slippery fish they eat. Although the arms of T.rex are very small; about the same length of a man's arm, Abelisaurids have much smaller stumpy arms and hands yet that didn't stop them from using their jaws to kill prey. Like I said, T.rex never killed brachiosaurs, nor did he saw them in real life. Brachiosaurs were long extinct when T.rex first evolved 67 million years ago. Brachiosaurs lived during the Jurassic period and became extinct during the early Cretaceous Period so T.rex never really saw the Brachiosaurs at all.
References,
Gut Contents From a Cretaceous Tyrannosaurid
The Scientific American book of Dinosaurs
Edited by Gregory S. Paul
Copyright 2000 by Byron Preiss Visual Publications Inc.
Information from Chapter Five: Dinosaur Behavior.
"The Teeth of the Tyrannosaurus" By William L. Abler
The Real Function Of The Horns of Ceratopsians
Page 59a and page: Taylor falsely states that God did not intend for the ceratopsians' horns to be used for fighting (since when?) rather they were used to dig up, root, turn, and move plants around like pigs, which they can't because their horns are pointed up way too high. Some don't have horns at all. One exception could probably be Einiosaurus, a ceratopsian with a downward pointed nose horn. With that horn he could have dug up and uprooted plants for him to eat as he foraged around for food. If what Taylor claims to be the case, then what good is it for the horns are wasted on being used for just moving plants around? And since when did God not intend for the horns to be used as defensive weapons and what good is it then if what Taylor claims to be the case? He really doesn't know everything about the horns of the ceratopsians and their functions, does he? What he assumes of what the horns do and what the horns really do is 2 different things.
First off, the horns were not used just for moving plants out of the way in a dense forest. They may have move plants out of the way in the dense Cretaceous forests of 70-65 million years ago, but they also serve as excellent defensive weapons against their meat-eating enemies. Like rhinos, they charge head on defensively in an effort to scare away enemies and drive them off. However according to a BBC show The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs, a group of scientists tested out this theory and found that the horns can only be used to just to gore their enemies. Charging at them head on would result in their heads being shattered on impact.
Plus, the horns were also used to intimidate and wrestle with their rivals and show them off to impress females. In a rival match, the 2 males lock horns and wrestle with each other until the loser weakens and breaks from the fight, backs off, and retreats. Extremely rarely do they fight to the death for usually they fight until one gives up and retreats. They were very social creatures that lived in herds and stick together for protection against meat-eaters like T.rex and Gorgosaurus. Even when they are alone, they can be very formidable opponents and can put up a really good fight. They may have strong jaws and replaceable teeth, but they also have parrot like beaks as well and chew up tough plants, twigs, roots (if the ground is soft enough), and small trees. Also, did you know that one particular ceratopsian chew up bones too? It's totally weird, but ceratopsians may have been on rare occasions meat eaters. Specifically omnivores that dined on carcasses they came across.
There is one fossil of Psittacosaurus that was found to have traces of bone pieces inside of its stomach contents. Maybe the dinosaur swallow bones as well as pebbles to help grind its food as well as to get some protein inside his body once in a great while. An opportunistic scavenger? Unbelievable, but could be true, when more studies are made and more findings turned up. This is not exclusive, for some modern herbivores like hippos also scavenge among the carcasses of dead animals on rare occasions as well. No ceratopsian ever had horns or spikes on their backs despite what Paul claims. Some do have spikes on their frills though; also to display for females and scare away enemies. Taylor is likely getting them all mixed up with Stegosaurs. But one ceratopsian did have quill like spines on his tail and that's <em>Psittacosaurus,</em> the parrot dinosaur.
Paul says that some beetles have horns like ceratopsians and just assumes that the horns were once thought by some to be used for stabbing other beetles, but it is actually known to use to pry, lift, and carry things around. Likely he's referring to the rhinoceros beetle a.k.a. the elephant beetle; capable of lifting objects 850 times its own weight using its horns to do so. It is also used to burrow underground to escape from its enemies and to engage in wrestling matches with a rival over a feeding ground and/or a female. But what does that have to do with the ceratopsians horns? Nothing! The Ceratopsian horns no doubt are not used for burrowing, carrying things, or just to move plants around. Besides the horns of the ceratopsians were in most cases were either pointed upwards or were too short to ever touch the ground and in some cases have no horns at all. Instead, they were used as mating displays and defensive weapons against their foes. What good is it then, if God never intended on having the ceratopsian horns to fight back against their enemies when attacked and to impress their females and to ward off rivals? It will be a total waste of creativity if the horns are just use for measly moving plants around and not for defense. The references about the beetle and the ceratopsians is all here.
http://www.extremescience.com/StrongestCreature.htm
http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3bio356/lectures/ceratopsia_and_ornithopoda.html>
http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/html/newchinese.htm
Taylor's Imagination About The Hunting And Killing Off Dinosaurs By Humans
Page 59b and page, Taylor finally tries to answer the question "Did any dinosaurs ever become terrible and ferocious?" He claims out of ignorance that it's a mystery and there's no proof that any of them where mean and dangerous, like they have been portrayed in books which is an outright lie. He just assumes that it will take more discoveries before it is known how the dinosaurs behaved before the Flood and afterwords and it is likely that man mostly killed them off for sport, pleasure, or food— something Taylor has made up out of ignorance of the fact that some of them were indeed always terrifying and dangerous from the very beginning. Especially the Dromaeosaurs and the Tyrannosaurs, which are among of the most dangerous and deadliest of dinosaurs the world has ever known.
Contrare to Taylor's assertion and denial, scientists were able to come up with possible behavior hypothesis in many dinosaurs based on clues found in the fossil record just as mentioned before in the first part of the essay. And finally, man never hunted and killed off dinosaurs. Except birds, Dinosaurs all died out 60 million years before there were any people on earth. So, there is never, ever any evidence at all for dinosaurs being killed off by man. No dinosaur skins for clothing, no dinosaur bones with spear heads embedded in them and/or injuries made by the spears, no dinosaur bones to make tools out of and no weapons being made for hunting them down, and no accounts of dinosaur hunting expeditions or dinosaurs being kept as pets, and no grave sites of dinosaurs and man buried together has ever been found in areas where remnants of cave, village, city and all other human dwellings of ancient times has ever been found. Not even a small trace.
The Real Certainty
Finally, despite Paul's assumptions, Bible believing Christians, with real common sense, can certainly NOT let their children and the adults themselves look at this toiletry. They have no problems with evolution and God creating all things using evolution to modify it. I wish all Christians are like that. Then there will be no young earth lies, no ignorance, and the whole science world will all be much better off that way.
The Real Important Things to Remember
Pages 60-61 and here: Here Paul starts preaching and denying that dinosaurs evolved from Basal Archosaurs, giving the gullible and the ignorant some “[sic] important things to remember”, which there is none. There is nothing important to remember anything that has to do with morality, religion, and such concerning dinosaurs.
But here's REAL important things that all must remember….
Everything in the book, film, and site is all made up. They both contain nothing but lies and Taylor knows it! There's nothing to prove in Taylor's drivel concerning dinosaurs. Despite his efforts to preach the gospel which translates to, "Embrace YECism or rot in Hell," any hapless soul who buy into this message will bring about their own downfall into atheism and/or other forms of religion that has nothing to do with Christianity once they realized they've been lied to and none of what the creationists say is true and buys into the false dilemma creationists tout around that says, “If evolution is true, then the Bible is false. If the Bible is true, them evolution is false. You can only have one or the other, not both.” Thus, what Taylor preaches in his media is not worth listening to. To know more how YECism = Atheism, click here.
