Of all the creatures that have ever lived, dinosaurs are the most fascinating to man, especially to children. This is perhaps due to their spectacular size in many cases (dinosaurs range in size from one comparable to a rooster to Brachiosaurus, which weighed up to 80 tons and was as tall as a five-story building) and because they possessed so many anatomical features. The fossil record of dinosaurs speaks as clearly for creation as it is possible to speak about creatures that no longer exist today.
The first dinosaur fossil was discovered in England 170 years ago. A large tooth was discovered in 1822 by the wife of Dr. Gideon Mantell, a physician who was also an amateur paleontologist. Dr. Mantell searched for additional fossils and found several more teeth and bones. He sent the fossils to Baron Cuvier, a famous French scientist. Since he had never seen anything comparable to those fossils, this time, the great French scientist made a mistake. He identified the teeth as belonging to an ancient rhinoceros and the bones as those of an extinct hippopotamus.
Later, a friend of Dr. Mantell informed him that all the teeth were similar in structure, although much larger, to those of the iguana, a lizard found in Mexico and South America. Dr. Mantell concluded that he had found the remains of an astonishingly new type of creature. He named it Iguanodon (“one that has teeth like an iguana”). Not long after, fossilized bones and teeth of a huge, carnivorous, lizard-like animal were found and given the name Megalosaurus. Soon it was realized that Iguanodon and Megalosaurus were members of a previously unknown, extinct type of creature. The great British anatomist and paleontologist, Sir Richard Owen, gave them the name dinosaur (“terrible lizard”).
With the remains of Iguanodon, a sharp beak-like bone was found, which was thought to be a beak. In the year 1877, however, its true nature was spectacularly discovered in a Belgian mine. Miners found fossilized skeletons of about two dozen Iguanodons deep in a coal mine. How to explain this astonishing fossil graveyard of Iguanodons deep in a coal mine became a challenge for evolutionary geologists. Some suggested that there once existed a deep crack in the ground into which the Iguanodons fell. It seems strange, however, how all other animals avoided this trap. Only a few lonely voices suggested that these creatures and the carbonized plant material in which they were buried slid and were buried by a water catastrophe.
A study of the fossils revealed that the “beak” actually corresponded to the thumb. It is impossible to know for certain how the Iguanodon used that “thumb.” It is possible that it used it for peeling plant material. Some suggested that it used it for defense.
Dinosaurs (orders Saurischia and Ornithischia), crocodiles (order Crocodilia), flying reptiles (order Pterosauria), and various other reptiles (order Thecodontia) are grouped together in the subgroup Archosauria (“ruling reptiles”), although there are few diagnostic traits that all these creatures possess, and therefore little that connects them. The distinguishing feature that sharply divides saurischian dinosaurs from ornithischian dinosaurs is the fact that the former had a reptile-like pelvic structure or hip, while the latter dinosaurs had a “bird-like” pelvis, and ornithischian dinosaurs possessed a predentary bone not found in saurischians. Thecodonts, especially Pseudosuchia—suborder Thecodontia—are considered by many to be the reptilian ancestors of crocodiles, dinosaurs, flying lizards, and birds.
That this presumed origin is fabricated becomes clear when reading evolutionary literature. Speaking about Saltoposuchus, a pseudosuchian thecodont, Romer says:
“It is clear that forms of this kind are those from which pterosaurs, birds, and dinosaurs evolved. There are no known thecodonts that show positive indications leading to the first two mentioned groups, nor to either of the two dinosaurian orders, Ornithischia.”¹
How can it be clear that something like Saltoposuchus is an ancestor to flying reptiles, birds, and ornithischian dinosaurs if these creatures do not reveal “positive indications leading toward” flying reptiles, birds, and ornithischian dinosaurs? It seems obvious that Romer simply adopted thecodont reptiles as ancestors of birds, flying reptiles, dinosaurs with a bird-like pelvis, and crocodiles (which Romer mentions elsewhere), due to a lack of a better candidate, since the fossil record provides no real ancestors and necessary transitional forms.
Earlier in his discussion about archosaurs (thecodonts, crocodiles, flying reptiles, and dinosaurs), Romer says:
“Many similarities in structural characteristics among the final forms of different archosaurian lines are not inherited as such from a single common ancestor, but were independently acquired by members of different groups. This, however, does not exclude such characteristics from consideration as possible connections. The study of fossil forms increasingly indicates that there was enormous parallelism in evolution; but this study also shows that close parallelism occurs only in closely related forms.”²
What Romer admits here is that these groups of creatures were related due to their many similarities, but that in any case, many of the structural characteristics shared by the supposed final evolutionary products were not inherited from a supposed common ancestor, since that supposed common ancestor did not possess those structural characteristics. Evolutionists assume in cases such as these that, after an ancestral evolutionary population split into separate evolving lines, each evolving line independently acquired the same structure or structures (this is called “parallel evolution”). It is clear that when two or more creatures possess a structurally common characteristic, and it is known that a supposed common ancestor did not possess that structural characteristic, then the possession of that characteristic by these creatures in no way indicates a common ancestor.
Romer tells us that crocodiles, flying reptiles, thecodonts, and dinosaurs were grouped together in Archosauria due to similarities. He then continues by saying that many of these similarities were not inherited from a single ancestor. And yet, they serve as the basis for the assumption of a common ancestor. He tries to justify this evolutionary narrative by assuming that close parallelism occurs only in closely related forms. But if the similarities used to establish the connection were independently acquired, how can we know that the creatures in question are truly related? This certainly involves a great leap of faith.
In the article titled “Mysteries of Early Dinosaur Evolution,”³ Cox states: “Although many pages have been written discussing the mystery of the dinosaurs’ extinction, almost as much uncertainty surrounds their origin—or origins.”
As previously mentioned, it is assumed that dinosaurs evolved from pseudosuchians. One problem with this idea is that the supposed pseudosuchian ancestors were still present after dinosaurs had supposedly evolved. Thus, Cox says: “Throughout the entire Late Triassic, at least, a diverse multitude of pseudosuchians coexisted with a diverse multitude of their supposed descendants, the dinosaurs.” Speaking about ornithischian and saurischian dinosaurs, Cox asserts:
“If one now tries to connect these two types of dinosaurs with Triassic pseudosuchians, there seems to be an enigmatic overlap in time between these two groups, although possible evolutionary connections between them stubbornly refuse to appear.”
As described earlier, Romer admits that there is no way to link ornithischian dinosaurs with their supposed thecodont ancestors. He believes, however, that some saurischian dinosaurs were similar enough to thecodonts that it can be assumed that saurischian dinosaurs evolved from thecodont reptiles, although, as Cox states, no evolutionary connections have been found between the supposed pseudosuchian thecodont ancestors and their dinosaurian descendants that existed in the Late Triassic.
When considering the credibility of each model of origin, creation, and evolution, in relation to the specific origin of dinosaurs, the most definitive approach is not whether it is possible or not to imagine a link between some generalized forms of dinosaurs and theropod reptiles, but rather to search for possible transitional evolutionary forms that would document the evolutionary origin of dinosaurs with unique structures. If evolution is correct, we should easily find a series of transitional forms that would show how these unusual structures gradually arise. If creation is correct, dinosaurs that would carry these unique structures should appear all at once, fully formed from the very beginning. Here, creation wins. In no single case can the sought-after transitional forms be found.
The unique characteristic of horned dinosaurs (suborder Ceratopsia) was, of course, horns, ranging from one to five. The central bony core of the horns of these ornithischian dinosaurs was similar in appearance to those of modern bison. Triceratops weighed from eight to ten tons and ranged from 16 to 20 feet in length. It had three large horns, one above each eye, and a third in the nasal region. Triceratops had a large bony fold, several centimeters thick, which formed an extension of the parietal and squamous bones of the skull. This shield provided significant protection in the neck region.
Centrosaurus, which was also equipped with a bony shield, had only one horn in the parietal region. Protoceratops is the name given to a dinosaur found in the upper Cretaceous of Mongolia. As Romer pointed out, Protoceratops was given a misleading name because it did not have horns at all. It did have a horn-like nasal region and folds that were present in some individuals. Evolutionists imagine that horns could have developed in such a creature, but transitional forms have not been found. Then, as already mentioned, Protoceratops was found in Upper Cretaceous rocks, where all “horned” dinosaurs were found. If Protoceratops was the ancestor of horned dinosaurs, it should be found in geological formations such as the Middle and Lower Cretaceous, which are assumed to be older than Upper Cretaceous formations. Therefore, Protoceratops is ruled out as the ancestor of horned dinosaurs.
Two dinosaurs are mentioned as possible evolutionary variants of Triceratops. For one, Sterrholophus, it is now believed to be an underdeveloped Triceratops, while Diceratops is said to have been a pathological form of Triceratops.
Unlike Triceratops, whose head and shield represented a third of the entire length of the dinosaur, Stegosaurus had a small head without horns. In any case, it had a very unusual anatomical structure. This included four spikes on the tail, each about three feet long, and plates that extended along the neck, body, and tail. There is no doubt that the spikes served in the defense of this twenty-foot-long quadrupedal dinosaur, but the function of the plates remains mysterious. Some have suggested that the plates, attached to the skeleton by ligaments, may have served as protective armor. The arrangement in a double alternating row and the configuration of these plates, however, suggest that they may have also served for heat exchange. In any case, we have not found series of transitional forms that would show the gradual evolution of the spikes and plates. Stegosaurus, whose numerous fossils have been found, appeared fully formed, contrary to what would be expected based on evolution, but fully predicted based on creationist theory.
Another unusual type of dinosaur was the duck-billed dinosaur, or hadrosaurus. Numerous fossils of these bipedal creatures were found in the rocks of the Upper Cretaceous formations. They could be found almost everywhere in the world. Although these dinosaurs were equipped with a beak, they had many teeth arranged at the back of the beak. Trachodon had about two hundred teeth. Many of these beaked dinosaurs had bony crests of strange shapes. This was the case with Parasaurolophus, Saurolophus, Lambeosaurus, and Corythosaurus. They evidently spent a long time in the water, considering that they had feet with fused skin flaps, which had hooves, not claws. The body length was on average around thirty feet.
If these dinosaurs evolved from the tecodont reptiles or ordinary dinosaurs, we would surely have to find numerous transitional forms in the fossil record, which, for example, show a gradual transition of the jaw and teeth into the beak. No such transitional form has been found. All duck-billed dinosaurs found were fully formed, providing positive evidence for creation.
The dinosaurs of the suborder Ankylosauria were heavily armored, “reptilian tanks” among dinosaurs. The head, body, and tail of these low, wide quadrupeds were covered with bony lumps and long spikes along the shoulder area. Some had spikes on the tail as well. Ankylosaurus had a large bony lump at the end of its powerful tail, which resembled a real war club in shape. If a carnivorous dinosaur chose Ankylosaurus for lunch, it could end up with broken teeth and legs! No transitional forms were found for these armored dinosaurs.
Iguanodons, predatory dinosaurs, stegosaurs, horned dinosaurs, and ankylosaurs, were all ornithischian or dinosaurs with a bird-like pelvis. Among the saurischian or dinosaurs with reptilian pelvises, we found some of the largest and most ferocious, as well as the smallest dinosaurs. Within the suborder Coelurosauria, small dinosaurs were found, ranging in length from three to six feet, including the tail. Coelurosauria dinosaurs were small bipeds. Coelophysis was about 2 meters long, Podokesaurus was about 1 meter long, while Compsognathus was as large as a chicken. Struthiomimus (“ostrich-like”) was ostrich-like in basic proportions, had a small head, and a long slender body. There were suggestions that Struthiomimus was an ancestor of birds, but we remind you that it did not have any sign of feathers, it had a reptilian pelvis instead of a bird-like one, and it had no teeth (Archaeopteryx had teeth). All specimens of Struthiomimus that were found appeared completely complete, without transitional forms, as is the case with other coelurosaurs.
Unlike small coelurosaurs, carnivorous dinosaurs of the suborder Carnosauria were very large carnivorous bipeds. Allosaurus was about 9-10 meters long, with a powerful jaw armed with long, sharp teeth. Tyrannosaurus was the largest known carnivorous dinosaur, standing nearly 6 meters high in a standing position, and nearly 15 meters long. Its jaw was about 2 meters long, with teeth nearly 15 cm long. Once again, transitional forms predicted by evolutionary theory were not found in the fossil record.
One of the largest and most spectacular of all dinosaurs was the quadrupedal herbivorous dinosaur from the suborder Sauropodomorpha. This includes Diplodocus with a long neck and long tail, nearly 30 meters long. Brontosaurus (“thunder lizard”) was nearly 24 meters long and weighed nearly 40 tons. The fossil of Brachiosaurus that was found weighs nearly 80 tons and is as tall as a five-story building. Its nostrils were not at the end of the snout but were located on the bony arch at the top of the head! No one knows why such an unusual arrangement existed, but we know that no transitional form has been found to show the migration of nostrils from the snout to the top of the head.
It is assumed that some bipedal creatures returned to a quadrupedal mode of movement and then evolved into these huge herbivorous dinosaurs. No transitional forms could be found that would show the origin of these monstrous creatures from smaller forms. Diplodocus is Diplodocus, Brontosaurus is Brontosaurus, and Brachiosaurus is Brachiosaurus from the very beginning. Thus, we see that the entire fossil record of dinosaurs, which for us represents the fascinating history of these extraordinary creatures, is definitely positive evidence for creation.
- Literature
- Ref 1. A. S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed., U. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1966.
- Romer, Ref. 1, p. 140.
- Romer, Ref. 1, p. 136.
- Barry Cox, Nature 264:314 (1976).
- D. F. Glut, The Dinosaur Dictionary, The Citadel Press, Secaucus, N. J., 1972, p. 181.
- Glut, Ref. 63, p. 57.