The New Dinosaurs of 2015

I can't believe it, but we're already approaching the end of 2015, which I think has been my best year of life so far. Not all of 2015 was easy, but this year made for a great life experience for me. So much great stuff happened over the course of this year. 2016 will soon be upon us, and we'll have new adventures to partake in. I can't wait to see what they are!

Once again, it's time to look at the past year's dinosaur discoveries!

Days Till:
It is: 2 days till New Year's
It is: 6 days till My Birthday
It is: 19 days till Martin Luther King Jr. Day

In the Spotlight:

The Ark Encounter, opening July 7th, 2016. (Property of Answers in Genesis)

In addition to the many other things we have to look forward to next year, I'd like to draw your attention to a new “theme park” opening on July 7th, 2016 called “Ark Encounter”. In case you're one of the individuals who's unaware, the Ark Encounter is a subdivision of the creationist company Answers in Genesis (I'm a BIG fan of their work...in case you somehow haven't noticed); not too long ago they opened the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Now, not far from the Creation Museum, AiG is constructing a life-size wooden ark, modeled after the one Noah built in Genesis 6-7. It's going to be 510 feet long, 51 feet tall and 84 feet wide when complete! While the real Noah's ark was technically a floating zoo, perfectly designed to stay afloat on the high global seas, the Ark Encounter vessel will be so much more. The best I can describe it is as a museum inside of an ark, it's going to feature many different kinds of animals depicted as they might have looked on Noah's ark, and several dioramas and exhibits talking about how we know the global Flood of Noah's time happened, the Ice Age, the wickedness of the pre-Flood world and so on. But don't take my word for it, check out a video they recently released talking about what kinds of exhibits they'll have inside the ark:

When you're finished with that video, please go to their newly-designed website talking all about the Ark Encounter, and even a little bit about what kinds of animals they'll feature and so much more: www.arkencounter.org.

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan2015 has been a great year for dinosaur lovers. We've had more dinosaur movies/documentaries than you can shake a stick at (e.g. T. rex Autopsy, Dino Death Match, Dinosaur Britain, The Good Dinosaur and, the biggest of them all, Jurassic World). But not only have there been a multitude of dinosaur documentaries/movies, we've also had a great year for dinosaur discoveries. Below is a list of just a few of the newest species of dinosaurs discovered and new research on dinosaurs discovered in previous years.

New Dinosaur Species of 2015

Carnufex

Carnufex could swim after you in the water, and run after you on land! (Image Credits)

 OK, so Carnufex carolinensis is by no means a dinosaur, it's discovery is still quite fascinating. It was a species of crocodile-like reptile (a crocodylomorph to be more specific) that was discovered in North Carolina. Carnufex was about nine feet long from snout to tail. What makes it unique is that it probably could walk on its hind legs, like a theropod dinosaur. It inhabited the Triassic ecosystem of the pre-Flood world until 4,350 years ago when it and countless other animals were wiped out in the global Flood of Noah's time. Armored reptiles and so-called "mammal-like reptiles" would have likely served as prey for this creature.

Chilesaurus

Chilesaurus was an herbivorous theropod. (Image Credit: Gabriel Lio)

Theropod – the word often conjures up images of large predators like Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus, or perhaps fast and deadly smaller predators like Velociraptor and Coelophysis. So imagine paleontologists' surprise when seven-year old Diego Suárez discovered Chilesaurus, a theropod from Chile, in 2004. However, it wasn't scientifically described until 2015. It had an overall body shape of a theropod, but it had a small head with a beak and leaf-shaped teeth akin to stegosaurs, a hip structure like an ornithopod, hind feet like a prosauropod and two-fingered hands like a T. rex! It's no wonder scientists nicknamed it the “platypus dinosaur”. Despite being a theropod, 10-foot long Chilesaurus' leaf-shaped teeth, beak and large gut tell us that it was an herbivore.

Dakotaraptor

Dakotaraptor was one of the most dangerous dinosaurs ever to walk the earth. (Image Credit: Emily Willoughby)

Up until 2015, the only apex carnivores known from the Hell Creek Formation (which spans Montana and the Dakotas) were the turkey-sized, Velociraptor-like Acheroraptor, and of course, Tyrannosaurus rex. This all changed this year, when scientists studied and described fossils of a large raptor uncovered in South Dakota in 2005. Meet Dakotaraptor! This dromaeosaur was 18 feet long, six to nine feet tall, weighed over 500 pounds and could run at speeds of 30-40 mph. As if this weren't dangerous enough, Dakotaraptor may have hunted in packs like its cousins, like Deinonychus and Utahraptor. In addition to blade-like teeth and incredibly strong arms, it had a nine-inch sickle-shaped claw on each foot for dismembering prey. If you're ever exploring the pre-Flood ecosystem of Hell Creek, beware of this dinosaur!

To read more about Dakotaraptor, please see my full article.

Hualianceratops

Hualianceratops was a smaller relative of Triceratops. (Image Credits:PortiaSloanRollings)

Triceratops is the most popular member of the ceratopsian baramin (“created kind”), but cousins of this 10-ton herbivore come in all shapes and sizes, from another 2015 discovery, the extra-frilled Regaliceratops which grew over 15 feet long, to the spaniel-sized Hualianceratops. This ceratopsian made its home in what is now China's Gobi Desert; at the time, the area was certainly much more forested than it is today. This Jurassic ecosystem boasted a wide range of dinosaurs, from long-necked sauropods, to the predatory Guanlong, a small raptor-like tyrannosaur described in 2006. Unlike its larger relatives, Hualianceratops lacked horns and an elaborate frill and it walked on two legs rather than four.

Kunbarrasaurus

Kunbarrasaurus was thought to belong to the genus Minmi until very recently. (Image Credits: Australian Geographic)

Ankylosaurs are a group of dinosaurs known for being covered in tough armor plates. These plates cover the entire upper half of the animal – even the eyelids are hardened! Some ankylosaurs even had clubs on the ends of their tails. Kunbarrasaurus is a newly discovered ankylosaur from Queensland, Australia. Actually, Kunbarrasaurus was officially dug out of the ground in 1989, but it was thought to be a genus of ankylosaur already discovered, called Minmi (a previous record-holder for the shortest dinosaur name). But recently, scientists found that Kunbarrasaurus' fossils have enough distinctions to make it a different genus.

Qijanglong

Qijanglong had a neck half as long as its entire body! (Image Credits: Lida Xing)

Dinosaurs like Guanlong and  Hualianceratops roamed in the shadows of giants, like the newly discovered Qijanglong, emphasis on “looong”! This dinosaur was a member of the sauropod group, a group of dinosaurs known for having long necks. However, Qijanglong and its closest kin, members of the mamenchisaurid family, had necks long even for sauropods. The necks of most sauropods are a third the length of their bodies, but in the 45-50-foot Qijanglong, its neck was almost half the length of its body! How did sauropods carry such long necks without toppling over? Well, the ultimate Designer (the God of the Bible) made sauropods with neck vertebrae that were filled with pockets of air, making them both strong and lightweight. Interestingly, Qijanglong's skull was discovered attached to its neck; usually sauropod skeletons lack skulls because they easily become detached after the animal dies.

Morelladon

Morelladon was a sail-backed relative of Iguanodon. (Image Credits: Carlos de Miguel Chaves)

Dinosaurs just get weirder and weirder, don't they? (And we're not even to the weirdest one on the list yet!) Morelladon was an iguanodont dinosaur with a sail on its back. Scientists aren't sure why this Spanish herbivore had this feature; it's likely however that the sail was used for display purposes. Morelladon wasn't the only dinosaur to possess a sail: the fish-eating spinosaurs and another iguanodont called Ouranosaurus also had sails. However, perhaps the most elaborate sail of all the dinosaurs belonged to Spinosaurus – its sail stood over six feet tall!

Phosphorosaurus

Phosphorosaurus is not a dinosaur, but a marine lizard of the mosasaur family. (Image Credits: Tatsuya Shinmuru)

Mosasaurs were marine lizards that were very similar to modern monitor lizards. They got a burst of popularity when Mosasaurus (the type species of the mosasaur family) ate Jaws for lunch in the Mosasaurus Feeding Show. Unlike the monster, 60-foot long Mosasaurus, the newly-discovered Phosphorosaurus was not an apex predator of the pre-Flood seas. It was only 10 feet long and fed on fish and squid-like animals. Paleontologists believe Phosphorosaurus may have hunted at night because it had large, forward-facing eyes, unlike other mosasaurs. This means it probably would have been capable of night-vision. Phosphorosaurus was discovered in Japan.

Ugrunaaluk

Ugrunaaluk was misidentified as Edmontosaurus for decades. (Image Credits: James Havens)

Diplodocus. Stegosaurus. Parasaurolophus. You thought those names were hard to pronounce! But you haven't seen a hard-to-pronounce dinosaur name until you've tried to say Ugrunaaluk (Ug-ru-naa-luk). It took me forever to learn how to pronounce this one! This dinosaur was a member of the hadrosaur (duck-billed dinosaur) family and if its name sounds rather unusual for a dinosaur, that's because it isn't derived from the Greek or Latin like most dinosaur names are, but the Inupiat language reflecting where the dinosaur was found – northern Alaska; Ugrunaaluk means “ancient grazer”. Pretty much since the 1980's, scientists have unearthed over six thousand hadrosaur fossils from Alaska. At first, they were believed to belong to a type of lambeosaurine hadrosaur (a hadrosaur with a bony crest). But after more examination, the fossils were classified as Edmontosaurus fossils. However, in 2014 scientists continued to study the fossils and found out something shocking – they weren't Edmontosaurus fossils, or the fossils from any other known hadrosaur, but a new species! As if this weren't surprising enough, many of Ungrunaaluk bones aren't actually fossilized – these are “fresh” dinosaur bones! You would think that this would be a revolutionary discovery, but alas it has been ignored by most of the media or “shoved under the rug”. This is likely because it would further jeopardize the idea that the dinosaur bones are millions of years old and make the biblical view that these dinosaurs were buried in the waters of the Genesis Flood the only logical explanation.

Yi

Yi qi and similar weirdos are from the strange family scansoriopterygidae. (Image Credits: Dinostar)

Dinosaur names are known to be long, tongue-twisty and hard to pronounce, especially names like Ugrunaaluk. So try this one for size: Yi. Yes, that's actually the name of a dinosaur, and it was almost as weird as its name. Its full name (genus and species name) is Yi qi (pronounced “ee-chee”) and it means “strange wing”. So what makes Yi qi stand out? Firstly, this Chinese dinosaur is small, about the size of a pigeon. It also boasts the smallest name of any dinosaur (beating previous record-holders, Mei and Minmi). The most amazing thing about Yi qi though is that it possessed a special membrane supported by a bony rod protruding from its wrist. It was the first, and so far only, dinosaur discovered with bat-like wings! Now it couldn't fly like bats or pterosaurs (flying reptiles with similar wing membranes); instead it was probably a glider, moving from tree to tree, using its “wings” to glide long distances between them. Evolutionists call an instance where a creature has similar features to another unrelated creature “convergent evolution” (strangely, when the same finds occur in creatures they claim are related, it is presented as evidence that the creatures evolved). Instead, Yi qi's bat-like wings point to a Designer who created both Yi qi's baramin and bats. Another interesting thing about Yi qi's discovery is that scientists found melanosomes, which contain pigment cells. By looking at these, scientists were able to tell that Yi qi glided through the forest in a shade of black, with yellow-brown coloration on its head and wing membranes.

Zhenyuanlong

Zhenyuanlong is from the same ecosystem as many other well-known so-called "feathered dinosaurs", including Microraptor, Sinosauropteryx and Sinornithosaurus.

While being touted as positive proof that it's supposed cousin Velociraptor was a feathery feign, Zhenyuanlong is hardly the proof dino-to-bird theorists are looking for. What was actually discovered in China's Liaoning Province? Well, scientists recently described a five-foot-long, nearly complete skeleton complete with fossilized feathers. Contrary to popular opinion, aside from the tremendous evidence against the idea that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds, Zhenyuanlong cannot act as an aid to the theory, as it has several features that identify this creature as a bird, and not a dinosaur; certainly no cousin to Velociraptor. To see why, please see this article by Answers in Genesis. So what of Zhenyuanlong's clawed wings, long bony tail and sharp dinosaur-like teeth? Well, like many other now-extinct birds, like Alexornis, Archaeopteryx, Microraptor, Hesperornis and Ichthyornis, Zhenyuanlong was a species of predatory bird, unique to the pre-Flood world. Zhenyuanlong must have been a terror to smaller creatures in the forest it lived in.

To read more about why dinosaurs could not evolve into birds, please see this article.

New Research of 2015

Brontosaurus

Brontosaurus, once considered synonymous to Apatosaurus, might make a comeback! (Photo Credits: Davide Bonadonna)

Since the early 20th century, scientists have thought that sauropod Brontosaurus was the same species as the closely related Apatosaurus. Therefore, the name invented first – Apatosaurus – was kept and Brontosaurus was dropped, until a 2014-2015 study, that is. A group of scientists was able to conclude that after reevaluating the fossils of both dinosaurs, that Brontosaurus was distinct enough to return as its own species. See an article about the discovery here.

Cave Lion

This cave lion cub is one of the best preserved extinct cats ever found. (Image Credits: Academy of Sciences in Yakutia)

While clearly not a dinosaur discovery, I thought this was worthy to bring up. A few months ago, scientists reported on the discovery of two cave lion cubs that were found frozen in Russian permafrost. Cave lions were a subspecies of the modern lion that lived throughout Europe and Asia during the Ice Age. This discovery is rather amazing because the cubs are the best preserved extinct cats ever found. Until now, we have only had cave lion skeletons and paintings of these cats by Ice Age people to know what they looked like.

For more on this discovery, go here.

Well, that wraps up my blogging until next year. To everyone out there:
HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR!
See you in 2016!

Disclaimer: The images above are not my own unless otherwise indicated. If you own one of the above images and want it removed, please notify me via my email.

References:
www.sci-news.com/paleontology/science-carnufex-carolinensis-new-prehistoric-crocodile-north-carolina-02617
www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/04/Chilesaurus
www.icr.org/article/new-fossil-dubbed-platypus-dinosaur
www.livescience.com/53039-new-jurassic-horned-dinosaur
www.sci-news.com/paleontology/kunbarrasaurus-ieversi-new-armored-dinosaur-species-03507
www.earthsky.org/earth/long-necked-dinosaur-roamed-china-160-million-years-ago
www.sci-news.com/paleontology/phosphorosaurus-ponpetelegans-new-mosasaur-species-03498.html
www.news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/new-dinosaur-had-a-sail-on-its-back-151216
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugrunaaluk
www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/u/ugrunaaluk
www.creation.com/unpermineralized
www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/y/yi
www.phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/29/chinese-dinosaur-had-bat-like-wings-and-feathers
www.answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/what-if-dinosaurs-really-had-feathers

Dakotaraptor: Terror of the Hell Creek Forest

Can you believe it? We've only got just over a week till Christmas! I've been busying myself with trying to get all the Christmas movies on my “watch-list” watched and decorating around the house. Have you guys started decorating yet? Or do you prefer to start decorating later in the month...like two nights before Christmas? Let me know in the comments below.

As you might have noticed (if you're a dinosaur nut-case like me, anyway), that 2015 has been a great year for dinosaur-lovers! We've had more fascinating discoveries than you can shake a stick at, lots of dinosaur documentaries were aired, The Good Dinosaur is in theaters now AND last but not least, Jurassic World finally came out in theaters this past summer! I'll cover all the details of our dinosaur-filled 2015 in an upcoming article, but for now, I'd like to highlight one recent discovery that was released to us this past November. But first...

Days Till:
It is: 9 days till Christmas
It is: 16 days till New Year's
It is: 20 days till My Birthday
It is: 33 days till Martin Luther King Jr. Day

In the Spotlight:
As I'm sure many of you know, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is coming out this Friday. Unlike Jurassic World, we haven't had to wait 13 years for a sequel, but it should still be a pretty cool movie. I look forward to watching. When you see it, be sure to leave a comment down below and express how you liked the movie. In the meantime, here's the trailer:

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

 

The newly discovered Dakotaraptor (seen here as a skeleton) is truly an impressive find! (Wikimedia Commons)

The Hell Creek Formation, located in the badlands of Montana, North and South Dakota and Wyoming, represents a once-thriving ecosystem of the world before the Genesis Flood around 4,350 years ago, when the entire environment was inundated by floodwaters that swept away and buried countless animals and plants and preserved them. Today, the Hell Creek Formation yields a number of the more popular dinosaurs that lived in this environment, such as Triceratops, Ornithomimus and Edmontosaurus. And of course, these dinosaurs were hunted by the most famous dinosaur of all, Tyrannosaurus rex! For almost a century, T. rex was the sole apex predator that dominated the Hell Creek ecosystem, but this soon changed upon the discovery of an all-new dinosaur: a raptor, called Dakotaraptor steini.

The Hell Creek ecosystem would have been a lush, floodplain-like environment. (Wikimedia Commons)

Uncovered in northwestern South Dakota in 2005, Dakotaraptor's discovery is a unique one. Before, the 40-foot long, 7-9 ton T. rex was the only other apex predator found in the region. This seemed strange to paleontologists, because in both modern ecosystems and ecosystems of the pre-Flood world, there are always large, medium and small-sized predators. While T. rex fossils have been found in Hell Creek since the late 1800's (though the dinosaur wasn't officially named until 1905) in relatively great abundance, all scientists knew of other Hell Creek predators came from scattered and broken teeth. No bones, claws or skulls. Just the teeth. It was only in 2013 that these teeth were found to belong to a turkey-sized, recently discovered dromaeosaur called Acheroraptor. Why were there no medium-sized predators in this ecosystem? This all changed in 2015 when paleontologist Robert Depalma, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Palm Beach Museum of Natural History, and his research team, and several other paleontologists including Dr. Peter Larson, Dr. Larry Dean Martin, and Dr. Robert Bakker, finished and published their study on October 30th on the raptor leg and arm bones, tail vertebrae, teeth and wishbone unearthed in 2005. They realized they had found a new species of raptor.

Dakotaraptor steini was 16-18 feet long, stood up to nine feet tall and weighed about 500 pounds. (Wikimedia Commons)

 They named the new species of raptor Dakotaraptor steini; the genus name means “Dakotan Plunderer”, in reference to South Dakota, while the species name is a reference to paleontologist Walter W. Stein.

Dakotaraptor was about the size of the raptors in Jurassic World. ("Dakota raptor scale mmartyniuk" by Matthew Martyniuk - Own work)

The word “raptor” is properly used to refer to all members of the dromaeosauridae family. Dromaeosaurs were a family of relatively small predatory dinosaurs found throughout Cretaceous Flood deposits. They come in a wide range of sizes and lived in a vast array of habitats. While most raptors are smaller than a domestic turkey, Utahraptor is by far the largest, weighing up to 1,100 lbs and reaching 23 feet long; however the most famous is undoubtedly the turkey-sized Velociraptor, the intelligent pack-hunting assassin from the Jurassic Park franchise. Dakotaraptor measures in at about six to nine feet tall (depending on body posture) and 16-17 feet from nose to tail, making it about the size of the genetically-engineered, man-sized versions of Velociraptor seen in Jurassic World. This means it was almost the size of its cousin Utahraptor, making it the second-largest raptor we have discovered so far. According to Dr. Thomas Hotlz, “That is what is important about this find. In fact, it was rather bigger than most of us expected, almost the size of the largest known dromaeosaurid, the...Utahraptor.” Like other members of the dromaeosaur family, Dakotaraptor would have possessed dozens of needle-sharp teeth, forward-facing eyes, a long, stiff tail for balance and sharp claws on its hand and feet, things that were essential for an agile predator. Like modern birds, Dakotaraptor (as did other raptors, like Velociraptor) had a wishbone that gave extra strength to its arms. Raptors are famous for having large, sickle-shaped claws on the second toe of each foot, and Dakotaraptor was certainly no exception! Its claw was 9 ½-inches long and unusually large, even for a dromaeosaur. Dr. DePalma described Dakotaraptor as “the most lethal thing you can possibly throw into the Hell Creek ecosystem.”

Dakotaraptor had a huge, sickle-shaped claw on each foot for making devastating wounds in its prey. (Wikimedia Commons)

Evolutionary scientists are especially excited by the discovery of Dakotaraptor because they found tiny bumps that they interpreted to be quill knobs on one of the creature's forearms. In birds, quill knobs are the attachment points for flight feathers. A similar claim was made in 2007 when scientists allegedly identified quill knobs on a Velociraptor forearm. Evolutionists are eager to use evidence like this to try and prove the theory that dinosaurs evolved into bird. There are several problems with this idea, however, many of which we have covered before. In addition to these problems, these bumps are not necessarily quill knobs and may in fact be attachment points, not for feathers, but connective tissues, as evolutionary paleontologist Darren Naish pointed out in his 2010 blog post regarding another theropod called Concavenator. In his blog article, he also brought up the fact that quill knob-like bumps have been found on the bones of mammals too, and mammals clearly do not sprout feathers. This of course doe not mean Dakotaraptor and other dinosaurs like it weren't feathered; the concept of feathered dinosaurs is not unbiblical, though it is unscientific until actual dinosaurs, with actual feathers are discovered. They would merely be dinosaurs that God created with feathers, like He created all the other land animals on Day 6 as described in Genesis chapter 1.

Was Dakotaraptor a feathered dinosaur? While feathered dinosaurs aren't unbiblical, there is not enough evidence to support this claim. (Wikimedia Commons)

As I mentioned earlier, ecosystems, both modern and extinct, generally have predators that come in small, medium and large sizes. Dakotaraptor helps paleontologists fill in the ecological gap between smaller predators from Hell Creek (e.g. recall Acheroraptor, known only from isolated teeth and pieces of the skull) and the monstrous Tyrannosaurus. Did Dakotaraptor fight with T. rex for food? Perhaps on occasion, but they probably more often gave each other their space and specialized in eating certain species of herbivorous dinosaurs. This is the case in modern ecosystems. What would have been on the menu? Well, Dakotaraptor had many species to choose from, such as the duck-billed Edmontosaurus and the three-horned Triceratops. They could have also hunted down faster dinosaurs, such as Ornithomimus and Struthiomimus, creatures adult T. rex were too slow to catch.

Perhaps Dakotaraptor fought with juvenile T. rex for food. (Wikimedia Commons)

Even though Dakotaraptor looked an awful lot like its cousin Utahraptor, there were plenty of differences between the two which would have affected how the dinosaurs hunted prey. At around 1,000 pounds, Utahraptor was more heavily-built; it probably had a top speed of about 20-30 mph. While no doubt quick and agile, it didn't need to be especially fast because it was more specialized for taking down larger animals. It would probably lie in ambush until it was close enough to the prey to strike and take down the prey relatively quickly. Dakotaraptor was different; it was a much more lightly-built animal, weighing about 500 pounds, akin to its smaller relatives like Deinonychus and Dromaeosaurus. It was likely an attack-and-dash kind of hunter and was probably capable of running after prey at 30-40 mph, making it more of a long-distance runner; this would come in handy if it chose to chase down an ornithomimid. Many paleontologists believe that Dakotaraptor would have hunted in packs, enabling them to bring down animals far larger than themselves. Evidence for this idea comes from fossil sites holding several individual dromaeosaur skeletons near an herbivorous ornithopod that bears the bite marks and broken teeth in and around the herbivore's bones, and fossil trackways that were made all at the same time by a small group of dromaeosaurs. Then, when Dakotaraptor reached its prey, it would attack with its claws and teeth. That nine-inch sickle-claw on each foot could slice deadly lacerations into the sides of Dakotaraptor's prey. “It had one of the strongest killing strokes in that slashing claw of any raptor known,” DePalma boasted. I don't know if I'd like to be present when a pack of these raptors attacked and mercilessly brought down a hapless hadrosaur!

Dakotaraptor was a lethal predator! (Wikimedia Commons)

Fast. Agile. Aggressive. Relatively intelligent. Lethal. Pack-hunting. Dakotaraptor – the new kid in T. rex's neighborhood – was one of the most deadly predators to roam the Hell Creek forests and floodplains more than 4,350 years ago.

Dakotaraptor was one of the most deadly predators ever to roam the Hell Creek ecosystem. (Wikimedia Commons)

Disclaimer: The images above are not my own unless otherwise indicated. If you own one of the above images and want it removed, please notify me via my email.

References:
www.phys.org/news/2015-11-dakotaraptor-hell-creek-formation-lethal.html
www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/d/dakotaraptor
www.icr.org/article/9024
www.phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/25/did-dakotaraptor-really-face-off-against-tyrannosaurus
Jurassic Fight Club: ep. 8 Raptor's Last Stand
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/dakotaraptor

Rerun Article: Did Dinosaurs REALLY Evolve Into Birds?

I hope everyone had a terrific Harvest Day! As you might recall, last year I took part in the Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) challenge, which requires me to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I am doing this challenge again this year, so I will be posting quite a few rerun articles this month. Don't worry though, I'll pick articles from a little ways back.

Anyway, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us? Do you have any Thanksgiving traditions? If so, leave them in a comment below.

Days till:
It is: 16 days till The Good Dinosaur's theatrical release
It is: 17 days till Thanksgiving
It is: 45 days till Christmas

In the Spotlight:
Again, nothing of note to share this week.

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

Did dinosaurs really evolve into birds? What does the fossil record actually reveal?

Every Thanksgiving, people all over the United States cook and serve the American turkey. Despite not  being part of the first Thanksgiving, the turkey is a symbol for this holiday. But for many Americans, they aren't merely eating a bird – they're actually eating a dinosaur! Evolutionists believe that all birds, including the turkey, descended from small, feathered theropod dinosaurs; to be more accurate, they actually believe that birds are dinosaurs. Such a claim, if true, would be a major problem for creationists. How should a creationist respond to such this idea? What's the truth behind this belief?

Is this delicious Thanksgiving entree the descendant of dinosaurs?

The idea that reptiles evolved into birds isn't new. Not long after renowned naturalist Charles Darwin published his book in 1859 called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life . . . it's easy to see why most people just call it The Origin of  Species. In 1860, a feather was discovered fossilized in Germany and the species of which the feather belonged to was called Archaeopteryx. In 1863, Sir Richard Owen (the inventor of the name “dinosaur” and a creationist) described an entire skeleton of the creature; the fossils revealed a relatively small creature, with feathered and clawed wings, teeth and a long bony tail. In 1869, biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, often considered “Darwin's Bulldog” declared the animal as the missing link between reptiles – specifically dinosaurs – and birds. Ever since, most evolutionary scientists cling to the idea that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

The similarities between dinosaurs like Compsognathus and birds led Huxley to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Before we go any farther, we must understand both perspectives of the origin of birds: the creation perspective and the evolutionary perspective. Let's look at them both now. Most evolutionists believe that sometime between the early to late Jurassic Period, about 201-145 million years ago, the scales of small theropod dinosaurs began evolving into fur-like proto-feathers for warmth. After millions of years of evolution, these proto-feathers evolved to be firmer and longer; dinosaurs began using their longer feathers for display purposes, perhaps to attract mates. Evolutionists are unsure as to how the power of flight came about. Some evolutionists believe these feathered dinosaurs were tree-climbers and began using their feathered limbs to glide through the trees; others believe they developed the power of flight from the ground up, using their proto-wings to increase their leaps into the air, perhaps after prey. Either way, these dinosaurs eventually were able to get airborne and were now technically birds.

An early conception of "proto-birds" from 1916.

What does the Bible say about the evolution of birds? Well, it says God created all the flying creatures on the Fifth day of the Creation week, 6,000 years ago, the day before He created dinosaurs.

“And God created...every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” Genesis 1:21-23.

This is a major contradiction to the evolution story, which states that dinosaurs came about before birds. Meanwhile the Bible states that land animals – dinosaurs included – came after birds! And instead of evolving through the processes of natural selection and mutation like evolution teaches, birds appeared on earth fully-formed and ready for action.

Evolutionists commonly point to Archaeopteryx as being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.

Many evolutionists (specifically atheists) believe that there is too much evidence for evolution for creation to be true. I find it rather interesting how many evolutionists refuse to even consider creation an option; in fact, many will go as far as to say that creationists don't know science. I was browsing the internet and came across an article entitled Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy by Brian Switek. “Oh, really?” I thought upon seeing this article; I was rather unimpressed by this evolutionist's attempt to denounce creationists. Curious, I read the article, expecting to find much criticism aimed at creationists. Much of the article was devoted to how our view of dinosaurs has changed over the years, but perhaps a quarter into the material, he talked about creationists and the “overwhelming evidence” that dinosaurs evolved into birds, in addition to his other criticisms about dinosaurs living with humans and dinosaurs living 6,000 years ago etc. He also spent a great deal of time talking about Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Here's an excerpt below:

“...dinosaurs with feathers are not welcome at Ham's amusement park [speaking of the Creation Museum]. Even though paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage from fluff to aerodynamic structures that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—creationists deny the clear fossil record.”

He had much more to say of course, some of which I'll get to in a minute. I must say that while reading the article, I was troubled how many misconceptions Switek has about creationism. What really ticks me off is when evolutionists try to make a case for themselves without actually doing the research. I find Switek's ignorance of what we creationists believe appalling. If only he continued to research and find answers to why creationists don't believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, then perhaps he would not have been so bold in his statements. Like any other fossils in the fossil record, even though the observable evidence – dinosaur and bird fossils – can point to or suggest a certain conclusion, they do not speak for themselves and are left to the interpretation of the individual based upon observable evidence. Evolutionists like to claim that creationists start from a presupposition and use that to base their opinions on, while they base their opinions on scientific facts. Now, it is true that we have presumptions, but so do evolutionists! They fail to realize is that they do the exact same thing. In this article, I plan to talk about the evidence for and against the dino-to-bird hypothesis and see what the evidence best suggests.


So what is the “evidence” for this belief in dinosaurs evolving into birds? Switek claims there is a “mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs” and that we creationists deny the clear fossil record. Let's at the so-called evidence now and see whether we're the ones rejecting the clear fossil record. Before we go on though, let me explain that evolutionists do not believe all dinosaurs evolved into birds; they believe the ancestors of birds are maniraptorans, small theropod (meat-eating) dinosaurs. Some of these dinosaurs include Deinonychus, Troodon and the famous Velociraptor.

Dromaeosaurs, such as this Velociraptor, are commonly seen as relatives of modern birds.

Bird-hipped and Lizard-hipped Dinosaurs
Evolutionists are quick to mention that maniraptorans are very similar to modern birds anatomically. This is true. In fact there are over 100 skeletal features that dinosaurs share with birds; some dinosaurs such as Velociraptor even had a wishbone. But what is often not mentioned are the often quite significant differences between the two. Within the order Dinosauria there are two subcategories in which dinosaurs are divided, saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs) and ornithiscians (bird-hipped dinosaurs). The dinosaurs in these two categories are divided based upon their hip shape. The difference between the two hip shapes is the pubis bone; the pubis bone in birds and bird-hipped dinosaurs points toward the rear instead of to the front as in lizard-hipped dinosaurs, modern reptiles and mammals.

Saurischian or lizard-like hip structure.

Ornithischian or bird-like hip structure.

Problem with dino-to-bird evolution? All the dinosaurs that evolutionists believe are related to birds (e.g. Velociraptor, Troodon, Sinornithosaurus) are lizard-hipped! Dinosaurs that are bird-hipped include Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Parasaurolophus. These dinosaurs bear very few bird-like features and are not believed to have evolved into birds. Yet the few times this is ever mentioned in secular literature, documentaries and etc. this problem is never presented any emphasis. And why would they? 

The lumbering 4-ton Stegosaurus is a bird-hipped dinosaur, meaning it must have evolved into birds! Right? Of course not!

Three-Fingered Hands

The hand bones of Dienonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right) are quite similar.

Evolutionists absolutely love to talk about how both theropods and birds have three-fingered hand bones. Evidence of a dino-bird relationship? Hardly. As birds supposedly evolved from theropods, you'd expect that the digits represented in the hand bones would be the same in both dinosaurs and birds. However, dinosaurs have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd digits (the first being the thumb); birds have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th digits in their hand. What happened?

Avian vs. Reptilian Lungs

The dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was so well preserved, that the reptilian-like lungs have also been fossilized.

If theropods are the ancestors of birds, you should find avian-like lungs in theropods. Of course, as most dinosaur remains are fossil bones, we can't know too much about their lungs and respiratory system. However, paleontologists have discovered the fossilized remains of a Sinosauropteryx, a small bird-like theropod from China, related to Compsognathus. This Sinosauropteryx specimen retains the outline of the visceral cavity, and it is very well preserved. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, they reveal that the lung is very much like that of a crocodile.

In Switek's article, he mentions how the Creation Museum didn't display feathered dinosaurs, nor does Answers in Genesis portray dinosaurs with feathers in books and DVD's. And he's right. But what if there's actually a scientifically good reason for this? Of course, failing to do his research to see why creationists don't portray feathered dinosaurs, he just scoffs and claims that “they take pride in promoting out-of-date, monstrous dinosaurs that more easily fit their contention that these animals were created separately from all other forms of life.” I'm very sorry Switek, but maybe you are the one who's trying to go against the fossil evidence. Like just about every other evolutionist out there, he claims that creationists just believe in non-feathered dinosaurs because we believe they didn't evolve into birds and then points to so-called “feathered” dinosaurs; no further explanation is given. He would have only had to read a few articles on the Answers in Genesis website to find their true opinion, which I will get to in a minute.

Is there actually evidence to support the belief that dinosaurs, like this Troodon, had feathers?

There are two types of “feathered dinosaurs” you'll hear about: dinosaurs with bird-like flight feathers and dinosaurs with proto-feathers. First let's look at the dinosaurs with “proto-feathers”. In 1996, evolutionists thought they found the amazing proof for their theory upon the discovery of Sinosauropteryx. This small carnivorous dinosaur is associated with the outline of what many believe to be fur-like proto-feathers. But upon looking at the “proto-feathers” closely, you can see that they really aren't that feather-like. They are much more similar to hair in appearence. In fact, it seems to some creationists that seems that these features are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen); this is found in the deeper dermal layers of the skin. These features have been found not only on other dinosaurs, but also ichthyosaurs, dolphin-like marine reptiles! Yet no one suggests these creatures were feathered. Another thing about the "fluffy-looking" structures  that creation scientists have noticed is that many of these structures appear almost fur-like. Perhaps some of these dinosaurs were covered in something similar to pcynofibers, fur-like structures found on pterosaurs that are very similar to mammalian hair.

Dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx might have been covered in a type of "fur".

In this article, Switek mentions this fossil discovery:

“Put feathers on a Velociraptor—we know it had feathers thanks to quill knobs preserved along its arm bones—and you get something disturbingly birdlike, revealing the dinosaur's kinship to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx and other early birds.”

In 2007, scientists published the find of a fossil arm bone of a Velociraptor. Along the forearm are six bumps that they claimed were very similar to those found on the bones of some modern birds. In modern birds the bumps are the quill knobs where feathers were once supposedly rooted. Is this proof of a feathered dinosaur? Perhaps, but sources that talk about this find give no details as to why the quill knobs don't extend further along this bone or if there were other fossils were also examined or how complete the find was. Who's to say this is even the arm bone of a Velociraptor? There are many uncertainties with this fossil. Keep in mind that I'm not doubting the validity of the scientists who studied the fossil, but we should also remember that we should be cautious about such claims based on scant evidence and the claims made by scientists with evolutionary presuppositions.

No feathers seem to have been present on Velociraptor, but pcynofiber-like fuzz is still a possibility.

What about “dinosaurs” that actually have fully-functional actual feathers? Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are two such creatures. Both of these animals bear toothy snouts, clawed and feathery wings and bony tails. They also both have a pair of enlarged retractable toe claws like those of raptor dinosaurs, such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor. Surely this is proof that these animals are the missing links between dinosaurs and birds.

Microraptor is a very unique creature with four fully-functional feathered wings.

First of all the feathers on the bodies of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are actual feathers and not collagen fibers or fur-like structures. They also have the same digits configuration of modern birds (like modern birds they bear the 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits). Undoubtedly, these animals are birds. The fact that they have reptilian features does not make them half reptile/half bird. In fact, there are several actual birds that have reptilian features: ostriches and baby hoatzins also have clawed wings, and no one questions that these animals are birds; the extinct bird Hesperornis possesses teeth in its beak; and the seriema of today even has an enlarged second toe claw, similar to the ones seen in raptors. If you don't need a missing link between dinosaurs and birds (which creationists don't) then there's no need to call Microraptor and Archaeopteryx anything other than 100% birds.

The seriema is a medium-sized bird living today with an enlarged toe claw, similar to the ones found on dromaeosaurs.

If you look in dinosaur books, you've likely seen diagrams similar to the one below:

This is a typical chart showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.

This picture suggests that the fossil record wonderfully displays the evolution from dinosaurs to birds; with more dinosaur-like creatures in lower geologic rock layers and more bird-like creatures in higher layers, slowly evolving more complex feathers. Isn't it strange that we creationists reject the plain evidence in the fossil record as Switek states we do?

Unfortunately, this isn't what the fossil record represents at all! Despite this being portrayed in just about every secular dinosaur book, the “clear fossil record” (as Switek puts it) tells a different story. Archaeopteryx, the famed transitional between dinosaurs and birds is believed to have existed 150-148 million years ago, during the Late Jurassic Period. The problem? Most bird-like dinosaurs that are commonly said to be closely related to birds, according to this worldview, lived before Archaeopteryx! Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with “proto-feathers” is claimed to have lived 124-122 million years ago! In fact, most dinosaurs with so-called “proto-feathers” are found above rock layers with more bird-like animals! The only dinosaur with "proto-feathers" that evolutionists have that didn't live after Archaeopteryx is Juravenator. But according to evolutionists, Juravenator lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx! In addition to this, we find birds very similar to the ones we see today living with "dino-birds". A Microraptor skeleton described in 2011 was discovered with tree-perching bird fossils (more bird-like than Microraptor) inside of its abdomen! This animal didn't only live with modern-like birds – it ate them! Even Velociraptor, a very bird-like dinosaur, is usually dated to live about 80 million years ago, long after birds has supposedly been flying through the skies for millions of years. These creatures were hardly ancestors to the birds. I for think the fossil record clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs evolved into birds, don't you? (That was sarcastic by the way).

Of course, I am not at all saying we should find all the transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds if this transition really did occur, but we should find a few. Evolution on this scale would take tens of millions of years and millions of generations between dinosaurs and birds. Where are these fossils? Surely some should have popped up if the "clear fossil record" suggests dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And to make matters even worse for evolutionists, extinct birds such as Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, Aurornis and potentially Protoavis are buried in sediment “older” than Archaeopteryx!

So, Switek, you believe the "clear fossil record" portrays dinosaurs evolving into birds? Hm...

Earlier, I mentioned how Switek claimed creationists don't like feathered dinosaurs. What if a feathered dinosaur with actual feathers were discovered? Would this prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds and that the Bible is untrue? Nope! In fact, nothing in the Bible goes against the idea that dinosaurs might have had feathers. Not only that, but I happen to like the look of feathered dinosaurs; I am not against the notion of feathered dinosaurs in the slightest, just the idea that they evolved into birds. Finding a feathered dinosaur would be no different than finding a mammal that lays eggs. which we actually have! The duck-billed platypus and porcupine-like echidna are monotreme mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young like all other mammals. Yet they aren't half mammals/half reptiles; they're mammals that lay eggs. We creationists aren't against the idea of feathered dinosaurs at all, it's just that so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is missing in action.

Like Microraptor, the platypus bears characteristics of many different creatures, including the ability to lay eggs, a duck-like bill, a beaver-like tail and webbed feet, a mammal's fur, the ability to use a form of sonar and even a venomous spur. Yet it is not some evolutionary missing link, but a mosaic.

In order to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, one would need to find evidence of a transition between the two in the fossil record (like reptile scales evolving into feathers) and the fossil record would need to show dinosaurs and birds evolving in the right order. This is not what we find!

Why haven't evolutionists who love to talk badly about creationists bring up the points I made in this article? An even better question is why would they do such a thing? Never in Switek's article does he even mention these problems with the dino-bird theory (or solutions to them)! Like many other evolutionists out there, he decided to pick on the claim made by creationists rather than the evidence that backs up the claim in order to make creationists sound like unprofessional idiots. What he wrote in this article shows just how utterly and willingly ignorant he is of creationism and what we believe to be true (and more importantly why we believe it to be true).

As I hope to have made clear throughout this article, if one looks at the fossil record from an evolutionary perspective, we don't really learn about the origin of birds. It's really sad how little research Switek did on the truth about creationism, Answers in Genesis, dinosaurs, birds and the fossil record as a whole. I doubt hearing the truth would have actually change his mind, but at least he would have been more informed. Until he decides to learn what creationists actually have to say and only talking about evidence from his own side of the argument, he should avoid talking about creationism altogether. (Unlike him, I used information from both sides).

I do however hope that this article has enlightened you, my readers, and helped you understand that the fossil record doesn't support the belief that birds and dinosaurs didn't share the same lineage, but that they do share the same wonderful Creator God.

You can relax, dinosaur lovers! The turkey you'll have for Thanksgiving this year isn't the descendant of this Velociraptor!

References:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/feathered-raptors-not-the-birds
wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor
wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx
Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy

Disclaimer: Many (or in some cases all) of the photographs and images above are not mine. If you own one or more of them and would like them to be removed, politely let me know via one or both of the email addresses above.

Disclaimer 2: I know I've been talking negatively a lot about Brian Switek article, but this isn't because I don't like the guy. I have read much of his other material and admire his writing style; even though I don't agree with everything he believes.

Sarcosuchus: Pharaoh of the Crocodiles

Another frigid morning! I can't believe that October is here already. This month year has flown so fast! I've literally started singing Christmas songs already and I'll probably start watching Christmas movies very soon. (I start early because it takes me literally three months to watch all the Christmas movies I have and the ones I get on Netflix.) This week's topic isn't fall-related, but next week's will be. How exciting!

Days Till:
It is: 10 days till Colombus Day
It is: 29 days till Harvest Day
It is: 54 days till The Good Dinosaur's release


In the Spotlight:
I found several cool TV spots for The Good Dinosaur to share this week, so please enjoy!

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

Contrary to popular belief, dinosaurs weren't always the rulers of their domain! (Wikimedia Commons)

Dinosaurs are often thought of as being the terrors of the world they inhabited, and indeed, the pre-Flood world's single supercontinent – Rodinia – was infested with them. But dinosaurs weren't the only danger of the antediluvian world – swimming in the lakes, ponds and rivers of this ancient world were crocodilians, many a lot like the ones we have today. But there was one crocodilian that dwarfed them all: Sarcosuchus imperator, also known as SuperCroc! In life, it must have been an impressive beast...a beast so big, it didn't merely coexist with dinosaurs, it ate them!

Why are you just standing there waving, dude? Run! (Wikimedia Commons)

The largest reptile alive today, the saltwater crocodile, grows up to 23 feet long and weighs a maximum of around 2,200 pounds. This is nothing compared to the mighty SuperCroc, which fossils prove could grow over 40 feet long. Its weight? Eight to nine tons*. This was a croc that even the Crocodile Hunter (R.I.P Steve Irwin) and Crocodile Dundee might have done best to avoid! SuperCroc's scientific name, Sarcosuchus imperator even means “flesh crocodile emperor”.

Scientists are as of yet undecided as to what the largest crocodilian was. (Wikimedia Commons)

* There is debate among paleontologists as to what the largest species of crocodile was, as there are several candidates. One is the North American Deinosuchus, an alligator-like crocodilian, another Purrasaurus (not to be confused with the Triassic phytosaur Parasuchus) which was a giant caiman, and of course, Sarcosuchus. Based on fragmentary fossil remains, we can't be sure which was the largest, but evidence suggests that all three species were between 33 and 40 feet in length.

Sarcosuchus shared many similarities to its modern cousins, such as this crocodile. (Wikimedia Commons)

Despite being far larger than any modern crocodile, Sarcosuchus nevertheless shared several survival traits with them; many of these For traits help the animals live semi-aquatic lives. For example, Sarcosuchus and modern crocs have their eyes and nostrils placed at the tops of their heads (actually, Sarcosuchus' eyes are slightly elevated above the rest of the skull). This means that they can remain these predators can remain almost completely submerged in water and still see and smell. We don't know how good Sarcosuchus' senses of sight, hearing and smell were, but in modern crocodiles, these senses are excellent. They even are relatively intelligent creatures. It's more than likely Sarcosuchus possessed these attributes as well. Sarcosuchus' skull alone was over six feet long and every inch of it was lined with sharp teeth. There were over 100 teeth in its mouth. SuperCroc's back was covered in rows of overlapping shield-like armor plating called scutes. These “shields” could be over a foot long and were situated kind of like roofing tiles. One gazing at the skull of Sarcosuchus wouldn't fail to notice the large bulge at the end of its six-foot snout. This bulge is known as a bulla and is similar to the ones seen in modern gharials, except its hollow and bowl-shaped. Scientists are unsure of its use, but many believe it was for making bizarre calls or improving its sense of smell.

Sarcosuchus was the true king of the waterways it inhabited. (Wikimedia Commons)

The fossils of Sarcosuchus have been uncovered in South America and more commonly in Northern Africa. The regions bearing fossils of this beast are deserts now, but the fossils in these rocks represent a long-gone ecosystem that once existed in the pre-Flood world. Fossilized plants and animals of North Africa reveal the land was once a vibrant, tropical swamp-like environment with plentiful plant life for herbivorous dinosaurs to chow on, and lots of large fish in the waters. This was the home of Sarcosuchus.

Pre-Flood Egypt might have looked a lot like the modern day Everglades. (Wikimedia Commons)

This brings us to another important question: what did SuperCroc eat? Well, like its modern counterparts, Sarcosuchus was a carnivore, and there was plenty of prey in pre-Flood North Africa. You might imagine that fish were too small to sustain a nine-ton crocodile, but the fish SuperCroc lived with weren't all minnow-sized. Fossils reveal nine-foot lungfish, giant six-foot coelocanths and 20-foot sawfish swam in the waters the giant crocodile called home. Though many parallells are drawn between Sarcosuchus and the fish-eating gharial, the two have a different tooth design – while the gharial has interlocking teeth (as do most crocodiles) to capture fish, Sarcosuchus' teeth do not interlock. Interestingly, its discoverers compared this crocodile's teeth to railroad spikes. Sarcosuchus was certainly large enough to prey on something other than fish; it was probably a dinosaur killer. What dinosaurs were on this reptile's menu? 30-foot ornithopods like Ouranosaurus and Lurdusaurus and even juvenile long-necked sauropods such as Nigersaurus might have been prey for Sarcosuchus.

Like a modern croc, Sarcosuchus would lunge from the water's edge and grab prey, in this case an Ouranosaurus, with its long jaws. (Wikimedia Commons)

Just like the modern crocodile, Sarcosuchus was an ambush predator. It lied in wait near the water's edge for prey to approach, with only its eyes and nostrils above the water. Then, when prey like an ornithopod got close, it would lunge out of the water and catch the hapless prey in its jaws, holding it in place with its 100+ teeth. Sarcosuchus didn't have a weak bite either. Recently scientists determined that SuperCroc could bite down with the force of nine tons! That's nastier than the bite of Tyrannosaurus, with its 3-ton bite by comparison. Unfortunately for this crocodile, it didn't have the water's edge all to itself, as SuperCroc often had to share the territory with semi-aquatic dinosaurs like the spinosaurs Suchomimus and the 20-ton Spinosaurus itself. Perhaps these animals occasionally fought each other over food or territory.

Who would win in a fight between Suchomimus and Sarcosuchus? (Raul Martin)

A creature like Sarcosuchus was certainly an awe-inspiring reptile. This is why some creation scientists have begun to notice many parallels between it and a creature mentioned in the book of Job in the Bible. In Job 41, God talks about a colossal creature called Leviathan. It's said to have terrified even the mightiest of men. Its jaws were lined with many teeth, its form was quite graceful and spent most of its time in the water. The Bible says its scales are so tough that they repel swords and spears. But what was very unique about this creature is that it could actually breathe fire and smoke. Just another ancient myth?

We may not know what Leviathan looked like, but it certainly didn't look like this monster that doesn't match the creature described in Job 41 at all!

Not in the slightest. Based on the context of the verse, we can see that God was speaking of a real animal. Some have pointed to the crocodile as the prime candidate for Leviathan; however, Leviathan clearly was not a crocodile (a modern one, anyway), because crocs not only are unable to breathe fire, but, with skill and determination, can be killed (Leviathan was described as being a creature that couldn't be killed by human weapons of the time). For years, creationists have scratched their heads, trying to find an extinct creature that fit Leviathan's description, suggesting anything from the aquatic Kronosaurus, which, unlike Leviathan, was unable to clamber onto land, to the terrestrial Tyrannosaurus rex, which wasn't in its element in the water like Leviathan was. However, many creation scientists feel that Sarcosuchus best fits the description of the biblical Leviathan. Remember the foot-long roof tile-like scales on its back? They certainly bring to mind the tough scales Leviathan is described to have. (“Its back has rows of shields tightly sealed together;” Job 41:15, NIV.) Sarcosuchus might even possess a fire-creating feature: its bulbous snout. Perhaps Sarcosuchus was capable of mixing chemicals in this bowl-shaped bulge to create streaming flames which it cast from its mouth; a similar ability is seen in the modern bombardier beetle which expels noxious chemicals that explode and burn at over 200 degrees. We may not know for sure whether or not Sarcosuchus was the Leviathan of the Bible, but it sure is the best candidate we have at the time of publishing.

Just imagine a blast of fire coming from this Sarcosuchus' mouth and it perfectly fits the description of Job 41's Leviathan! (SOURCE)

Sarcosuchus, SuperCroc...possibly the legendary Leviathan. This beast was certainly one of the most powerful and dangerous animals God made. The very same words used in Job 41:33-34 could also be used to describe Sarcosuchus: “Nothing on earth is its equal—a creature without fear. It looks down on all that are haughty; it is king over all that are proud.” What more can be said about Sarcosuchus imperator, pharaoh of the crocodiles!

Wouldn't it be awesome to come face to face with a living Sarcosuchus imperator...on the other hand, maybe not! (Planet Dinosaur)

References:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1025_supercroc
articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-10-26/news/0110260187_2_sarcosuchus-super-croc-chicago-paleontologist-paul-sereno
www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/s/sarcosuchus
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/sarcosuchus
Brooker, P., A New Candidate for Leviathan? Journal of Creation 19(2): 14–16, 2005; <creation.com/leviathan2>.
www.creation.com/a-fearsome-reptile

Disclaimer: Many (or in some cases all) of the photographs and images above are not mine. If you own one or more of them and would like them to be removed, politely let me know via my email address.