Doubting Didymus

Okay, so its recent, as in extremely modern, as in 'artist: not dead', meaning that he/she, like most everyone else, has almost certainly heard of dinosaurs. The article is about comparing aboriginal myth and legend to real creatures, which is no more impressive than any other 'dragon' story from anywhere else in the world.

However, this misses the main point, which is: so frigging what if dinosaurs are alive today, or until only recently? Is there some aspect of evolutionary theory I'm unaware of that says it's impossible for a species to remain largely unchanged for millions of years?

Hastur

DD, that's something I was wondering. I mean, we have sharks, tuataras, roaches and coelacanths running around today. How would it be such a blow to the ToE if a modern dinosaur fossil were discovered?

(For all I know, it might be. I just don't see how.)

And thanks to everyone who responded! It's nice to have confirmation that the Jebus salesmen are lying.

Dr.GH

Well, the main reasons that YECs want to claim recent dinos are 1) all animals got on the ark 4 thousand years ago, 2) dinos would certainly be noticed, and 3) geological data, and paleontology place the extinction of dinos at ~65 million years ago and the first human markings at <200 thousand years ago (although I think that it is older).

Thus, modern dinos would refute both relative and absolute geological dating and help YECs continue to pretend that there is substance to the flood myth.

The Fran Barnes' book "Canyon Country Prehistoric Rock Art" came the other day. This is the source supposedly used by the AiG piece that the website you linked used for some of their material. As it turns out, the creatos have made two of their favorite "errors" (They do this too often to be by simple stupidity). First, they screwed up their reference, mixing parts of "Canyon Country Prehistoric Rock Art" Barnes (1995) and "Canyon Country Prehistoric Indians" Pendleson&Barns (December 2000). Most of the quoted material seems to be from the latter book.

And they have (as usual) totally distorted what the original authors said, based on Barnes’ (1995) scathing remarks about the “dinosaur” and “mammoth” interpretations of these glyphs.

I’ll add to this when I have read Pendleson&Barns(2000) which is still on order.

MrDarwin

Quite true, but I think it's illustrative of how creationists are grasping at straws to disprove evolution.