What happened to the dinosaurs?

Following the Flood, the world was dramatically changed. The Ice Age was a period of glacial activity that covered approximately 30 percent of the earth; today about ten percent is covered with ice. After the Flood, it took approximately 500 years to cover the land with ice and another 200 years to melt the ice back to the existing areas we see today. The cause of the Ice Age was the Flood itself with its ensuing seismic upheavals and volcanic activity. Volcanic dust and particles would have been in the atmosphere for years following the Flood. Ice core samples show this. With the volcanic debris in the air, sunlight would be reflected back into space, causing cool temperatures over the land masses. Warm water would evaporate and snow heavily over poles, thereby causing the Ice Age. Consequently, the Genesis 11 genealogy shows the lifespan of humans dropping off significantly.

The fossil record reveals that prior to the Flood, most of the earth appears to have had a tropical environment. Following the Flood, there was clearly an environmental change resulting in an ice age that covered nearly 30 percent of the earth with ice (primarily in the northern latitudes). This, together with other changes following the Flood, could have adversely affected life spans.

How did this affect the dinosaurs? Since lizards grow as long as they live, a reduction in the lifespan would also reduce their size as well. But the biggest change would be in the sheer number of dinosaurs. A changed environment, combined with a lack of food, disease, and man’s activity would cause the dinosaurs whose ancestors survived on the Ark to become extinct. These same causes are to blame for creatures being wiped out today, so it should be no great mystery for us to solve when it comes to the question, “What happened to the dinosaurs?” And obviously, the Flood itself destroyed most of these creatures, burying their contorted remains in huge fossil graveyards as a testimony to the deluge about 4,500 years ago.

Accordingly, bones of a tyrannosaurus rex yielded red blood cells and hemogloblin, even though these should have decomposed long ago if the sample was millions of years old as evolutionists claim. However, this creature wasn’t millions of years old—the existence of the red blood cells and hemogloblin is a testimony to that. Yet the assumption that the dinosaur lived millions of years ago was the real problem. As we learned in earlier blogs, all worldviews begin with assumptions; moreover, all facts are interpreted by presuppositions as well.

Listen to this quote from a scientist examining the T. rex bone: “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” The fact of the blood cells in the dinosaur bone is not the issue. How one interprets the fact is the key. Isn’t it due to the animal being alive recently, only thousands of years ago, and being buried in a massive flood that accounts for the existence of the blood cells? Doesn’t that make more sense than a 65 million year old bone with blood cells that should have decomposed?

Did you enjoy this post?

If so, would you please consider sharing it with the world

Comments are closed.

Search Site