Do Evolutionists Believe Dinosaurs Still Exist Today?

Seems rather an obvious answer to an obvious question, doesn’t it? If one believes dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, certainly one cannot conclude their existence in the modern era.

But one of the strangest articles to ever come out of Live Science suggests a possibility or at the very least the imagination of it….

“There are hundreds of lakes harboring reputed monsters around the world, from Scotland’s Loch Ness to Canada’s Lake Okanagan, America’s Lake Champlain to Argentina’s Lake Nahuel. The explanations for such monsters include dinosaurs and dinosaur-like animals.”

“Believers and researchers ask what else could be so big, and account for the sightings. Many believe that lake and sea monster reports can be “explained” as animals like the plesiosaur (a long-necked aquatic reptile that reached 40 feet in length) or the ichthyosaur (shonisaurus sikanniensis), which were as big as a submarine.”

In mainstream creationism, dinosaurs are no longer walking the earth. After the global flood, the environment had changed. Thus it was no longer ideal for dinosaurs anymore which caused them to eventually die out some years later.

However, it doesn’t rule out the possiblity because their are jungles that have yet to be explored, and such animals like the giant squid have been very allusive. It makes more sense for a creationist not to rule out the possibility of the existence of dinosaurs in the modern era, than it would be for evolutionists to believe in such things.

“Yet scientifically speaking, not all dinosaurs died out. Most of us see dinosaurs every day, and some people even have them in their homes.”

Of course the author here is still grasping at the dying belief where  dinosaurs supposedly came from birds, correction, oops I mean birds evolving from dinosaurs…So if you have a bird or see a bird according to live science you are really seeing a dinosaur…lol

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Do Evolutionists Believe Dinosaurs Still Exist Today?

  1. Your doing it *again*, Michael: birds come from dinos, *not* the other way around as you say in your last paragraph.

    It would help to actually understand what you criticize before you criticize it …

  2. Eelco,

    “Your doing it *again*, Michael: birds come from dinos, *not* the other way around as you say in your last paragraph. “

    Hate to admit it, but I agree.

    The first time could be a typo, but a second time is definitely deliberate.

  3. Michael,

    that’s a bit cheeky, editing the post to correct your mistake (see responses above), and *not* stating this.

  4. Michael: “s to ever come out of Live Science suggests a possibility or at the very least the imagination of it….”

    It’s bad enough when you distort the content of an article. Here, you are referencing an article that says the exact opposite from what you attribute to it. And it’s not a primary source, or even a secondary source. That’s quite a leap.

    Michael: “[s]uch animals like the giant squid have been very allusive. ”

    I don’t understand why you think giant squid contain indirect references?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s