ICR: Dino Coprolites Prove the Flood

If you’re still in denial about the Flood and Noah’s Ark, this is going to change your mind. It’s an article at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. And it’s another example of what we call the Creationist Scientific Method:

1. Select a conclusion which you hope is true.
2. Find one piece of evidence that possibly might fit.
3. Ignore all other evidence.
4. That’s it.

ICR’s article is titled Plant-Eating Dinosaurs Consumed Crabs. It was written by Brian Thomas. He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” This is ICR’s biographical information on him. Here are some excerpts from his new article, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Paleontologists found bits of crustacean shell inside well-preserved dinosaur dung. Besides being a first-time discovery, these dietary supplements challenge the herbivore status of the hadrosaurs that ate them. They also raise questions about why dinosaurs would deviate from their normal diet.

You can read about Hadrosaurids at Wikipedia. They say: “This group is also known as the duck-billed dinosaurs, for the flat, duck-bill appearance of the bones in their snouts.” They have a separate article devoted to the subject of Hadrosaur diet which says that they were herbivores. Also:

The diet of hadrosaurid dinosaurs remains a subject of debate among paleontologists, especially regarding whether hadrosaurids were grazers who fed on vegetation close to the ground, or browsers who ate higher-growing leaves and twigs.

[…]

Coprolites (fossilized droppings) of some Late Cretaceous hadrosaurs show that the animals sometimes deliberately ate rotting wood. Wood itself is not nutritious, but decomposing wood would have contained fungi, decomposed wood material and detritus-eating invertebrates, all of which would have been nutritious.

So what’s the big issue here? Brian refers to this article in Scientific Reports: Consumption of crustaceans by megaherbivorous dinosaurs: dietary flexibility and dinosaur life history strategies, and says:

Researchers found dark, shell-like material in 10 of 15 fossilized excrement specimens called coprolites. … Hadrosaurs were supposed to be strict herbivores. Why would they eat crabs?

Wowie — that’s a serious question! The entire rickety structure of evolution is in danger here. Brian tells us:

The coprolites with crab shell fragments also contained rotten wood fragments. Surely old wood and crabs were not the ideal diet for animals with hundreds of razor-like teeth designed to slice plant matter with their scissor-action jaws. Perhaps the dinosaurs ran out of regular food and died with substitute food still inside them.

What does Brian have in mind? Here it comes:

The only way to know with certainty why these hadrosaurs deviated from their otherwise very herbivorous diet would be to travel back in time to watch them, their surroundings, and behaviors. But if they were forced into a diet of last resort, then times were tough — just as one would expect during continent-covering floods.

Yes — oh yes! — that’s the explanation. There can be no other! It’s interesting to see how the authors of the Scientific Reports paper try to minimize the significance of their discovery. The end of their abstract says:

This surprising fossil evidence challenges conventional notions of herbivorous dinosaur diets and reveals a degree of dietary flexibility that is consistent with that of extant herbivorous birds.

Foolish scientists. They found undeniable evidence of the Flood, and they ignored it. The ability of Darwinists to delude themselves is limitless. It’s a good thing we have ICR to tell us The Truth.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “ICR: Dino Coprolites Prove the Flood

  1. SC, you may have to abridge the Creationist Scientific Method. Seems ICR has skipped step 2.

  2. So, just how does one differentiate Hadrosaur poop from T-Rex poop?

    But they would have us believe that the drowning dinosaurs took time to eat shell fish while they waded through the rising waters, then pooped into the waters… and that the poop still fossilized rather than just, you know, getting all mushy in the water?

    Sorry – do I ask too many questions for a creationist?

  3. Brian’s hypothesis doesn’t even meet the minimal requirements for a SWAG but it does sound very trippy even for a creationist!

  4. “just as one would expect during continent-covering floods”.
    Creationist scientific method summary: if we expect it, it’s true!

    Many modern dinosaurs (birds) not only vary their diets seasonally (carnivores in summer, vegetarians in winter) but also supplement their standard diets as opportunity arises. So do many mammals. One can find all sorts of unusual things in their poo. In the present context, I recall reading that coprolites of many theropod dinosaurs (the lineage that contained T. rex and gave rise to birds) contain plant material.

  5. Michael Fugate

    I found dirt in my backyard – just as one would expect during continent-covering floods.

  6. Does this mean that there was carnivory before the end of the Flood?

  7. TomS:
    Sure. There could have been carnivory anytime between the fall and the flood.

  8. That means that there were carnivores on the ark?
    If there was at least one meat meal of one carnivore over the length of the Flood, then that means at least one kind went extinct. (Unless that was a clean kind which was eaten, or only part of the animal which was eaten.)

  9. Ross Cameron

    Since all creos utterings turn out to be a load of bull-droppings, can we, with the passage of time, expect them to become coprolites?

  10. Maybe while they’re on the subject, ICR can tell us why dinosaur coprolites only occur in the higher strata associated with dinosaurs, and not the lower strata. Surely if they were buried and fossilized during or before the flood, they should all be at the bottom of the geological column.

  11. Mark Germano

    Kosh writes: “But they would have us believe that the drowning dinosaurs took time to eat shell fish while they waded through the rising waters…”

    Stress eating, duh.

  12. Brian Thomas, “science” writer for ICR, speculates,
    “Perhaps the dinosaurs ran out of regular food and died with substitute food still inside them.”

    Well, if the food was still inside the dino when it died, the food wouldn’t become a coprolite, which by definition is a fossilized piece of excrement. Moot point anyway — if the dino died in water, the only parts that could be fossilized would be the bones. Its flesh and stomach contents would just decay, or as Kosh notes above, just get “all mushy in the water.”

    (But why are we even dignifying this whole idea by debating it? The entire premise is absurd — there was no Global Flood, dinosaurs became extinct around 65 million years ago, h. sapiens and dinos were never alive together, etc., etc. The evidence is not only overwhelming, it is absolutely conclusive.)

  13. Given that flowering plant pollen is not found in any dinosaur coprolite I am surprised a creationist broached the topic. Especially since after flowering plants evolved, their pollen appears in all coprolites regardless of diet.

  14. Stress eating, duh. Mark Germano

    Made me laugh!

  15. Curmudgeon, you have missed the true significance of “dietary flexibility … of extant herbivorous birds”; it’s the long missing explanation of how the birds survived confinement in the Ark during the flood.

    I don’t know why it’s an explanation, but it fits the biblical facts, so it must be true

  16. Paul Braterman says:

    Curmudgeon, you have missed the true significance of “dietary flexibility … of extant herbivorous birds”; it’s the long missing explanation of how the birds survived confinement in the Ark during the flood.

    I admit my failure as a creation scientist.