Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Did a meteor really kill the dinosaurs?


the_h0llow_earth

Recommended Posts

Most paleontologists believe that a large meteor struck the earth and caused major climate changes that ultimately brought the extinction of the dinosaurs. If this theory is true then why did some animals (like birds and crocodiles) survive? If a large meteor was to strike the earth it would throw dust and soot into the atmosphere and block the light of the sun. It would also cause massive forest fires that would spread rapidly over almost the entire earth. The heat from the fires would be so intense because of the atmosphere being blocked that the earth would be like one huge oven baking anything that was alive on the surface and evaporating the majority of the water. With no sunlight or vegitation and barely any water how could animals like birds and crocodiles survive?

Does anyone have any opinions on how (or if) they think the dinosasurs may have gone extinct?

Has anyone heard any theories about how crocodiles and birds survived?

Has anyone heard of dinosaurs living today? If so please tell...

This is my opinion: I don't think that the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. I think that most of them survived all the way up to the dark ages. durring this time I believe that most of them were called dragons and were hunted and killed. I also think that some dinosaurs are still alive today in very remote and unexplored areas of the earth like the African Congo or very deep under the sea (even though dinosaurs were land based and any dinos that lived in the sea were technically "marine lizards" and not dinosaurs).

Edited by the_h0llow_earth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • frogfish

    21

  • the_h0llow_earth

    12

  • Samael

    10

  • ShaunZero

    8

Sorry guy. There is absolutely no fossil evidence of any dinosaur after the KT event.

But why does virtually every culture in the world believe in dragons, with what are apparently countless eyewitness accounts of people seeing them?

I'm just completing a book that explains that, but if you study dragon legends, most state dragons are supernatural creatures associated with all of the world's great religions.

Many people, including some of the worlds's greatest scientists are religious. Even in the Christian religion, fire spewing dragons live in heaven and devour the souls of the wicked. If you never heard that before, it is because most of the dragons of the Bible have been covered up, but if you research the original scriptures excavated from ancient sites, you can read about the dragons of the Judao Christian religions. Seraphim means fiery flying serpent in Hebrew, in other words, the highest of heavenly creatures are dragons.

But dragon slaying myths are just human wishful thinking. No dragon bone was ever found because no real dragon has ever died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why does virtually every culture in the world believe in dragons, with what are apparently countless eyewitness accounts of people seeing them?

Because someone decided to call many different mythological creatures the same thing.

The only similarity I've ever seen between two different dragons from different regions, is their name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guy. There is absolutely no fossil evidence of any dinosaur after the KT event.

And that is the only evidence scientists use to back up the theory that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago. In order for fossils to form there has to be a way for the bodies to be preserved for a while so that they don't decay completely. They can be preserved in water, but how often do you think a land-based animal (dinosaur) would be preserved underwater? Probably not too often. The body would have to be covered with sediment soon after the death of the animal. This is why fossilization is so rare. The fact that scientists haven't found any more recent fossils doesn't surprise me at all, and just because they haven't been found doesn't mean that they don't exsist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With no sunlight or vegitation and barely any water how could animals like birds and crocodiles survive?

This is a very interesting point, but I always thought that the reason sharks and crocodiles and turtles and such survived was because they were able somehow to adapt very quickly to the world after the KT event, and the reasons that other animals were not so lucky was because of sheer size, this is why there are no longer giant crocodiles or megalodons, rather 14 ft crocs and 18 ft great whites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... there are no longer giant crocodiles or megalodons, rather 14 ft crocs and 18 ft great whites.

We dont actually know that there are no longer Megalodons, we assume. We cant actually know until we explore the entire ocean. Until then we dont know what is down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The meteor was just a part in a chain reaction that caused the dinosaur to die out.

We cant actually know until we explore the entire ocean. Until then we dont know what is down there.

Unexplored does not mean unknown.

DInosaurs occupied a large ecological niche. When the K-T even struck, the ecosystem couldn't support dinosaurs anymore. Thus they died. They needed too much to survive. However, animals that occupied a smaller ecological niche like birds, crocs, and mammals survived. They didn't need as much to survive, so they could survive the catastrophe. They did have major casualties. After the dinosaurs were gone, there was a large void left. Thus, the mammals quickly evolved (punctuated equilibrium) to fill the void and become the dominant organisms.

Same goes for all super-predators/animals during all extinctions (marine reptiles, flying reptiles, megalodon)

There is overwhelming evidence that the megalodon is extinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The meteor was just a part in a chain reaction that caused the dinosaur to die out.

Unexplored does not mean unknown.

DInosaurs occupied a large ecological niche. When the K-T even struck, the ecosystem couldn't support dinosaurs anymore. Thus they died. They needed too much to survive. However, animals that occupied a smaller ecological niche like birds, crocs, and mammals survived. They didn't need as much to survive, so they could survive the catastrophe. They did have major casualties. After the dinosaurs were gone, there was a large void left. Thus, the mammals quickly evolved (punctuated equilibrium) to fill the void and become the dominant organisms.

Same goes for all super-predators/animals during all extinctions (marine reptiles, flying reptiles, megalodon)

There is overwhelming evidence that the megalodon is extinct.

What does unexplored mean if not unknown?

I don't think that all of the dinosaurs would have gone extinct after the KT event. Life is very good at adapting and evolving to fit it's environment.

I would like to see some of the evidence that the megelodon is extinct. Do you have a link or know anything you can post? If it is just fossil records I would not be interested in that because it has been wrong in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does unexplored mean if not unknown?

It just means unexplored...Like this fact: We KNOW that the deeper you go, the smaller life forms are...

I don't think that all of the dinosaurs would have gone extinct after the KT event. Life is very good at adapting and evolving to fit it's environment.

Yes, they probably would of survived a few millions years after the K-T event...but keep in mind the disaster lasted a very long time. After those million years, they just couldn't support themselves and they died.

I would like to see some of the evidence that the megelodon is extinct. Do you have a link or know anything you can post? If it is just fossil records I would not be interested in that because it has been wrong in the past

No fossil teeth have been found past their extinction date. The 'Megalodon in the deep' theory does not stand a chance because such a large predator cannot survive that deep (like I said about life in the deep). There is no accredited evidence FOR it.

Oh yea, and this:

DInosaurs occupied a large ecological niche. When the K-T even struck, the ecosystem couldn't support dinosaurs anymore. Thus they died. They needed too much to survive. However, animals that occupied a smaller ecological niche like birds, crocs, and mammals survived. They didn't need as much to survive, so they could survive the catastrophe. They did have major casualties. After the dinosaurs were gone, there was a large void left. Thus, the mammals quickly evolved (punctuated equilibrium) to fill the void and become the dominant organisms.

Just sub in Meg for dinosaurs and fish(coelecanth) for the 'birds, crocs, and mammals'. Many basic laws of populations and ecology support the idea that the Meg is extinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just means unexplored...Like this fact: We KNOW that the deeper you go, the smaller life forms are...

The unexplored is unknown; before we found America it was absurd to think that there was more to the earth than what we knew. It was absurd to think that the earth was anything but flat, but the entire population of the earth was wrong.

We haven't gone far enough to see if the life forms really are smaller. Saying that that is a fact is just like saying that we are the only intelligent life forms in this galaxy. It needs to be proven before it can be a fact. How deep does the giant octopus live?

No fossil teeth have been found past their extinction date. The 'Megalodon in the deep' theory does not stand a chance because such a large predator cannot survive that deep (like I said about life in the deep). There is no accredited evidence FOR it.

Oh yea, and this:

Just sub in Meg for dinosaurs and fish(coelecanth) for the 'birds, crocs, and mammals'. Many basic laws of populations and ecology support the idea that the Meg is extinct.

Once again, the fossil evidence isn't always accurate. The megalodon may be extinct, but also it may not be extinct, I don't know. The only thing that I am saying is that there is a possibility of either one of those theories being true. Niether is a proven fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unexplored is unknown; before we found America it was absurd to think that there was more to the earth than what we knew. It was absurd to think that the earth was anything but flat, but the entire population of the earth was wrong.

There's a big difference in the 1600's and the 21st century...It's a pretty poor example you used.

We haven't gone far enough to see if the life forms really are smaller. Saying that that is a fact is just like saying that we are the only intelligent life forms in this galaxy. It needs to be proven before it can be a fact. How deep does the giant octopus live

Have you ever heard of the word 'science'? Yes, life DOES get smaller as we go way deeper. It is a proven fact. The Giant Pacific Octopus lives at depths of around maybe 2000 feet at max? Correct me if I'm worng. That was off the top of my head.

Once again, the fossil evidence isn't always accurate

So you are denying evidence? It's right before your eyes. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a big difference in the 1600's and the 21st century...It's a pretty poor example you used.

True, there has been a drastic change since the 1600s, but that is what they thought because thats what they were taught. If we were taught that today and had no good ways of finding out the truth it would be widely known as being a fact; it wouldn't matter what year it was.

Have you ever heard of the word 'science'? Yes, life DOES get smaller as we go way deeper. It is a proven fact. The Giant Pacific Octopus lives at depths of around maybe 2000 feet at max? Correct me if I'm worng. That was off the top of my head.

How has it been proven? Also why did it take so long for us to accept the Giant Octopus' exsistance?

So you are denying evidence? It's right before your eyes. :tu:

No, I am not denying evidence. I was just saying that it isn't always accurate because it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am not denying evidence. I was just saying that it isn't always accurate because it isn't.

Well, in that case...Evrything isn't accurate, the world isn't accurate. I don't trust the Atomic Clock because it isn't accurate.

You can't deny evidence just because of your views. Like I said, I layed it out in front of you.

How has it been proven? Also why did it take so long for us to accept the Giant Octopus' exsistance?

The Pacific Giant Octopus has been known for quite some time...That is the deepest we have seen it ever go. Our data comes from visual reports and tagged data.

True, there has been a drastic change since the 1600s, but that is what they thought because thats what they were taught. If we were taught that today and had no good ways of finding out the truth it would be widely known as being a fact; it wouldn't matter what year it was.

Well, if you haven't noticed...Science has advanced...A LOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in that case...Evrything isn't accurate, the world isn't accurate. I don't trust the Atomic Clock because it isn't accurate.

Thats a little bit of an exaggeration. I was saying that something found millions of years ago that we can only theorize about is not always accurate.

You can't deny evidence just because of your views. Like I said, I layed it out in front of you.

My views are based around facts. It is a fact that scientists have been wrong in the past about animals being extinct because of fossil evidence. It is not a fact that fossils are accurate.

The Pacific Giant Octopus has been known for quite some time...That is the deepest we have seen it ever go. Our data comes from visual reports and tagged data.

Before the giant octopus was known it was thought to be a myth.

Well, if you haven't noticed...Science has advanced...A LOT.

I agree. I never said that is hasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was saying that something found millions of years ago that we can only theorize about is not always accurate.

But we can accurately date, and the fact is there is no fossil record of these animals after their supposed extinction. They dissappeared...

Before the giant octopus was known it was thought to be a myth

Thank you captain obvious :tu: Actually, the Giant Pacific Octopus has never been a myth, the Giant squid has. Both have been known to exist to science for a long time...centuries for the giant squid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we can accurately date, and the fact is there is no fossil record of these animals after their supposed extinction. They dissappeared...

Just like the coelecanth...

Thank you captain obvious :tu: Actually, the Giant Pacific Octopus has never been a myth, the Giant squid has. Both have been known to exist to science for a long time...centuries for the giant squid.

But at one time we thought it was a myth.

I accept the possibility that dinosaurs may have gone extinct 65 million years ago... I also accept the possibility that dinosaurs may have survived up to the time that man inhabited the earth, maybe even longer. To me it is just two possibilities that we will probably never know the answer to. I think that it makes more sense that dinosaurs lived up to and maybe even longer than medieval times. Sorry if you can't accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it makes more sense that dinosaurs lived up to and maybe even longer than medieval times.

Whatever floats your boat...but you're a lone man.

Just like the coelecanth...

What do you not get about the difference between the coelecanth and the dinosaurs?

But at one time we thought it was a myth.

Are you talking about the giant squid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever floats your boat...but you're a lone man.

So, you don't think that there is even a small possibility that dinosaurs could have lived that long?

What do you not get about the difference between the coelecanth and the dinosaurs?

As I said before, I know that they are very different animals, but fossils are fossils. The coelecanth is just an example of science being wrong about the extinction of a prehistoric life form.

Are you talking about the giant squid?

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coelecanth is just an example of science being wrong about the extinction of a prehistoric life form.

But that doesn't mean they are wrong on dinosaurs :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. All I was saying is that they might be. It is possible

:tu: Yes, they could be wrong the possibility of that is very, very low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most paleontologists believe that a large meteor struck the earth and caused major climate changes that ultimately brought the extinction of the dinosaurs. If this theory is true then why did some animals (like birds and crocodiles) survive? If a large meteor was to strike the earth it would throw dust and soot into the atmosphere and block the light of the sun. It would also cause massive forest fires that would spread rapidly over almost the entire earth. The heat from the fires would be so intense because of the atmosphere being blocked that the earth would be like one huge oven baking anything that was alive on the surface and evaporating the majority of the water. With no sunlight or vegitation and barely any water how could animals like birds and crocodiles survive?

Does anyone have any opinions on how (or if) they think the dinosasurs may have gone extinct?

First, why do we consider fast dying of dinosaurs? Dinosaurs died during a period of almost 300,000 years. How could a meteorite like the one that struck upon Central America at KT boundary (and, they say, defined the boundary) determine climactic conditions for several hundred thousand years?

Second, most dinosaur species, particularly large ones, had died long before the KT.

Third, in the end of Cretaceuos, there was a rise of flowering plants, which got more and more widespread as time passed. Look, flowering plants have significantly less leaf mass then Cicadopsids they replaced. So, we have a considerable change in vegetation, which might have lessen the resource base most dinosaurs (no matter herbivorous or predator) depended on. This might have given mammals that had lived humbly through all the "golden age" of dinosaurs another chance.

Again, why all dinosaurs died? They were warm-blooded just like mammals or birds. Why other vertebrate groups survived. The only ecological explication, in my opinion, is that dinosaurs were key elements to some ecosystems based on gymnospermous vegetation. The Cretaceuos, unlike the Jurassic, was a "harsh" period of progressive climate aridisation (drying). An essential alteration of vegetation type and ecosystem trophic structures was imminent. And dinosaurs declined accordingly. They died out gradually during all the Cretaceous. The KT was an extended (though relatively short in geological terms) period of global ecosystem transformation. Compare - dinosuars became extinct at KT during 300,000 years, we have experienced about a dozen Ice Ages during only last 15,000-20,000 years. So, changes in climate accumulate over long peroids, though they can be seen as a moment in terms geological time.

And finally, there much more arguments in support of a rather severe biotic crisis at the KT. There have been several large and numerous less noticable mass extinction events throughout the history of life. Almost all of them are explained in terms of biotic crises rather than extraterrestrial impacts.

Biotic crises often are related to crust tectonics and its climactic aftermaths.

Edited by Andrii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:tu: Yes, they could be wrong the possibility of that is very, very low.

In your opinion it is very low... In my opinion it is just as possible that they lived longer than we think as it is that we are right and they did go extinct when we think. You might not like my opinion... sorry... I don't see any reason to not have this opinion. I will stand by my opinion because there is no reason for me not to. Show me evidence that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right and I am wrong and I will change what I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me evidence that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right and I am wrong and I will change what I think.

I have said my reasons already. That is all. Ask questions :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.