By the same standard, because of Babylonian carvings, you must be sure there were winged lions. Thanks to the Greeks you know there were multi-headed reptilian hydra’s, clearly some sort of dinosaur. And chimera’s of every possible human-beast and beast-beast were routine.
Everything died out, dinosaurs, mammals, all of them. The plants died from being submerged. The herbivores, starting with the panda’s, starved waiting for something to grow. The carnivores died after eating the last of the herbivores.
So aside from the fact there was no global flood and we are all here, non-avian dinosaurs lived in a variety of settings, followed distinct lifestyles, and came in every size. So what about the supposed post-flood environment killed them all off in common while suiting everything else? Substantiate and be specific.
Because you say so?
But while on the topic, turn the tables. Why are dinosaur bones pervasively permineralized anyways? At 4500 years, unfossilized dinosaur bone should be the norm. As always, more flood conditions this and that and special pleading I expect. YEC is incoherent.
Cannot be worse than creation.com, and at least on reddit you are free to reply. I think you should take your own advice and read more broadly in the scientific literature in general, starting with geology.
Not only did dinosaurs exist in the Middle Ages, but also harpies, griffins, and many other types of animal and animal/human hybrids. We know that this is true because they are shown as gargoyles on many medieval churches and cathedrals. That proves it!
So you are aware that both Fiorillo and Mori say that the bones are fossilised, but continue to claim they are unfossilised anyway.
Oh? Perhaps you think I should instead get my ‘information’ from your writing instead.
Writing like this one:
in which you suggest that these bones, which everyone who has examined them say have been reddened by incorporation of iron minerals, “remain in pristine condition” - which is simply untrue.
If there is a theory of Brontosaurus even more ridiculous than that of Anne Elk, it is the idea that herds of them were wandering around Britain during the reign of Henry VII, yet somehow managed to avoid being mentioned in the Domesday book, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, the Bayeux tapestry, the works of Chaucer, Malory and Caxton, the Magna Carta, Roman histories, the accounts of the plague and the war of roses, the tax records, the law codes or even the various mediaeval bestiaries.
This isn’t ancient history where we’re reliant on a few scraps of copied secondary material. It’s a well-documented period from which thousands of original records have preserved. Anyone who seriously thinks all those historians, surveyors, authors and chroniclers ddn’t think 50ft long reptiles living in the English countryside were worth mentioning is completely, totally, utterly bonkers.
These images are sufficiently crude, lacking in detail, and worn with time that concluding that they’re “definitely” anything is a real stretch. Where in England were these dinosaurs, and why is the only evidence of their purported existence a vague and inconclusive brass? I would have thought, if they had in fact been seen, that such a wonder would be well-documented.
I would note that oddly-distorted medieval images are hardly uncommon:
I’d expect some pretty strong evidence for that claim - ideally physical evidence. What you have is an image from an era where depictions of real animals could be unrecognisable, in a context including depictions of mythical beasts - and the analysis is limited to “it looks like a dinosaur”. That’s hardly enough to overcome the complete absence of physical evidence.
Looking at the image myself I can say that the beast on the left is probably a lion. Lions always seem to have a turt at the end of the tail, the body looks right and the head can;t be made out - that section seems to be damaged. The beast on the right seems to have hooves on its back feet - and it’s shown as a similar size. It does have a long neck - possibly it’s meant to be a giraffe - although I’ve not seen one with so substantial a tail. Anyway the hooves certainly don’t fit the identification as a dinosaur
