Headless

Headless Dinosaurs are No Evidence of Noah’s Flood

Kevin R. Henke

December 15, 2016

Introduction

Oard (2011) and other young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to find any reason to justify their religious beliefs that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old and the Earth’s sedimentary rocks largely or entirely resulted from Noah’s Flood. In an attempt to explain the presence of dinosaurs in the geologic record, Oard (2011) developed the BEDS (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments) Flood geology scenario.

Fragile Sauropod Skulls Usually Not Preserved

Oard (2011, p. 136) claims that headless sauropods are one of the “challenges” to both “evolutionists” (i.e., actualists) and YECs. Oard (2011, p. 126) tries to argue that violent currents from Noah’s Flood were responsible for both headless sauropods and duckbill dinosaurs in Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada. In reality, the absence of heads on at least the sauropods is totally consistent with their fragile skulls (Sereno et al. 2007) and in no way challenges the actualistic views of the geologic record. Sereno et al. (2007, p. 1) mention that sauropods from Europe, South America, and Africa had fragile bones. In particular, Sereno et al. (2007) discuss the fragile structure of an exceptionally rare and well-preserved skull of the sauropod Nigersaurus taqueti. Sereno et al. (2007, p. 1) mention that the thickness of the bones in the skull are very thin and rarely exceed 2 millimeters (mm)! Sereno et al. (2007, p. 5) further describe the skull as “featherweight.” Considering the illustrations and fragile descriptions in Sereno et al. (2007), why would headless sauropod fossils be unreasonable and a “challenge to evolutionists”?

Rather than discussing Sereno et al. (2007) or other detailed research on the thinness of sauropod skulls, Oard (2011, p. 80) clearly shows skepticism about the fragility of sauropod skulls and claims that the bones were violently transported, presumably by Noah’s Flood:

“Another phenomenon that must be explained is the decapitated state of the fossils of most large sauropods…[reference numbers removed]. Explanations have been attempted, including the small, delicate nature of those bones relative to the massive body bones. Barrett [2001, p. 120] wrote: ‘The skulls of the plant-eating sauropods are very rarely preserved, probably because they were lightweight, flimsy structures’…[reference number omitted].” But this tacitly assumes that the creatures were exposed after death for sufficient time to destroy these ‘fragile’ bones. This is contrary to the evidence in the field, which indicates catastrophic transport and burial.”

Notice that Oard (2011, p. 80) refers to the delicate nature of the skulls as an “attempted” rather than an actual legitimate explanation. Rather than looking at ordinary processes that would prevent a fragile skull from being preserved, Oard (2011, p. 80) invokes an invalid strawperson argument and accuses paleontologists of assuming that the skulls had to have remained on the surface for “sufficient time” to be destroyed. However, it’s not going to take very long for thin (2 mm thick and less) and small bones to be destroyed under most natural conditions. A local landslide, a falling tree, a severe hailstorm, a hungry scavenger, or the foot of a medium-sized dinosaur could shatter a sauropod skull and scatter the remains, whereas thicker and larger leg (femur) and other sauropod bones could remain largely intact for much longer periods of time and have a greater chance of burial and preservation. Predators would also tend to consume the softer and more delicate parts of the bodies first. Brains would be rich in easily consumable protein, especially in skulls with thin and fragile bones. Bacteria and other microorganisms and insects would more readily destroy thinner and smaller bones than larger ones. Also if buried, slightly acidic groundwater would more likely dissolve thinner bones than thicker ones. So, geologists are not assuming that these thin bones laid around on the surface for a considerable amount of time before destruction. Contrary to the unnecessary speculation in Oard (2011, p. 80), it does not take a worldwide Flood to destroy fragile sauropod skulls anymore then dynamite is required to shatter a glass jar.

Wrong-headed Brontosaurus

Oard (2011, p. 80) also mentions the “embarrassing” case of the Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899) versus Edward Drinker Cope (1840-1897) brontosaurus skeleton with the wrong head. Yes, sometimes paleontologists make mistakes, especially when the primary motive of these 19^th century dinosaur collectors was cut-throat competition for fame and fortune, and not science. Oard (2011, p. 80) admits that 20^th century paleontologists corrected the brontosaurus head problem.

References

Barrett, P. 2001. National Geographic Dinosaurs: National Geographic Society: Washington, DC.

Oard, M.J. 2011. Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries: How the Genesis Flood makes Sense of Dinosaur Evidence including Tracks, Nests, Eggs, and Scavenged Bones, Creation Book Publishers: Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 175pp.

Sereno, P.C., J.A. Wilson, L.M. Witmer, J.A. Whitlock, A. Maga, O. Ide, and T.A. Rowe. 2007. “Structural Extremes in a Cretaceous Dinosaur”, PLoS ONE, v. 2, n. 11, 9 pp, e1230, doi:10,1371/journal.pone.00001230.