Paleontologists say that in order for a complete dinosaur to fossilize, it had to be rapidly buried in large quantities of sediment. The contorted appearance of many skeletons suggest burial of dinosaurs which died in agony, or of freshly dead dinosaurs whose limbs were distorted by the sediment load and rapid water current which carried the load. [The Tyrrell paleontologists report that the ornithomimid was found in the "classic death pose" with neck and tail dramatically curved.]

Mr. Poling:

I would prefer that the sentence "...suggest burial of dinosaurs which died in agony" be removed or rewritten. The "contorted appearance" of many fossilized skeletons does not "suggest" that they died in agony. Wording it this way plants the idea in the reader's mind that they did, indeed, die this way. Nobody with any credibility believes this idea any more, and should be sunk like the bad science that it is. An insurmountable body of evidence, both from fossils and from modern observation and experimentation, shows that dismemberment by scavengers and/or water flow, and the factors of geology, are to blame for the appearance of many skeletons. Further, it should be added that post-mortem drying of ligaments are also a source of the contorted appearance, something that is also backed up by a huge body of evidence and even occurs in humans if left out to dry.

Mr. Buckna:

Just because the scientific majority believe something to be true, does not mean that it IS true. For example, during Galileo's lifetime, the scientific (and religious) consensus of the day believed that the sun revolved around the earth. They were eventually proven to be in error.

Mr. Poling:

To my knowledge there wasn't a huge body of evidence for the sun revolving around the earth, it was merely an assumption believed by all. It took Galileo making the first serious studies of the universe to begin to unravel that belief.

This little tale, is, however, relevant. Despite the outcome of Galileo's experimentation, many of which were carried out before the disbelievers, and a sizable body of evidence, people still refused to believe. Seems appropriate here.

Mr. Buckna:

How can Darwinian paleontologists be so "certain" that dinosaurs did NOT die in agony? Were they there to see any of them die?

Mr. Poling:

I was chastised on the list for stating that they did not die in agony. They may very well have died in agony. The issue is whether the *death pose* indicates death in agony.

What evidence is there that they *did* die in agony, and the "death pose" is the physical manifestation of it? Bottom line is that there is a huge body of evidence that supports the principle that the "death pose" is post-mortem drying of ligaments.

Also, the "death pose" is by no means the only condition in which dinosaur skeletons are found, nor the most frequent.

Addendum:

Here is a picture of a Struthiomimus in the "death-pose." The head is clearly bent back over the spine. The long tail is sometimes bent back over the spine as well, when found in this "pose." (The reason the tail isn't found arched over the spine more often is that most dinosaurs, especially theropods, had tails that were not very flexible.)

The reason why, in my opinion, Mr. Buckna states

The contorted appearance of many skeletons suggest burial of dinosaurs which died in agony, or of freshly dead dinosaurs whose limbs were distorted by the sediment load and rapid water current which carried the load

is to subtly suggest that the extinction of the dinosaurs was due to Noah's flood (also known as "The Great Flood"). He feels that their "death-pose" is due either to drowning, or to the rapid water flow of the flood. This theory does not hold water, so to speak.

Observations of victims of drowning today have revealed several facts:

1. Drowning victims don't arch their heads and necks back over their spine;
2. the muscles of drowning victims immediately relax allowing the current to move head, neck, tail and extremities every which way; and
3. the bodies of drowning victims, unless extraordinarily large, end up parallel to the water flow. A drowned dinosaur would end up with it's head and neck straight out from its body, not arched over its back.

Because of #2 and #3, and because an exposed body would be eaten by water critters, a drowning victim would have to be completely covered with a large amount of sediment immediately after death to be captured in the "death-pose." However, because of #1, it is unlikely that this is what happened.

So what accounts for the "death-pose?" As Ellie Sattler said in Jurassic Park, "post-mortem contraction of the posterior neck ligaments." The dinosaur neck is an amazing contraption full of ligaments, tendons and muscles. Observations of modern creatures have shown that when these organs dry out after death, they shrink and pull the head and tail back over the spine. Osmotic processes in hyper-saline (extremely salty) water have also been demonstrated to shrink these organs.

The best way to tell if the "death-pose" is best explained by drowning, drying or hyper-salinity is to analyze the site the fossil is found in. What do the surroundings of "death-pose" fossils indicate? Most are found with evidence of post-mortem drying, or are found in the sediments of hyper-saline environments. Many are found in what were clearly desert environments, killed by sandstorms or sandslides.

Mr. Buckna:

My statement is worded in a tentative way, and I see no reason to change it.

Mr. Poling

The reason to change it is because it allows "death by agony" as a viable conclusion. As long as the reader can be left with the idea that the contorted appearance is due to dying in agony, whether through drowning ("Great Flood Theory"), suffocation or poison ("Impact theory" or "Volcanism Theory"), I'll object to it. I also object to it for a new reason that was brought to my attention by the same person who chastised me: what the heck does this have to do with whether dinosaur fossils prove evolution?

Mr. Buckna:

Let the reader draw his own conclusions. In fact you criticize me for not answering the questions that I raise....I would direct you to what Michigan State physiology professor Robert S. Root-Bernstein (an evolutionist) recently wrote, regarding his introductory course on evolution:

"I encourage [students] to be skeptical---as long as their skepticism is based on logic and evidence....Questions are what drives science, not answers....Take nothing for granted, I counsel my students: that is what makes a scientist." ("Darwin's Rib", in Discover, September 1995, pp.38-41).

Mr. Poling:

I object to them because the reader is not given the evidence on which to ask logical questions as called for by Mr. Root-Bernstein.

For example:

It is interesting that dinosaurs that had long slim legs, small lightweight bodies, and in general appearance look somewhat like birds, such as ostrich mimic Struthiomimus, were "lizard-hipped". Conversely, dinosaurs that look more like low-slung tanks than graceful birds (eg. Ankylosaurus) were "bird-hipped". Therefore, one question that should be put to dinosaur experts is: If dinosaurs evolved into birds, wouldn't we expect to see "bird-hipped" dinosaurs looking more bird-like rather than the reverse?

Your question, "If dinosaurs evolved into birds, wouldn't we expect to see "bird-hipped" dinosaurs looking more bird-like rather than the reverse?" is preceded by factoids that someone not familiar with birds and dinosaurs could easily assume are the whole story. Readers are never given any more evidence than a statement concerning the superficial appearance of "lizard hips" and "bird hips." The reader needs more information regarding what dinosaurian "lizard hips" and "bird hips" are. They need to know why the names were chosen. The reader needs much more information concerning the anatomy and morphology of bird and dinosaur hips to even begin to ponder the answer to such a question. Taken with the rest of the paragraph, and the theme and purpose of the article, the question comes off as "... So wouldn't you expect birds to be related to bird-hipped dinosaurs? Hmmm? Hmmm? Wouldn't you? Evolutionists say they're not, so evolutionists are full of it." It's the only "logical" conclusion from the scant evidence presented.

Mr. Buckna:

When presented with information that both supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, students and the public at large can become better at thinking critically.

Mr. Poling:

People aren't going to get better at thinking critically when they are not given the information necessary to think critically. This article asks a lot of questions without giving the reader the background necessary for them to ponder the possible answers.

Addendum:

Another tactic of the anti-evolutionists/creationists is to insist that all ideas should be given equal treatment regardless of how silly they are, or how much they fly in the face of the evidence. Under Mr. Buckna's vision of scientific thought, the theories that the earth is flat, or is shaped liked a big burrito, would be given equal status with the theory that the earth is round. The fact that all the evidence supports, if not proves, that the earth is round is immaterial under this vision.