Dinosaur National Monument Revisited

Kerry wrote to tell us about his recent visit to Dinosaur National Monument.

Greetings, On March 25, 2007, I visited the Dinosaur National Monument for the first time (pictures attached).  I discussed my observations with others before reading your feature article "We Dug Dinos - Part 2" and was rewarded by the fact that we came to the same conclusion regarding the rock/soil. The quarry at the monument is closed.  Condemned would be a better word.  Those who were working there had just 48 hours to close down the building after it was inspected. The lone park ranger who is currently there said, "The quarry is closed due to base material instability."  I say, "Sand by any other name is still the same".   I could almost hear the discussion between the contractor and the scientists when the structure was built.  The contractor warning about building on sand/sediment and the scientists saying it was 75 million year old rock.  Cracks in the building attest to the nature of the base material.  The crack pictured is typical and not the worst of what has happened to the building, including complete separation of supporting beams. From Dinosaur N.M., I drove north to Flaming Gorge and into Wyoming.  The trip provides amazing scenery but for the purpose of my theory, I would describe the area as a giant gutter surrounding the Green River.  There were thousands of cattle, sheep, antelope, mule deer, etc. grazing in the flats around the river.  I could easily imagine thousands of dinosaurs grazing in the same area. I believe a massive wall of water came rushing down that tube.  The dinosaurs were either swept up or ran to the highest point they could reach and were then quickly covered by sediment.  Given the crumbly-porous nature of the material surrounding the quarry, it is impossible to believe that it could have stood there for millions of years without eroding. I asked the park ranger if any fill material was added to the site for the walking paths.  She said, that to the best of her knowledge, no.  What we were walking on looked like river-bottom sand to me.  The sand was covered by grey sediment. The fact that paleontologists can so easily reject evidence that fails to match their ideology is sad.  I optimistically clung to the hope that facts could prevail in a scientific debate. After seeing how clear the evidence is against ancient dating, I am convinced it is emotion and not facts that prevail. Best regards, Kerry

Seeing dinosaur bones in a museum is impressive, but it is much more instructive to see where the bones were found. That’s what makes places like Dinosaur National Monument so important.

When you actually see where the bones were found, it is clear that the stories told by evolutionists don’t make any sense. For example, the signs at the visitors’ center at Agate Fossil Beds in western Nebraska say the concentration of fossils resulted from animals dying at a waterhole. But the beds are on top of the highest hill for miles around. That’s a strange place for a waterhole! It is much more reasonable to think that the animals gathered there because all the surrounding land was under water. The Mammoth Site near Hot Springs, South Dakota, is also on top of a hill, but officially said to be a waterhole.

The dinosaur egg nests I helped excavate in northern Montana were located in places in coulees that appeared to be geologically young, and probably contained water when the dinosaurs were alive. They nested on the shoreline.

If you ever get the chance to visit a dinosaur dig site, please take it! You will be amazed at what you see.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution Home Page	Back issues of Disclosure (our newsletter)
Web Site of the Month	Topical Index