Mammals ate dinosaurs


They were relatively large too:

God bless,


Fortunately there was no movement at the time to add dinosaurs to the protected species list.


No surprise here. Some of the dinosaurs were no bigger than chickens. It is not like they were munching on stegasaurs or triceratops.


It moves such mammals 65 million years back in the timeline. But yeah, had PETA been around, no telling.

God bless,


I suspect that you are wrong here Ed. 65 million years ago was when the (terrestrial) dinosaurs died out. The mammals evolved long before that:The earliest known mammals were the morganucodontids, tiny shrew-size creatures that lived in the shadows of the dinosaurs 210 million years ago. They were one of several different mammal lineages that emerged around that time. All living mammals today, including us, descend from the one line that survived.

Source: The Rise of Mammals.
There is no problem with one of the larger early mammals eating one of the smaller (or very young) dinosaurs during the 145 million years that they were together.



Pretty cool though I don’t see what this has to do with apologetics. :shrug:


The dinosaurs were Presbyterian?


I’m guessing it is somehow related to the claim that men painted images of dinosaurs on cave walls. To which I responded, if they could see them to paint them, they could catch them to eat them. So why haven’t we found any dinosaur bones in the garbage of prehistoric human settlements?

It’s about denying the scientific evidence as to the age of the earth and the age of the dinosaurs, in order to keep young earth creationism alive.


As Ed would say “Nice attempts at obfuscation.” How dare you bring up facts to confuse the discussion!:wink:



I would add that if mammals were eating dinosaurs this argues against the suggestion that humans found dinosaurs inedible or undesirable. So the fact that mammals ate dinosaurs argues even more strongly that if dinos were around in the time of humans, humans would have eaten them.

But, alas, we have no dinosaur bones mixed in with prehistoric human garbage. Why not?


Me wrong? Not in this case. You may have noticed in previous threads that National Geographic was discredited as being a ‘popular’ i.e. non-peer reviewed publication. My wording clearly referred to the new, larger than a shrew discoveries. The reference to the 65 million years was in the article.



Keep young earth creationism alive? No! Not that! What would happen if more people believed in a young earth? Dogs and cats would start living together? Puh leeez.



My apologies Ed, I was wrong. My mistake. (Reminds self to always check sources :().



To the extent that YEC or any other belief puts faith in conflict with reason (in this case, reason as reflected through true scientific discovery and analysis), then such beliefs are bad for the faith, and are dangerous for the faithful, and can keep seekers from taking the Catholic faith seriously.

True faith and right reason cannot be in conflict. Anything that sets them in conflict is therefore false.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit