Many Christians now accept that Noah brought Dinosaurs onto the Ark according to their kinds just as he did all the other animals.

The ark was large enough to include dinosaurs on it. The dimensions of the Ark were 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high, based on the Mesopotamian cubit of 18 inches, this would come out to 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. The animals would have been kept in compartments with their size and needs in mind. Keeping in mind that Noah took "kinds" onto the Ark and not every single subspecies, there should have been plenty of room for all the animals and the food for the animals and the 8 people on the boat. Noah would have probably taken small specimens of the large species instead of the giant adults and many dinosaurs were as small as other animals that are alive today, all the way down to a chicken. After the animals got off the Ark the world was a very different place and the environment was not as hospitable, in addition, throughpout the ages dinosaurs would have been killed off as pests or out of competition like many other animals have been. This is one reason they seem to be rare today and only living in remote areas not disturbed by humans.

Living fossils are defind as an animal that has lived past the point it was believed to. Since Evolutionary Biologists and Geologists have dated the fossils as many millions of years old, they believe that is when the animal lived. Also, they claim that since certain fossils are only found within certain strata layers, they can not only tell when a species lived, but when it ceased living as well. If these claims are true, as well as Darwinian Evolution, they can tell us emphatically when a species existed and if it still lives and base their claims on observation, meaning that it should be an established fact of when a species lived and then went extinct. Another crucial point is that according to Darwinian Evolution, if an animal doesn't go extinct, it keeps evolving, eventually turning into another animal.

That said, if a species is long believed to have lived millions of years ago and then gone extinct, no longer appearing in the fossil record after a certain point, then it should not be able to still be living unchanged for many millions of years as some animals have been found to be. Living fossils are in fact a problem for Evolutionary case makers since if Uniformitarian geology and Darwinian biological processes are true, an animal cannot still be living after the point in time it disapears from the fossil record, nor can it have remained so largely unchnaged for all that time.

    That is a good and fair question and many people ask it. While Dinosaurs are probably the largest and most impressive animals to ever grace the Earth, at least some of them (mostly large plant eating Sauropods and some Theropods), most were actually smaller than most people know. The average size for a Dinosaur is about as big as a sheep or small donkey. In addition to this, Dinosaurs are Reptiles, and reptiles experience dramatic growth during their life. All Dinosaurs were in fact born small, the largest Dinosaur egg found to date is about the size of a football, even the large herbivores like Brachiosaurus were born around a foot or so long.

Given these facts, it would be easy for Noah to fit young Dinosaurs onto the Ark, plus he wouldn't need or even want to bring adults of the larger species'. Young or juvenile specimens take up less space and eat less, also they have more reproductive years left in them, especially if they have never bred before. In the new, harsher world after the Flood the animals would need as much reproductive ability as possible to replenish the populations.

The Ark was HUGE, and Noah was SMART, he would have known how to fit all the animals and supplies onto the Ark properly, and have room for his family. In addition to the size of the animals, there are not that many different species of Dinosaurs compared to other animals, they would not have even been the main concern as far as space goes.

Thats another good question. Many people have a hard time with this one. How could the animals have survived after the Flood without food? It is likely that by the time Noah, his family, and the animals got off the Ark, there was some new plant growth on the land, plants can grow very quickly, some almost overnight. Its quite likely that the herbivores would have enough to eat from new growth and possibly leftovers from the Ark.

What did the carnivores eat if they didn't eat the herbivores getting off the Ark? Many people seem to think that immediately leaving the Ark, the carnivores turned on the herbivores and this should have wiped out many animal species, especially things like chickens and cows. But an important thing to note is that the Flood killed BILLIONS of living things, and while most were marine invertebrates, many millions of bodies of animals and humans were lieing everywhere (in addition to what was buried, soon to be fossilized).

The carnivores would simply have eaten the dead bodies lying around, there were plenty and if given a choice, carnivores will choose to eat an already dead and therefore free meal over expending alot of energy and risk to kill a healthy prey item, and often fail anyways. It seems only logical that the meat eaters would have had a field day with all the free food lieing around and ignored the herbivores whole heartedly. It's easy to picture a Tiger causally watch a zebra walk by 10 feet away while it gorges itself on a Brachiosaurus corpse, the same would apply to the rest, whether its a snake or a T-rex. When a carnivore is satifactorily fed, it doesn't usually care about prey animals at all unless they actually come up and poke it. Just watch National Geographic and see how the Lions and Leopards just watch the Wildebeast walk around while it eats. We must also remember that Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs and marine reptiles like Plesiosaurs are reptiles which can go much longer on much less food than many other types of animals like mammals. By the time they need fresh food there would likely have been an increase in prey items again since many herbivores can reproduce faster than msot carnivores, rabbits come to mind.

As for the herbivores, plant life grows faster than people realize, some plants such as "Surprise Lillies" can reach full growth in 1-2 days and they spring up by the hundreds in patches. Noah and his family were on the Ark for over a year, during part of that time the waters receded and plants would have begun to grow in the soft, fresh, nurtient rich soil that was now wet. Full grown trees were likely absent but grass and other small plants would have flourished in their absence providing plenty of food. It's a simple fact that anyone in the woods can observe, anywhere a tree is absent undergrowth like vines, grasses, bushes, flowers, etc. will quickly take over that patch since the sunlight in strong there, it takes only days to weeks. The simple formula is that less trees, more undergrowth, And in a land devoid of trees small plants would have exploded across the landscapes until trees grew larger from their seeds.

There simply wouldn't have been a big problem with the animals geeting food or water, especially considering that there were only a few of each kind or species, depending on how you group them taxonomically. 

There are Dinosaur fossils in Antarctica, this cannot be denied. And it doesn't need to be. It's most likely that these fossils were created during the Flood, not after it, just like the other fossils around the world. Before the Flood most if not all the land mass was connected, at least somehow, and all the animals could travel to any area they wanted with much less difficulty. Aside from that, the pre Flood world was highly tropical, and there probably were no ice caps or artic regions, the only snow would have been on mountain tops so with tropical and temperate climates everywhere, Dinosaurs would have had no trouble living in Antarctica because it was tropical. This is a confirmed fact thanks to many scientific findings that shows us the type of plants that used to grow there.

Young Earth Creationism is not a conspiracy theory. A telltale sign of conspiracy theories is that they are not supported by science or facts like they are claimed to be, but only by the claims of those who believe in them based on emotions. Conspiracy theories are based on empty claims alone and nothing else, claims that breakdown upon investigation. Just as well, conspiracy theories are usually born out of simply wanting there to be another explanation based on a persons emotions towards something. Young Earth Creationism is quite the opposite, it is built not only upon a faith and love of the God of the Bible, but firm scientific facts. YEC stands firmly in scientific facts, so much so that many anti Creationist researchers can do nothing else but give Creationist researchers much merit for their ability to reason and use scientific findings, and only scientific findings that are trustworthy.

It only goes to reason that conspiracy theories and science do not go together, they are enemies. YEC and science on the other hand go together like a pair of hands. with such night and day differences it is not possible for YEC to be a conspircay theory.

    An excellent question, and a touchy subject. Young Earth Creationism is firmly believed by many to be the correct inerpretation of both scripture and scientific evidence over Old Earth Creationism for many reasons. First, the Old Earth Model stems from an attempt to accomodate the Darwinistic history of the world with the Bible's. These two philosphies are exact oppsites but that is for another section. The Old Earth Model of Creationism essentially says "I'll just take these millions of years and add them to the Bible so I'll be following both God and science", but this is largely in error. Trying to cover both bets by placing mans theories into Gods' Word is not only incompatible, it's wrong on many levels, the Bible is built on historical events, Gods infallible word, and Devine prophecy (which is being fullfilled more and more). Human invented theories, especially ones shown repeatedly to be wrong, have no place being haphazardly inserted into the Bible several thousands of years later.

    The Old Earth Creation model is largely based on the claim that the Hebrew word for days in Geneis translates to soemthing more akin to period(s) of time rather than 24 hour literal days, again trying to change scripture to fit mans theories. However this interpretation has been shown to be in error, the word in fact does mean the periods of time for days are normal 24 hour periods. The Bible is quite clear on the matter od the days in Genesis by saying "and the evening and the morning were the first day" in Genesis 1:5. And it goes on to list the morning and evening barriers of a regular 24 hour day for each day God created during the 7 day week. The use of "the evening and the morning" are a key point in this argument over the days in the Creation account, they limit the days to when the sun sets and rises in it's normal daily cycle, making it impossible for their to be millions of years in between each day. When added up, there are 7, 24 hour days in Creation week, 6 days of creating (working) and the 7th/ last day of the week, Sabbath (the day of rest and worship). There is nothing in scripture to base the millions of years belief in the Creation account in Genesis.

    Another point in this controversy is that the Old Earth Creationism model is a double edged sword. Is the Genesis account in the Bible correct or is the millions of years story? It cannot be both. They are incompatible on every level, scientifically, logically, theologically and historically. Old Esrth Creationism is one of the best examples of what the Bible meant in Matthew 6:24 when it says "no man can serve two masters". A man will either love one and hate the other, or despise one and hold to the other. It is impossible to do both. A person can only follow one master and his rules, if he tries to follow both he will either love one and hate the other or collaspe on the inside and out trying to reconcile all the instructions and ways of both. Its like having a master that's Hindu and another that's Bhudhist, one master loves beef and hates pork so he serves it all the time and forbids his servents to eat pork, but the other master is Hindu and loves pork and considers beef sacred and forbids his servents to eat beef. when the servent goes to each house he will have nothign to eat unless he disobeys one master and obeys the other.

Tough question and hard to answer. The answer is both yes and no. While you can believe in the Old Earth Creation model and still be a good christian, the more one delves into the details of the matter the more one will realise that that are numerous incompatibilities with the Creation story and the belief in millions of years, and there will come a point for those who are interested in facts and details where they will have to make a decision bewteen 6 days and millions or billions of years. One must also realize that the Bible clearly states  that Creation week took place in 6, 24 hour days followed by God's declared day of rest, Sabbath. This means that millions of years and gradual Evolution cannot be fit into the Bible as many would like.  Remember, the Devil is in the details. But so is God.

There have been researchers who have suggested that Dinosaurs may have been warm blooded, and even mammals, but this has been due to the little understandings of their metabolic needs. However there have been numerous recent findings that have shown that Dinosaurs were indeed most likely cold blooded reptiles. These findings have shown that Dinosaurs indeed could have acquired enough nutrition without expending so much energy that they had to be warm blooded. Dinosaurs indeed were more than liekly cold blooded reptiles based on scientific evidence showing that they didn't have to expend tons of energy,  even for the slimmer, "more athletic" Dinosaurs such as smaller Theropods like Velociraptor. It can also be infered from their growth rate that they were likely reptiles since even though many were born less than 1 foot long and under a lb in weight some grew to be many tons in weight and over 100 feet long and reached sexual maturity within a decade, as well as displaying indeterminant growth. In reality there is nothing we know about the physiology and thermoregulatory abilities of Dinosaurs Pterosaurs and Plesiosaurs that cannot be said of lizard and crocodilians, and likely snakes as well.

Most Dinosaurs, indeed most reptiles lay eggs, they are ovivaparous. However some reptiles are vivaparous, meaning they give birth to live young instead. This is how most mammals have babies except for Monotremes like the Platypus which is one of the few mammals that do in fact lay eggs. Palaeontologists have indeed found many fossilized Dinosaur and Pterosaur eggs aside from fossil specimens of them at various life stages ie. babies, juveniles, subadults, adults, so we know that those species at least laid eggs for reproduction and in fact made nests, often similar to how crocodiles make nests by covering the eggs with vegetation. It is now known that at least some species of "Ancient Reptiles" namely Plesiosaurs, gave live birth to their young instead of laying eggs, just like a number of snake and lizard species do. This means that whether Dinosaurs and kin laid eggs or gave birth to live young makes no difference and cannot be used as any interpretation of evolutionary relationships or to support the idea that these creatures were anything but reptiles.