Protoceratops at the Creation Museum

Since at least May, 2024, the Creation Museum and Ken Ham have been discussing a new display, meant to describe the dinosaur Protoceratops being drowned in the Biblical Flood of Noah (see for example https://creationmuseum.org/blog/2024/05/24/new-dinosaur-exhibit-coming-to-creation-museum/ and https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2024/07/14/most-detailed-protoceratops-world/). This display finally opened in late October, 2024. Figure 1 is this ridiculous display from Ken Ham’s blog. Pictures of the display are available on several Answers in Genesis’ and Ken Ham’s social media pages. Long (2024) describes the artwork going into this new display. Although the artwork depicting the dinosaur itself is excellent, the display has absurd, inaccurate, misleading, and dishonest information on the depositional environment of the surrounding sediment and the taphonomy of Protoceratops and other Cretaceous vertebrate fossils of Mongolia.

The Creation Museum and Ark Encounter, both owned by the Young Earth Creationistministry Answers in Genesis (AiG), espouse that the fossil record is a result of Noah’s Flood which occurred in 2348 BC. All employees of AiG must sign off on a “Statement of Faith” (https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/), that states in part:

The great flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and catastrophic in its effects. At one stage during the flood, the waters covered the entire surface of the whole globe with no land surface being exposed anywhere—the flood of Noah is not to be understood as any form of local or regional flood. The Noachian flood was a significant geological event, and most fossiliferous sediments were deposited at that time (Genesis 7:19–20; 2 Peter 3:5–7).

And further:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information (Numbers 23:19; 2 Samuel 22:31; Psalm 18:30; Isaiah 46:9–10, 55:9; Romans 3:4; 2 Timothy 3:16).

Of course this ends any attempt at science by AiG employees and replaces geology, paleontology, and all other science and history with unchanging religious dogma.

Because of their weird dogma, AiG has an unusual take on dinosaurs and other prehistoric life forms. Both the Ark and Creation Museum have problematic displays on dinosaurs. In dioramas, dinosaurs are depicted as living with people, among ancient buildings, in stalls on Noah’s Ark, and most amazingly, fighting with humans and giants in a pre-Flood arena of death (see Figure 3 below). The Creation Museum has a actual skeleton of the dinosaur Allosaurus on display that was donated by white nationalist and neo-Confederate Michael Peroutka (see: https://rightingamerica.net/dinosaur-bones-mark-meadows-neo-confederates-and-the-tawdry-world-of-young-earth-creationism/). This Allosaurus skeleton is depicted as drowning in Noah’s Flood in 2348 BC.

Answers in Genesis original dinosaur modeler and country singer, the recently deceased Buddy Davis, even has a children’s song that cultishly is meant to repeat Ken Ham’s catchphrase dogma that the fossil record is “Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.” Davis gets children to repeat this again and again to music, a very effective indoctrination technique. The song can be heard in part here https://answersingenesis.org/media/audio/audio-archives/billions-dead-things-sample/ (Davis, ND).

The new Protoceratops display continues this stream of indoctrination and misinformation.

Protoceratops

Protoceratops is one of the most studied dinosaurs in the history of vertebrate paleontology. The peer-reviewed scientific literature on this dinosaur, the depositional environment of the surrounding sediments, and aspects of the dinosaur’s taphonomy (the study of how organisms decay and are fossilized) is simply enormous and only a fraction can be cited in this simple blog post. Surprisingly, Wikipedia has an excellent page describing Protoceratops‘s physical characteristics, discovery, paleoecology, and various aspects of the dinosaur’s biology, as well as citations of the primary sources. Good accounts of basic information about the dinosaur can also be found in Dodson (1996); Prothero (2019); and Fastovsky and Weishampel (2016).

The ceratopsian Protoceratops was a fairly small ornithischian dinosaur with complete growth sequences from very small juvenile specimens to adults about 2.5 meters long being known. Maximum body weight was slightly above 100 kg. Adults were quadrupeds, but juveniles may have been capable of walking as bipeds. The skull 🪓has a fairly large frill, and the nose of Protoceratops has a horn-like structure that doesn’t stand out as much as in other Ceratopsid dinosaurs. The teeth indicate the animal was a vegetarian, shearing off vegetation with the aid of a very sharp beak (a characteristic of many ornithischians). Protoceratops had relatively large eyes (even the sclerotic ring is known) and strong limbs, suggesting it was well-adapted to dim light, and capable of burrowing, although burrowing is not certain. The Protoceratops from Mongolia are a single species P. andrewsi, while another, slightly larger species P. hellenikorhinus is known from similar deposits in China. There are likely to be other species of Protoceratops, and the dinosaur Bainoceratops may be a synonym or a very close relative. All members of the Family Protoceratopsidae are Late Cretaceous (Campanian) in age, which is approximately 75 to 71 million years old (Dingus et al., 2008).

Protoceratops was discovered in 1923 by scientists working for the American Museum of Natural History’s Third Central Asiatic Expedition to the Gobi Desert of Mongolia (for historical accounts see: Andrews, 1926; Andrews et al., 1932; Colbert, 1968 and 2000; Gallenkamp, 2001; and Sullivan, et al., 2012) and formally described by Granger and Gregory (1923). After WWII, the Soviets, and still later Polish researchers did geological and paleontological research in this part of the Gobi. As the Soviet Union disintegrated, Japanese, Canadian, American (once again mostly from the American Museum of Natural History), and scientists from many other nations studied the Late Cretaceous dinosaurs of the Gobi (Colbert, 1968, 2000; and Sullivan et al. 2012). Note that for all their posing as scientists, creationists haven’t actually contributed anything to this scientific exploration and original research.

Cretaceous of Mongolia

The Protoceratops specimens from Mongolia are found in the Late Cretaceous Djadochta (sometimes spelled Djadokata or Djadokhta) Formation. The Djadochta is primarily a reddish colored fine- to medium-grained well-sorted quartz sandstone. There are minor amounts of conglomerates, siltstones, and calcareous nodule layers to be found in the unit. Regionally, the Djadochta is approximately 90 m (~300 feet) thick. Many of the beds are cross-bedded, but some are massive and do not show apparent sedimentary structures. Good descriptions, including stratigraphic columns, of the unit, can be found in Dingus and Loope (2000); Dingus et al. (2008); Fastovsky et a_l. (1997); Jerzykiewicz (1997 and 2000); Jerzykiewicz and Russell (1991); Jerzykiewicz _et al. (1993); Loope et al. _(1998); Loope _et al. (1999); and Shuvalov (2000). Wikipedia also has a very general description of the unit and cites some of the primary literature.

The new display at the Creation Museum is rather short on describing the Djadochta Formation. It literally cartoonishly contrasts the “Naturalistic Evolutionist” versus “Biblical Creationist” interpretation with actual cartoons depicting the burial of Protoceratops. The display simplistically claims “Naturalistic Evolutionists” think that Protoceratops was buried by eolian (wind-driven) dunes during sandstorms, while they claim the dinosaurs were drowned and buried by underwater sandslides, driven by currents, during Noah’s Flood. The Creation Museum display only presents a tiny amount of selective evidence for their view, then declares victory over the “Naturalistic Evolutionists.” A September 29, 2024 “X” (formerly Twitter) post by Ken Ham includes a photo of part of the display. The main portion of the signage reads:

DUNES OF DEATH

WATER OR WIND?

The circumstances surrounding the burial of fossilized animals at Ukhaa Tolgod in Mongolia help show the differences between observational and historical science and how worldviews shape one’s conclusions.

THE SAME EVIDENCE

Creationists and evolutionists observe the same bones and agree that they are buried in ancient sand dunes, which can be formed by wind or flowing water. Proponents of either perspective can see that the dune cross-beds (remnants of sand avalanches) have 25° slope angles. All agree that the fossilization of the bones occurred when waterborne minerals seeped in and replaced the organic material. But while creationists and evolutionists use the same scientific evidence, they frequently interpret the evidence in different ways.

ANALYSIS

Both interpretations are based on the same evidence, but only one explains all the available data. Wind-formed dunes often have 28 - 34° downwind slope angles, whereas these slopes at Ukhaa Tolgod measure 25°- an angle more typical of water-formed dunes. Also, the sandstone encasing the animals is saturated with the waterborne mineral calcium carbonate. Ultimately, the evidence is more reasonably explained by biblical creation model.”

Additional text in the display includes a tear-jerking narrative about the poor Protoceratops escaping by swimming in the early weeks of Noah’s Flood, only to face burial in a sand slide in “a water-formed dune.”

The actual depositional environments of the Djadochta Formation are much more complex than the above creationist fantasy. While the Djadochta is considered to be primarily eolian sands, there is evidence of a complex facies mosaic that also includes alluvial fan deposition, fluvial deposits in the form of short-lived streams, as well as minor areas with lacustrine (lake) deposition (see: Dingus and Loope, 2000; Dingus et al., 2008; Jerzykiewicz, 1997 and 2000; Jerzykiewicz and Russell, 1991; Jerzykiewicz et al., 1993; Loope et al., 1998 and Loope et al., 1999; and Novacek et al., 1994). Besides the well-sorted cross-bedded sandstone, other evidence for the rock being deposited in a semi-arid desert environment comes from the presence of caliche deposits that probably represent paleosols, and vertical traces that represent numerous invertebrate burrows. Loope et al. (1998) illustrate the cross-bedding, carbonate nodules, and probable dinosaur tracks in the sandstone in their figure 3. Several examples of burrows and rhizoliths (fossil plant roots) are illustrated in Jerzykiewicz et al. (1993).

Many of the vertebrate fossil bearing layers lack any discernible sedimentary structures other than caliche layers that contain rhizoliths. These units are have been described as “structureless sands.” Dingus and Loope (2000) and Dingus et al. (2008) interpret these “structureless sands” as dune-derived sand-slides from times of lessened aridity/increased humidity (mesic conditions). Some of the evidence for times of increased humidity is described by Dingus and Loope (2008), who document crayfish-like burrows that represent unknown arthropods that dug down through the dry sands to reach groundwater. During these relatively-humid “mesic” times, dunes were held in place by caliche paleosols and vegetation, only to become oversteepened and eventually suddenly collapse, burying Protoceratops, _other dinosaurs, _and other vertebrates of the Djadochta.

A number of features characterize eolian deposits in the rock record, but no single criterion characterizes all eolian rocks. Eolian depositional environments can be incredibly complex and not easily characterized be cartoonish diagrams. The Creation Museum signage claiming the cross-bedding has the exact slope angle of 25° in the Djadokata Formation at Ukhaa Tolgod as being significant is simply not correct. In reality, ancient dune deposits can display very shallow to extremely steep cross-bedding angles. In many cases the angle is due to the moisture content and composition of the sand. For example, dry, well-sorted sand tends to pile up at maximum angles of 30 to 34° (Hill and Moshier, 2016), while slightly more moisture from various causes can result in angles above 40° (Bigarella, 1974). However, when sands become saturated with water, they can not maintain a steep slope and collapse. Hill and Moshier remind their readers that have built sandcastles at a beach of this property of moisture-rich sand. Moreover, very shallow slopes are also possible near the base of the downwind side of dunes (Bigarella, 1974). Thus, although eolian dunes tend to have steeper maximum cross-bedding compared to sand deposits formed under water, the exact angle alone doesn’t differentiate them from underwater sandbars. Ahlbrandt and Fryberger (1982) beautifully illustrate a number of eolian deposits and discuss additional criteria for the recognition of eolianites. These include the mineralogy, sorting, and tabular nature of the deposits themselves, combined with numerous sedimentary structures besides cross-bedding. In their detailed study of the Djadochta Formation, Dingus et al. (2008) also note many of the features discussed above, including calcareous paleosols, trace fossils in the form of dinosaur tracks, invertebrate burrows, and rhizoliths (fossil plant roots). Niedzwiedzki, et al., (2012) note a track beneath a Protoceratops skeleton. Dingus et al. (2008) also note that the Djadochta is a mosaic of several facies, including dune deposits, siltstone interdune deposits, conglomerates that had their source in outwash from alluvial fans, and sandslide deposits from dunes that occasionally collapsed after a period of stability. Interspersed with this were small lakes or ponds that accumulated silty muds and sands. Interestingly, the Creation Museum signage mentions the presence of the mineral calcite (CaCO₃) as if it were indicative of a marine deposit, whereas the mineral is also often associated with the caliches and paleosols that form in arid desert environments.

So, what is the source for the creationist misinformation on the Djadochta Formation? I have only been able to find two discussions in the creationist literature, both by AiG geologist, Dr. Andrew Snelling (1998 and 2009).

In Snelling (1998), he discusses unnamed creationists considering the possibility of the Djadochta Formation being post-Flood; as silly as this is, it would be a convenient way to accept the overwhelming evidence for eolian deposition. Snelling (2008) also represents Loope et al. (1998) as somehow denying eolian deposits because of their proposal that the structureless sands were the result of sandslides that occurred suddenly during more humid (mesic) conditions. Snelling tries very hard to imply to his readers that since rainfall/water is involved, the rocks and fossils are somehow consistent with Flood geology. Putting the short review paper by Snelling side by side with the research by Loope et al. (1998) just doesn’t jive. To be charitable, perhaps Dr. Snelling didn’t understand the conclusions of Loope et al. (1998).

Snelling (2009, pp. 547 - 549) appears to be the source of a lot of the misinformation on the Creation Museum’s signage associated with the Protoceratops display. The signage and Snelling use almost identical language when discussing the cross-bedding slope angles. Lang (2024) discusses the artwork and signage of the new exhibit; one can conclude that the exhibit designer’s used Snelling (2009) as their major inspiration.

The study of ancient eolian deposits ends up having important economic benefits. Several eolian deposits in the Western United States and the North Sea produce oil and natural gas from porous and permeable eolian sediments. Additionally, groundwater is known to deposit of uranium and other economic minerals in eolian sedimentary rocks ( Ahlbrandt and Fryberger, 1982; Galloway and Hobday, 1983). Thus there are economic considerations in studying ancient eolian deposits, not just academic questions concerning earth history.

Taphonomy of Protoceratops

There is also an enormous literature on the taphonomy (the study of the death and postmortem history of an organism to fossilization) of the Protoceratops specimens from the Djadochta Formation. Fastovsky et al. (1997) is the major study, but much information can be gleaned from other sources. Protoceratops is commonly found completely or mostly articulated and are usually oriented parallel to the direction of crossbedding dip. Often the limbs are contracted and the necks pulled back (this death pose may be evidence for desiccation). However, Fastovsky et al. (1997) think that death often occurred via suffocation during sand storms. In contrast, the work of Loope et al. (1998); Loope et al. (1999); Dingus and Loope (2000) and Dingus et al. (2008) suggest sudden burial by the collapsing dunes as discussed above. Jerzykiewicz et al. (1993, Figure 12) illustrate a complete Protoceratops skeleton in a near-standing position, as if it died while struggling to escape the surrounding sediment. Hone et al. (2014) document several juvenile Protoceratops that also represent death by burial in sand storms or dune collapses.

Perhaps the most famous Djadochta Formation fossil is a specimen found by the Polish-Mongolian expedition of 1971. This amazing fossil is of a Velociraptor associated, perhaps during interspecific combat, with a Protoceratops. This is illustrated in Jerzykiewicz et al. (1993, Figure 11). Barsbold (2016) defends the idea that these dinosaurs were rapidly buried in the act of the Velociraptor attacking the Protoceratops. While scenarios where the fighting dinosaurs were buried during a dune collapse or sandstorm seem plausible, sudden burial of both animals together underwater does not.

Other Vertebrate Fossils

Besides _Protoceratops, _there are numerous other dinosaurs and terrestrial vertebrates to be found in the Djadochta Formation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djadochta_Formation for a list). Especially important non-dinosaur fossils are the Mesozoic mammals discussed in Kieran-Jaworowska (2013) and elsewhere.

Dinosaur Nests

One of the major discoveries of American Museum of Natural History’s Third Central Asiatic Expedition were the first recognized examples of dinosaur eggs and nests. These were first misinterpreted as being from the dinosaur Protoceratops, although the bones of another dinosaur were often found with the nests. This other dinosaur received the name Oviraptor (egg thief) because of the association, in the mistaken interpretation that it was stealing and eating Protoceratops eggs. It was not until discoveries by scientists working for the American Museum of Natural History in the 1990s that it was determined that these are oviraptor eggs and nests (for popular accounts, see: Clark,1995; Mikhailov, et al., 1994; Zelenitsky, et al., 2012); and a well-illustrated juvenile book by Norell and Dingus, 1999). Besides Oviraptor, a more common oviraptoid named Citipati is known from numerous Djadochta Formation specimens, including several that are fossilized brooding on their nests (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citipati)). These are scientifically documented in Norell et al., 1995; Clark, 1995; and Norell et al., 2018. The most famous of these oviraptors of the genus Citipai brooding on its nest is known as the “Big Mamma” specimen and is on display at the American Museum of Natural History (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citipati#/media/File:Citipati_AMNH.jpg for a copyright-free photograph). It is difficult to imagine how these oviraptors could have been building nests, laying eggs, then brooding over them in underwater sandslides, as the creationists are bizarrely suggesting. A terrestrial lifestyle and environment of deposition, whether burial in sandstorms or catastrophic collapse of eolian dunes, are reasonable explanations for these remarkable fossils.

In 2011, Fastovsky et al. described the first nest from the Djadochta Formation that is actually from Protoceratops. This nest contains hatchlings of 15 juvenile Protoceratops. _These juveniles are no more than 20 cm long and are all approximately facing the same direction. An oval-shaped margin to one portion of the fossil suggests that this is a portion of a round or oval-shaped nest. The baby _Protoceratops, although tiny, are larger than would be expected from ones that had immediately hatched. This size, along with the lack of egg shells in the nest, suggest they stayed with the nest and were benefited by at least some level of parental care after hatching. The orientation of the juveniles suggests alignment with a sandstorm. This fossil is not consistent with underwater deposition in an underwater sand dune. Answers in Genesis is aware of this fossil, Mitchell, (No Date, possibly 2011) cites this nest as being evidence for Noah’s Flood, but seems oblivious to the fossil’s actual implications against Flood geology.

Insect Borings

One other taphonomic detail that is inconsistent with an underwater origin of Djadochta Formation dinosaur fossils is the presence of trace fossils consistent with large carrion-feeding insects found in and with the dinosaur skeletons. Kirkland and Bader (2010) and Saneyoshi et al. (2011) illustrate and discuss many examples of Protoceratops skeletons, as well as other dinosaur fossils, that have circular holes and damaged areas near their joints. Moreover, there are traces of insect pupation chambers associated with these skeletons. These traces are certainly the result of a large carrion-feeding insect, perhaps similar to modern dermestid beetles, but possibly from another unknown group of beetles. Adult insects would have detected the decaying dinosaurs, burrowed into the unlithified sediment, then fed on the carcasses, eating into the bones and consuming cartilage and any available soft tissue. At some point the insects would have mated and laid eggs within the carcass so their future larvae would have a food source. After feeding and eventually growing to adulthood inside pupae, these larvae would have burrowed to the surface to repeat the process. Duff, 2024 discusses similar, albeit less spectacular, trace fossils associated with Cretaceous dinosaur bones from Mexico described by Serrano-Brana et al. (2018) at length as a “Flood geology failure.”

Saneyoshi et al. (2011) also describe a single, larger (31 mm diameter), burrow in a Protoceratops skeleton that could be interpreted as a small mammal feeding trace. None of these insect burrows and damage to the bones make sense in terms of the deposits forming underwater.

Discussion and Conclusion

The new Protoceratops display, and several other dinosaur-related displays already at the Creation Museum (see Phelps, 2007), perpetuate the odd creationist claims that their interpretation and conventional interpretations of geology and paleontology are the result of “worldviews.” AiG usually presents this as “God’s Word” versus “Human Reason.” Of course, “human reason” loses every time. This claim is part of what is known as “presuppositional apologetics” in Fundamentalist Christian circles. A typical example is this recent Tweet by Ken Ham (Ham, September 27, 2024) where he states:

Did you know that creationists and evolutionists have the same facts? Christians and non-Christians have the same facts? The facts are not what people argue/debate over. It’s the interpretation of the facts that people argue about. And one’s worldview depends on the presuppositions they have. Ultimately, there are only two foundations our worldviews [sic.], God’s Word or man’s word.

This, and similar arguments for presuppositional apologetics, are often repeated in AiG’s vast output of materials, including this new Protoceratops display. However, this is a rather shallow false equivalence by AiG. As this review of what paleontologists and geologists know about the dinosaur Protoceratops and the rocks it was found in demonstrates, AiG only selectively looks at scientific evidence and often ignores a vast amount of contradictory evidence when comparing their Bible-based dogma to scientific evidence. AiG’s presuppositionalism requires that everything that contradicts their Biblical explanation is wrong and/or is to be ignored by definition (note AiG’s Statement of Faith, cited earlier). The resulting twists of logic from presuppositionsalism can be maddeningly insane. Consider this bizarre statement from 2007 on the AiG website (Answers in Genesis , 2007):

For a person to make the claim that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist, they would have to be able to see all history at exactly the same time, which would make that person omniscient and omnipresent, qualities of God. So, when someone says emphatically that humans and dinosaurs did not exist together in the past, that person is claiming to be a god, while calling God Himself a liar, or, at best, deceptive.

Moreover, AiG literature usually insist that theirs is THE Biblical worldview, when even the majority of their fellow Christians disagree. And this insistence ignores a vast spectrum of other religious and philosophical views. In some of the photographs on social media of the new Protoceratops display, they show another adjacent display that is labeled “Most Reliable Dating Method.” This display is of a Bible open to the Book of Genesis.

In a YouTube video, Snelling (2022), in an interview with AiG’s Simon Turpin, gives his game away by stating their work is really about religious conversion rather than science:

Dr. Andrew Snelling: “…as I said to make sure that this is all freely is available to skeptics and you know arming all our people with the evidence. And of course there’ll be further articles in Answers Magazine, on our website, [and] live articles, because we want to be able to explain all this in more lay terms so that the average person can be armed with this information to go out and use it as a witnessing tool because, after all, Simon, you know it’s not about winning a scientific argument, you know, it’s about removing stumbling blocks that people raise to listening to the Gospel that people need to respond to. And you know we can argue about the scientific evidence until the cows come home, but the bottom line is you can convince people that there is a Flood, but unless you’re convinced that they need to respond to Jesus Christ as their Savior, they’ll go to Hell.”

Simon Turpin: “Amen Andrew, we’re going to end in a minute.”

[Emphasis added by DP]

Snelling comes clean by admitting that creationist “science” is all about religious conversion. Creationists reach their conclusions by ignoring large swaths of evidence that is contradictory to their dogma and sticking to predetermined conclusions, the evidence be damned. Actual science, in stark contrast, draws its interpretations from looking at multiple lines of evidence.

Annotated References Cited

Ahlbrandt, T., and S. Fryberger, 1982, Introduction to eolian deposits. pp. 11 - 47. in Schiller, P., and D. Spearing (eds.), Sandstone Depositional Environments. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa. [Well-illustrated discussion of dune deposits in the rock record.]

Andrews, R. C., 1926, On the Trail of Ancient Man. G. P. Putman’s Sons, New York.

Andrews, R. C., W. Granger, C. Pope, and N. Nelson, 1932, The New Conquest of Central Asia: A Narrative of the Explorations of the Central Asiatic Expeditions in Mongolia and China, 1921 - 1930. Volume 1 of the Natural History of Central Asia. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Answers in Genesis (blog post), 2007, An example of circular reasoning, part 3, fossils. [https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/circular-reasoning/].

Answers in Genesis (YouTube video), 2022 (viewed October, 2024), We had to fight hard to share this discovery with you! https://www.youtube.com/live/NeeXMtbPtQE?si=tDwvK3QSKSE_0R5j [YouTube video interview of Andrew Snelling discussing his Grand Canyon “research.” At about 53 minutes in, Snelling admits his work is about giving creationists witnessing tools rather than caring about science (see transcribed comments).]

Barsbold, R., 1997, Mongolian Dinosaurs. in Currie, P., and K. Padian, (eds.), The Dinosaur Encyclopedia. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 447 - 450.

Barsbold, R., 2016,“The Fighting Dinosaurs”: The Position of Their Bodies before and after Death. Paleontological Journal, v. 50, n. 12, pp. 1412 - 1417.

Benton, M., M. Shishkin, D. Unwin, and E. Kurochkin (eds.), 2000, The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bigarella, J., 1972, Eolian environments: their characteristics, recognition, and importance. in Rigby, J. and W. Hamblin (eds.), Recognition of Sedimentary Environments. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication No. 18. [Older paper with many criteria for recognition of windblown sediments in the rock record.]

Blatt, H., W. Berry, and S. Brande, 1991, Principles of Stratigraphic Analysis. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston. [Textbook with a short section on aeolian deposits.]

Carpenter, K., 1999, Eggs, Nests, and Baby Dinosaurs, A Look at Dinosaur Reproduction, Indiana University Press, Bloomington. [Wonderful book with many photos of fossil dinosaur eggs and nests in Mongolia.]

Clark, J., 1995, An egg thief exonerated. Natural History, June 1995, pp. 56 - 57.

Clark, J. A., 1999, An Oviraptoroid skeleton from the Late Cretaceous of Ukhaa Tolgod, Mongolia, preserved in an avian-like brooding position over an Oviraptoroid nest. American Museum Novitates 3269: 1 - 36. [Discussion of a remarkable Oviraptor sitting on its nest.]

Colbert, E.,1968, Men and Dinosaurs: The Search in Field and Laboratory, Dutton, New York.

Colbert, E., 2000, Asiatic dinosaur rush, in Benton, M.,M. Shishkin, D. Unwin, and E. Kurochkin (eds.), The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Creation Museum (Blog post), May 24, 2024, New dinosaur exhibit coming to the Creation Museum. https://creationmuseum.org/blog/2024/05/24/new-dinosaur-exhibit-coming-to-creation-museum/.

Davidson, G., J. Duff, D. Elliot, T. Helbe, C. Hill, S. Moshier, W. Ranney, R. Stearley, B. Tapp, R. Wiens, and K. Wolgemuth (editors), 2016, The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth. Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan. [Wonderful and well-illustrated introductory book refuting creationist attempts at geology with an emphasis on the Grand Canyon.]

Davis, B., (ND),_ “ Billions of Dead Things_” audio sample clip of Davis’s song. https://answersingenesis.org/media/audio/audio-archives/billions-dead-things-sample/ . [Creationist country song based on repeating a Ken Ham cultish catchphrase multiple times.]

Dingus, L., and D. Loope, 2000, Death in the dunes: What killed the famous fossil creatures of the ancient Gobi? Geologists examine the rock-hard evidence. Natural History, v. 109, n. 6, pp. 50 - 55. [Popular summary of their research into sedimentology and depositional environment of the Djadokhta Formation.]

Dingus, L., D. Loope, D. Dashzeveg, C. Swisher, C. Minjin, M. Novacek, and M. Norell, 2008, The Geology of Ukhaa Tolgod (Djadokhta Formation, Upper Cretaceous, Nemegt Basin, Mongolia). American Museum of Natural History Novitates, n. 3616, p. 1 -40. [Lots of information about depositional environments with many color photos of outcrops and details.]

Dodson, P., 1996, The Horned Dinosaurs. Princeton University Press, Princeton. [Good discussion of Protoceratops, including growth sequence from pp. 206 - 226.]

Duff, J., viewed September, 2024, Flood geology failure: beetle bore holes in dinosaur bones. YouTube Video. https://youtu.be/fFJxmegKoNE?si=j6C7HU-2O5BkhKF3.

Fastovsky, D. E., D. Badamgarav, H., Ishimoto, M. Watabe, and D. Weishampel, 1997, The paleoenvironments of Tugrikin-Shireh (Gobi Desert, Mongolia) and aspects of the taphonomy and paleoecology of Protoceratops (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). Palaios, v. 12: pp. 59 - 70. [One if the standard papers on the Taphonomy of _Protoceratops, _available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3515294.]

Fastovsky, D, and D. Weishampel, 2016, Dinosaurs, A Concise Natural History. 3rd Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Advanced undergraduate textbook aimed at biology and geology majors. Well-illustrated. Includes a photo of a nest of Protoceratops hatchlings on p. 287.]

Fastovsky, D., D. Weishampel, M. Watabe, M. Barsbold, KH. Tsogtbaatar, and P. Narmandakh, 2011, A Nest of Protoceratops andrewsi. Journal of Paleontology, v. 85, n. 6. pp. 1035 - 1041. [One of the few known Cretaceous nests from Mongolia that was certainly made by Protoceratops (instead of Oviraptoroid dinosaurs). Nice photo of the nest. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1666/11-008.1.]

Gallenkamp, C., 2001, Dragon Hunter, Roy Chapman Andrews and the Central Asiatic Expeditions. Viking Press, New York. [Succinct biography of R. C. Andrews, and a history of the geological/paleontological expeditions to the Gobi Desert in the 1920s.]

Galloway, W., and D. Hobday, 1983, Terrigenous Clastic Depositional Systems, Applications to Petroleum, Coal, and Uranium Exploration. Springer-Verlag, New York. [Chapter 10 discusses characteristics of eolian depositional environments and cites numerous articles in the scientific literature.]

Granger, W., and W. Gregory, 1923, Protoceratops andrewsi, a pre-ceratopsian dinosaur from Mongolia. American Museum Novitates, v. 72, p. 1 - 9. [The original scientific description of Protoceratops.]

Ham, K. (AiG blog post), July 14, 2024, Exhibit update: most detailed Protoceratops in the World. https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2024/07/14/most-detailed-protoceratops-world/.

Ham, K. (“X” Twitter post), September 27, 2024. Untitled. [Repeating of the “we have the same facts, but with a creationist worldview” trope].

Ham, K. (“X” Twitter post), September 29, 2024, Untitled post on the new Protoceratops display with photos of some of the exhibit’s text.

Hill, C., and S. Moshier, 2016, Sedimentary structures: clues from the scene of the crime. in Davidson, G., J. Duff, D. Elliot, T. Helbe, C. Hill, S. Moshier, W. Ranney, R. Stearley, B. Tapp, R. Wiens, and K. Wolgemuth (eds.), 2016, The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth. Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Hone, D., A. Farke, M. Watabe, S. Shigeru, and K. Tsogtbaatar, 2014, A new mass mortality of juvenile Protoceratops and size-segregated aggregation behaviour in juvenile non-avian dinosaurs. PLOS One, November 26, 2014, pp. 1 - 26. [Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245121/.]

Jerzykiewicz, T. D., 1997, The Djadokhta Formation, in Currie, P., and K. Padian, (eds.), The Dinosaur Encyclopedia. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 188 - 190.

Jerzykiewicz, T. D., 2000, Lithostratigraphy and sedimentary settings of the Cretaceous dinosaur beds of Mongolia. in Benton, M.,M. Shishkin, D. Unwin, and E. Kurochkin (eds.),The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jerzykiewicz, T., and D. Russell, 1991, Late Mesozoic stratigraphy and vertebrates of the Gobi Basin. Cretaceous Research, v. 12, pp. 345 - 377.

Jezykiewicz, T., P. Currie, D. Eberth, P. Johnston, 1993, Djadokhta Formation correlative strata in Chinese Inner Mongolia: an overview of the stratigraphy, sedimentary geology, and paleontology and comparisons with the type locality in the pre-Altai Gobi. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, v. 30, pp. 2080 - 2195.

Kieran-Jaworowska, Z., 2013, In Pursuit of Early Mammals. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. [History of early mammal discoveries from Mongolia by a well-published Polish researcher.]

Kirkland, J., and K. Bader, 2010, Insect trace fossils associated with Protoceratops carcasses in the Djadokhta Fomation (Upper Cretaceous) Mongolia. pp. 509 - 519, in__New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs, Ryan, M., B. Chinnery-Allgeier, and D. Eberth (eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington. [More examples of Protoceratops skeletons associated with burrows, borings, and egg cases of beetles, possibly large dermestids.]

Lang, V., 2024, Bringing bones to life. Answers News, v. 19, n. 4. [Available as a blog post at https://answersingenesis.org/answers/magazine/v19-n4/bringing-bones-life/.]

Loope, D., L. Dingus, C. Swisher, and C. Minjin, 1998, Life and death in a Late Cretaceous dune field, Nemegt Basin, Mongolia. Geology, v. 26, n. 1, pp. 7 - 30.

Loope. D., J. Mason, and L. Dingus, 1999, Lethal sandslides from eolian dunes. The Journal of Geology, v. 107, pp. 707 - 713. [Slides of dunes during rainfall.]

Makovicky, P., 2012, Marginocephalia. pp. 527 - 549., in Brett-Surman, M., T. Holtz, and J. Farlow (eds.), The Complete Dinosaur, 2nd edition, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Mikhailov, K., K. Sabath, S. Kurzanov, 1994, Eggs and nests from the Cretaceous of Mongolia. in Carpenter, K., Hirsch, and J. Horner (eds.), _Dinosaur Eggs and Babies. _Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Great discussion and photos of various dinosaur eggs and nests.]

Mitchell, E., (No Date, possibly 2011), Group of Infant Dinosaurs Found in Fossilized Nest. Answers in Genesis “News to Know” blog post. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/bones/group-infant-dinosaurs-fossilized-nest/. [Story about Protoceratops nest with infants. Misrepresents fossil as buried in the Biblical Flood. Fastovsky et al.’s 2011 research is represented as somehow supporting this. Repeats myths about geologists claiming angle of repose always dipping 30 - 34 degrees in dune deposits.]

Niedzwiedzki, G., T. Singer, G. Gierlinski, M. Lockley, 2012, A Protoceratopsid skeleton with an associated track from the Upper Cretaceous of Mongolia. Cretaceous Research, v. 33, pp. 7 - 10. [ A single track associated with articulated Protoceratops skeletons.]

Norell, M., J. Clark, L. Chiappe, and D. Dashzeveg, 1995, A nesting dinosaur. Nature, v. 378, pp. 774 -776. [An Oviraptoroid fossilized on its nest.]

Norell, M., A. Balanoff, and D. Barta, 2018, A second specimen of Citipati osmolskae associated with a nest of eggs from Ukhaa Tolgod, Omnogov Aimag, Mongolia. American Museum Novitates, n. 3899, p. 1 - 44.

Norell, M., and L. Dingus, 1999, A Nest of Dinosaurs. Doubleday, New York.

Novacek, M., M. Norell, M. McKenna, and J. Clark, 1994, Fossils of the Flaming Cliffs. Scientific American, v. 271, n. 6, pp. 60 - 69. Phelps, D., 2007, The Anti-Museum, an overview and review of the Answers in Genesis Creation “Museum.” NCSE website. [https://ncse.ngo/anti-museum.]

Prothero, D., 2019, The Story of Dinosaurs in 25 Discoveries. Columbia University Press, New York. [Several chapters discuss Mongolian dinosaurs, including Protoceratops.]

Reineck, H.-E., and I. Singh, 1980, Depositional Sedimentary Environments. 2nd Revised and Updated Edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. [An extensive study of modern sedimentation and geological counterparts. Desert environments are discussed and illustrated on pp. 209 - 240.]

Russell, D. A., 2004, The Dinosaurian Setting of Primitive Asian Birds. pp. 15 - 34, in Currie, P., Koppelhus, E.,Shute, M., and Wright, J., (eds.),Feathered Dragons, Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds, Indiana University Press, Bloomington. [Discussion of the fauna and environments of the Cretaceous Djadokhta Formation of Mongolia.]

Saneyoshi, M., M. Watabe, S. Suzuki, and K. Tsogtbaatar, 2011, Trace fossils on dinosaur bones from Upper Cretaceous eolian deposits in Mongolia: taphonomic interpretation of paleoecosystems in ancient desert environments. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 311, pp. 38 - 47. [Discussion of insect borings, burrows, and larvae pupae cases associated with Mongolian dinosaur fossils as well as a possible mammalian burrow.]

Serrano-Brana, B. Espinosa-Chavez, S. MacCracken, 2018, Insect damage in dinosaur bones from the Cerro del Pueblo Formation (Late Cretaceous, Campanian), Coahuila, Mexico. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, v. 16, pp. 353 - 365.

Shuvalov, V., 2000, The Cretaceous stratigraphy and palaeobiogeography of Mongolia. in Benton, M.,M. Shishkin, D. Unwin, and E. Kurochkin (eds.), The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Snelling, A., 1998, Waterborne gravity flows buried Mongolian dinosaurs. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, v. 12, n. 2, pp. 133 - 134.

Snelling, A., 2009, Earth’s Catastrophic Past. Volume 2., New Leaf Publishing and Answers in Genesis, Green Forest, Arkansas and Petersburg, Kentucky, [Discussion of the Djadokhta Formation on pp. 547- 549. Bizarre special pleading and leaves out important details. Available here: https://lionandlambapologetics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Earths-Catastrophic-Past_-Geology-Creation-and-the-Flood-Snelling.pdf.]

Sullivan, C., D. Hone, and Xing Xu, 2012, The search for dinosaurs in Asia. pp. 73 - 105, in Brett-Surman, M., T. Holtz, and J. Farlow (eds.), The Complete Dinosaur, 2nd edition, Indiana University Press, Bloomington. [Extensive history of dinosaur research in Asia, including Mongolia, extensive references cited.]

Wikipedia, viewed October, 2024, Citipati. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citipati.

Wikipedia, viewed October, 2024, Djadokhta Formation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djadochta_Formation.

Wikipedia, viewed October, 2024, Fighting dinosaurs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Dinosaurs.

Wikipedia, viewed October, 2024, Protoceratops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoceratops.

Wikipedia, viewed October, 2024, Protoceratopsidae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoceratopsidae.

Zelenitsky, D., J. Horner, and F. Therrien, 2012, Dinosaur Eggs. pp. 613 - 620, in Brett-Surman, M., T. Holtz, and J. Farlow (eds.), The Complete Dinosaur, 2nd edition, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.