Sloppy science has plagued palaeontology for almost as long as the field has existed. This is especially true when it comes to dinosaurs. These fantastic beasts have fascinated man since their rediscovery, and all the scientists wanted a piece of the action. Victorian palaeontologists were a little too printer-happy, so excited to name new species that they would slap a name on every odd bone that came their way. The result of this rush to name new species is that as many as half of dinosaur names may simply be duplicates.
One particular example still persists today, even though it was discovered in 1974. We've all heard of the brontosaurus. As I typed that on my iPhone, text suggestions even suggested the sauropod (🦕) emoji. Despite its popularity, brontosaurus was actually a combination of two dinosaurs: an incomplete apatosaurus skeleton, and the skull of a camarasaurus, which was discovered in a completely different quarry several kilometres away.
Incomplete remains aren't the only problem. Different growth stages also cast doubt on the number of dinosaur species we have. For example, another famous dinosaur, triceratops, and the much larger torosaurus, could be the same dinosaur. As John Scanella said, "palaeontologists are at a disadvantage because we can't go out into the field and observe a living triceratops grow up from a baby to an adult." (1)
This conundrum has several implications for the Creation vs. Evolution debate. First, this problem doesn't just apply to dinosaurs, but to modern animals as well. Many animals have been classified as different species despite being the same species. In 2014, Ken Ham debated Bill Nye on the topic "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins". One of the arguments Nye presented was that there are too many species in existence today to have arisen since the flood. He claimed that if species arise this quickly, there should be new species announced on a daily basis. (2) But if species have been so greatly exaggerated, this argument fails.
It also severely limits the number of dinosaurs that had to be on the ark. Of course, 500 dinosaurs would still be too much, but Noah only had to take representative members of each kind, not every individual species.
Most interestingly, Scanella made an interesting admission: A lack of direct observations makes it harder to connect fossils. Yet, a connection of fossils is vital to Evolution. If you cannot show a gradual transition from one kind to another, Evolution has no evidence, yet Scanella has essentially admitted that even if this smooth transition were to be discovered, it would be impossible to prove one fossil was connected to another and how. If you can't prove two dinosaurs are the same species, how do you expect to show that two completely unrelated organisms are connected?
The study done by Michael Benton demonstrates a huge flaw in Evolutionary argumentation. As long as palaeontology remains in such a state, it is nothing but folly to assume Evolution is demonstrated by the field.
References
1. Scanella, John, cited in Triceratops and Torsaurus were same dinosaur at different stages, Science Daily, July 14 2010 (link)
2. Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham - Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's scientific era? (link)