For many Bible-believing Christians, the Bible is sufficient. If it doesn't mention dinosaurs, then they are not an essential of the faith and we don't need to know about them
Which is as concise an answer to, "what's wrong with faith-based thinking?" as it would be possible to imagine.
It kills curiosity and investigation. It crushes a unviverse full of wonders into the confines of a Bronze Age book written by ignorant pre-scientific nomads.
Perhaps I expressed that thought badly. I didn't mean to imply that scientific matters, or for that matter, other endeavors of human knowledge, are of no use or interest to persons who believe the Bible. What I meant to say is that they are not essentials of the faith. They are not, from a biblical standpoint, necessary for salvation. There are many things that are true that have no bearing on one's spiritual condition. Dinosaurs, dendrites, dead empires and double-entry accounting are all valid fields of study, but are not spiritual in nature. There is no need at all for belief in the Bible to "Kill curiosity and investigation," but there is a distinction as to what is needed in a spiritual sense. Dinosaurs may be fascinating to some people; I can take them or leave them as an item of study. Stuff that fascinates me might bore you.
Remember that I made this remark in the context of responding to your earlier question, " Why do fundies have so little interest in the things they believe their god made?" One would think that a person who so passionately advocates reason might avoid the use of such an obvious hasty generalization. The premise behind the question is simply not true. First, not all "fundies" are the same, and second, many whom I am sure you would class as "fundies" are simply fascinated by various aspects of nature and the universe, and study them intensely.
Now here's the difference with JWs. Everything is essential. If the Watchtower tells them that the orange and purple spotted wild beast in Third Hezekiah is a symbol of the 2004 Olympics, they have to believe it, under penalty of disfellowshipping. If the Society says that leprechauns exist - even though the Bible says no such thing and, in fact, never mentions leprechauns - JWs will be required to accept it and will attempt to defend it to the death. That's how this relates to the original question of this thread. The Bible doesn't say what the animals ate or whether they had meat to eat before the flood. But the JWs have to have an "official" answer to everything, and once that answer is rendered, however speculative, they will stick by it. Which actually makes them more vulnerable intellectually than if they simply regarded that as an unnecessary speculative concept. That was my point. Hopefully I've made myself a bit clearer now.