It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should we have a Jurassic Park?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
If we were capable of extracting DNA from old dinosaur bones and resurrect them, would it be a good idea to build a park like in the movie Jurassic Park? Or maybe put them on a deserted island somewhere out in the Pacific and let them adapt to the environment for our studying purposes. Would this be a positive or a negative thing to do?




posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I say more like on an artificial island...I wouldn't want them screwing up the ecosystem. That being said, I think it's a terrific idea...you could learn a lot and it would probably be fun, too!



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The idea of a real Jurassic Park has always astounded me. I think it would be the most amazing thing ever. We would learn SOOOOOOOO much that we currently don't know. Plus I think it's actually possible, too.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schmidt1989
Plus I think it's actually possible, too.


???...just how???

Something like this in my opinion wouldn't be of much benefit to science considering how much would be spent.

Exactly HOW do you grow a dinosaur?

Sorry, not a good idea in my opinion, and even if it was done...do you think anyone but the rich and elite would ever get to see them for real. Everyone else would have to get the DVD or watch "The Big Hunt" on saturday nights with a beer, some popcorn and a big foam bone to wave.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Check this out, incredible.
blood vessels recovered from T-rex bone

There's a problem with the jurassic park idea, It's impossible for large dinosaurs to exist today. The only answer is gravity would have had to have been much weaker. Expanding Earth perhaps or gravity isn't what we think it is?

dinosaurtheory.com...

Also there may have been a higher concentration of oxygen.

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
If they could make I dinosaur, I am sure they would for military purposes. I dunno how many bullets it would take to kill a t-rex for instance, or what calibre bullet could even pierce it for that matter, but an army of t-rexs roaming around the desert in afganistan would probobly discover where those sneaky little terrorists are hiding. It would also make a good first strike plan against Iran.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by saintnuke
If they could make I dinosaur, I am sure they would for military purposes. I dunno how many bullets it would take to kill a t-rex for instance, or what calibre bullet could even pierce it for that matter, but an army of t-rexs roaming around the desert in afganistan would probobly discover where those sneaky little terrorists are hiding. It would also make a good first strike plan against Iran.


WHAT?!....

WHAT?!!
The T-Rex would kill the people trying to control it or unleash it,
the T-Rex would have to be created in Afghanistan, because transporting it would be impossible.
and why would we want to kill innocents with a t rex.
and im sure a bomb would destroy it.

But why the hell am I criticizing imaginative claims.
A jurrasic park would be awesome to study dinosaurs up close.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dan5647
If we were capable of extracting DNA from old dinosaur bones and resurrect them, would it be a good idea to build a park like in the movie Jurassic Park? Or maybe put them on a deserted island somewhere out in the Pacific and let them adapt to the environment for our studying purposes. Would this be a positive or a negative thing to do?


Are you really serious? That would be the most stupid thing ever done in the history of history. Our planet is dying as it is, the last thing we need is a bunch of dinosaurs mucking it up even worse. Even if you only brought back the herbivores, they would eat so much foliage every hour that there wouldn't be enough trees to create oxygen for the rest of us to live. OMG It's like you've never seen the movie. BAD IDEA. Malcom said it the entire time! THIS IS A BAD IDEA. Not to mention that if the government could somehow get hold of a Tyranasaur there would be no stopping them. Why don't you just hand them your freedom on a platter. Good god how many movies and theories do you people need to get it through your head?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   
well on a plus slash negative side dinosaurs cant exist in the way they did as in their size there just isn't enough oxygen mixture in the air they would have to be smaller so it'd be cute



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Things die for a reason and bringing back the dinosaur for us to study and have entertainment is a bad idea. Dinosaur's R.I.P



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Yeah a Tyrannosaur would be real cute while chomping on your leg.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
There's a problem with the jurassic park idea, It's impossible for large dinosaurs to exist today. The only answer is gravity would have had to have been much weaker. Expanding Earth perhaps or gravity isn't what we think it is?

Also there may have been a higher concentration of oxygen.


It's not impossible for them to exist today, they just could'nt exist everywhere.

Dinosaurs lived during a period where there was much more oxygen (as you noted)
but also much warmer temperatures, in fact the planet was so warm that there
were no polar ice caps.


If somehow you could birth a large dinosaur today, it could survive in the tropical/equatorial
regions, but beyond that they'd need extensive genetic alteration to change them
to be able to survive in the cooler temperatures.



Personally I would love to see some sort of Jurassic park, though I doubt we'll ever
see true dinosaurs, as in 100% what they were like in the past, but more Dinosaurs
that are based on there ancient ancestors genome, but with alterations and genetic
fill-ins to make up for the missing parts.

Interestingly enough, the first Jurassic Parks we'll see wont actually be very Jurassic,
since the first extinct animals we'll most likely see be brought back will Be Mammoths and
Sabretooth Tigers and other extinct mammal species that we have found enough genetic
material of to be able to use existing animals to create Hybrids with.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
It's not impossible for them to exist today, they just could'nt exist everywhere.


It's the large dinos I'm talking about.


Catastrophist Ted Holden has resurrected the controversy by examining the relationship of size, weight, and strength in animals. (His analysis was the basis for a documentary televised in Japan in Feb, 2004. See photo above.) The strength of muscle tissue is fairly constant among all species. Strength is proportional to the cross section of the muscle: If one muscle is two times the diameter of another, the first will be four times (the square of two) as strong. But weight increases with the volume: A muscle that's twice as big will weigh eight times (the cube of two) as much.

Holden computed the weight/strength ratio of a well-trained human weightlifter and scaled it up to the size of a dinosaur. The weightlifter soon became too big to lift his own weight. Strength, in its relationship with weight, imposes a limit on size. Holden's calculations indicate that the heaviest elephants of today approach that limit.

source

It's thought also that some of these dinosaurs carried their tails off the ground as well.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
What would we learn? How it walked, or communicated or mated.
What benefit would the world of today get except for curiosity.
We are not going to learn anything useful like a new form of fuel, medicine or space travel



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by meurig
What would we learn? How it walked, or communicated or mated.
What benefit would the world of today get except for curiosity.
We are not going to learn anything useful like a new form of fuel, medicine or space travel


We would learn a great deal, like the sociology of these creatures, what they actually
looked like.

Doing things only because they are directly useful is one of the downfalls for any civilization.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by meurig
What would we learn? How it walked, or communicated or mated.
What benefit would the world of toda




wel, the commercial food chain with meats, & poultry, is becoming increasingly tainted...
if the mad-cow & poisionus Prions get so out of contol that man hato abandon beef, cows etc as a food source.

same goes with chickens & turkeys, pigs...all our meat harvest sources
ar becoming too toxic for consumption...
a replacement source of meat protein will be needed
if only to nourish the expected 6 billion more humans in the next 50 years.


~ ~ ~

condition #2;

the climate change will raise sea levels,
i expect the Chessapeke Bay area to get inundated,
FEMA will evacuate the Maryland Eastern-Shore along with RI
all the way to southern New Jersey border.

that area of newly created swampland will at first be used as a giant landfill & forest area for all the debris, trash, garbage from the east coast metro areas.

laster, by 2025, the pressing need for a new meat protein supply will be critical, a 'mahattan-esque' crash program will create a dinosaur habitat
where Maryland eastern-shore once was...
because the forests, waste, garbage(organics) provide a great diet for the growing herds of dinosaurs grown for the human's meat needs.
and there is a natural boundary penning in the herds, with the Bay itself & the Atlantic making 3/5th of the preserve inexcapable

the butchering of harvested dinosaur meat will be done along the northern land border of southern New Jersey...and processing, distribution facilities,
there as well.


resurrecting dinosaurs for our needs is a natural extension of our technology, inventiveness...and is not just a whimsy, for the amusement of the wealthy & priveleged. (as I see it)
the 'Jurrasic Park' story was a prostituted version of a morality-vision-story
that was around before the nation's bi-centennial...
alas,



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I don't think man ate dinosaurs when they existed at the same time. Also, I wouldn't want to eat a dinosaur that lived 100 million years ago. Do we eat elephants? No. I would rather cherish and study what our technology has created instead of destroying and eating it.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dan5647
I don't think man ate dinosaurs when they existed at the same time. Also, I wouldn't want to eat a dinosaur that lived 100 million years ago. Do we eat elephants? No. I would rather cherish and study what our technology has created instead of destroying and eating it.


Humanity never existed at the same time as Dinosaurs did, though I suppose
it depends on the definition of Dinosaur, on a second note, whenever one eats a chicken,
Turkey or other avian, it could be said that you're eating a Dinosaur, since birds are the
descendants of the Dinosaurs.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
It's impossible for large dinosaurs to exist today. The only answer is gravity would have had to have been much weaker. Expanding Earth perhaps or gravity isn't what we think it is?

dinosaurtheory.com...

Also there may have been a higher concentration of oxygen.

news.nationalgeographic.com...



One slight problem with that. In order for earths gravity to have been weaker, it would have needed bigger volume with the same mass, or less mass in the same volume. Both major problems. And if gravity's fundamental constant had changed so it is now stronger, it would have made severe problems with the stars etc.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
One slight problem with that. In order for earths gravity to have been weaker, it would have needed bigger volume with the same mass, or less mass in the same volume. Both major problems. And if gravity's fundamental constant had changed so it is now stronger, it would have made severe problems with the stars etc.


Yes, both of these would result in lower gravity, what I'm saying is the earth was smaller with less mass. Indeed the earth and other bodies are growing. The days were shorter, the earth isn't slowing down it's getting bigger, As is the moon, the extra mass is slower increasing the moons orbit, it's moving away from us. Plus there's geological evidence for it.
It's a theory that seems more common sense to me.
Yes I'm aware this isn't whats taught and I know the what the current theories are. Tectonic subduction and a transfer of angular momentum for the increase in the moons orbit and the slowing of the earths rotation.
It's a theory that seems more common sense to me.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join