The Impossible Size of Dinosaurs

When only 10% or less of skeletal remains for each individual large dinosaur have actually been unearthed, one has to seriously question whos wild imagination fabricated the remaining 90% of these curious and highly speculative creatures.

Personaly I find that Niel Adams videos of an expanding earth, as well the moon and planets, utterly compelling and convincing.

It fits perfectly with the giagantism of past ages and the mega-fauna of more recent ones.

Rejecting it because there is no ready explanation strikes me as rather anti-scientific - but then 'scientific institutions' are not 'scientists' they are social bodies operating according to social agendas - where as we all know group think is the order of the day, and as we all know group think thoughout history has nearly allways proven to be wrong!

To the OP - your link is from thunderbolts.info regarding the so-called "impossible" size of the dinosaurs. That's the source you want to use? It's not exactly a credible site by any stretch of the imagination.

The Earth's size and gravity are little different today than it would have been back then. There just isn't really any evidence to state otherwise nor have I ever seen anything previous to this to try an state that there was anything wrong with how big the fossils of dinosaurs show them to have been.

Originally posted by lestweforget
When only 10% or less of skeletal remains for each individual large dinosaur have actually been unearthed, one has to seriously question whos wild imagination fabricated the remaining 90% of these curious and highly speculative creatures.

You might want to give sources for those numbers if you please. They may have to occasionally extrapolate a missing piece here and there for a given specimen, but overall there's not much guesswork going on here. The majority of their conjecture isn't about their size or skeletons, but behavioral and appearance...things like whether or not some dinos had feathers or not...what color were they...how did they do this or that...etc.

The size of dinosaurs should be the last thing to debate on this topic as we do have quite a large amount of definitive proof as to how big they were. The truth being that, like a lot of the animals today, they came in all sizes. There were many the size of household pets, and some the size of houses and some even bigger. That's one of the things about reptiles is that they tend to grow as big as their environment can sustain them. Being the dominant predator on the planet for millions of years would allow for them to become quite large, and they did.

Also, if you've seen uncovered fossils prior to their extraction, quite often they have managed to find them mostly-intact. That means it's not like a pile of bones and they have to figure out or guess how to put them together like an erector set...they can see the size and shape of the animal it once was literally right in front of them.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by Memoe

 

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8464f79eb055.jpg[/atsimg]
Yup ,,,long way from the 6 inch nostrels,,,,unless its lungs where in its ears maybe,.. yupp,, 6" round duct at least for that distances. Now the formula for 6" round C.F.M over a distance of X, would need a motor capable of X C.F.M, so too move x amount of cubic feet of air,,, oh wait too late its dead,,, lol

Right,
lol

edit on 5-7-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2011 by BobAthome because:.

Which brings us back too,, (looking at the above picture)"How did oxgen get to its lungs, before it passed out???,,

Anyone???

reply to post by BobAthome


Why would it pass out before the air got to its lungs? I think that's a point that needs to be answered before you ask for an explanation regarding how it wouldn't.

Are we assuming that its blood is completely un-oxygenated prior to it taking each breath? Why would we assume that? Also, look at the size of the ribcage...the lungs could have been bigger than the guy standing next to it. That's a lot of air with each breath. Elephants can use their trunks to breathe, so why would this be impossible by comparison?

Is this thread hiding some underlying creationist motivation? I really can't think of any other reason to try and debate this. Trying to understand is all well and fine, but trying to 'debunk' dinosaurs is a bit silly.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


The idea is rejected because it has no supporting evidence whatsoever and totally fails to explain anything! Least of all because it relies on the bizarre notion that everything started with Pangea!

How does it explain ancient mountain building? How does it explain the presence of ancient oceans? How does it explain why the vast majority of species in the past were the same size as the vast majority of species today?

In any case, a smaller Earth would have the same mass - unless you've thought of a way of creating matter out of, literally, nothing. So gravity would have been the same.

Ads for the size of dinosaurs, easiest way to allow for that is to increase the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere - which, oddly enough, geological evidence shows was the case.

reply to post by Dashdragon


Ok,,you can have huge lungs or huge heart,,and stomach, and liver etccc,, but its All got to fit in the rib cage.
Now as a scientific experiment, based on the premiss,,,dinasours existed,, there bones where not hollow, there weight was massive,, using above picture,, fit a heart and lungs only in rib cage,,

Now based on a bellows type system.,, draw enough oxygen ,, too the lungs area of the dinasaur in the picture.

Its C.F.M etc, purely Academic.

creationist?? dinasaurs dont exist? lol see above picture.

Me.

Possibly a "set" of Vacumn Type Traps? running the length of the neck?? don't know.

just seen this about a mega wombat skeleton found in australia.
The animal was two metres tall (6 feet, six inches) and 3.5 metres (11 feet, six inches) long, and was the size of a rhinoceros or a car, pigeon-toed and with a backward-facing pouch
uk.news.yahoo.com...

sorry if this has been posted alread.. but Stan dyeo has his own description of how gravity works.. maybe this is why gravity could have been variable in the past -

video.google.com...

Maybe the planets were in different positions which could have affected gravity.

reply to post by MysterE


but don,t they say that the bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.

Sooo, Gondwanaland and Pangea (the idea that all continents were joined together) is accepted as fact, But a smaller Earth is not.....Hmm.

Further to Dinosaurs and insects growing to near impossible sizes, A lesser gravity would explain the beginning of flight.....Meaning a less jump from flying under water to flying above.

It all seems to make sense to me, but then I'm not a "creationist".

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

The idea is rejected because it has no supporting evidence whatsoever and totally fails to explain anything! Least of all because it relies on the bizarre notion that everything started with Pangea!

There is of course massive amounts of supporting evidence - it is rejected because it treads on too many sacred cows,and Pangea was just the originalcrustof the earth.

Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets espace.library.curtin.edu.au...
WCU20020117.145715

How does it explain ancient mountain building? How does it explain the presence of ancient oceans? How does it explain why the vast majority of species in the past were the same size as the vast majority of species today?

Recurvature of the original crust.
There were no deep oceans! - try finding any ocean floor older than 200 mil yrs!
The average life of a species is a few million yrs - there is a progressive increase in size as you go back in time!

In any case, a smaller Earth would have the same mass - unless you've thought of a way of creating matter out of, literally, nothing. So gravity would have been the same.

Matter out of nothing? - and just where do you suppose it all came from in the first place!? - personaly I believe it may be condensing in episodic fashion from the lower astral - but there are other possibilities. Though this is a seperate issue.

Ads for the size of dinosaurs, easiest way to allow for that is to increase the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere - which, oddly enough, geological evidence shows was the case.

Does it really!? - you realise that as you get beyond 20% O2 levels, things tend to burst into flame far more readily! - how would that have helped 300 ft tree ferns with primitive vascular systems from raising water to the top of their canopy - hmmmm?

LINKS TO EXPANDING EARTH SITES

www.dinox.org...

In amphibians, oxygen can pass right through their moist skin and into blood that is waiting in blood vessels just below the skin. The skin must be moist for this process to work...this through-the-skin breathing is called cutaneous respiration

source

What if the dinosaur airways near the brain were able to perform cutaneous respiration similar to that of amphibians and supply the brain with oxygen in that way? Another thing to consider is the enormous amount of chewing and swallowing these giant herbivores must have been doing; would it be possible for these actions themselves to be somehow used to augment the heart in pumping blood up through the neck?

reply to post by BobAthome


I think that is your logical fallacy right there. You can't postulate based on a premise of something that is a just plain true. The existance of dinosaurs in the past is a fact and the proof is staring you in the face in your previous post.

There literally can be no argument made as to the truth of their existence, so you therefore cannot, logically, create a premise based purely on the impossibility of them not.

We may not fully undertstand how they existed or all of the details of their environment or behaviour, but you can't debate that they didn't exist at all. If I were to assume that by CFM you mean Cubic Feet per Minute, even if you could come to a conclusion about the rate at which they are able to intake air with any degree of accuracy, you know absolutely nothing about the biological makeup of the organism to be able to say anything other than "this is how much air they could potentially take in over this amount of time."

The closest biologists can do is compare and contrast with existing species to make a 'best guess' at what their biology might have been like.

Trying to state that they didn't or couldn't have existed would require that a whole lot of independent people over many generations to have been coerced into a lie. You would also have to be able to provide alternate explanations for the giant skeletons in the closet. The thing with lies or really any form of deceit is that there must be a motive, a reason why they would not tell the truth. A child lies to not get spanked, for example. To insinuate that this is all some kind of lie, one must not only provide evidence that it is not true (good luck considering the thousands of fossils which would also need to be accounted for), but also a reason why all of these archaeologists and random people throughout the past several generations would want to lie about it.

reply to post by Dashdragon


quote

"Trying to state that they didn't or couldn't have existed"

unquote

First you want to show where i said that,, I said look at the picture OF COURSE THEY EXISTED,, are you not seeing things clearly?? maybe

but then to say im lying about something i didnt say,, OF COURSE THEY EXITED

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Pangea was just the originalcrustof the earth.

So where did Rodinia come from then?

How did the continents previously exist in a completely configuration if Pangea was the original crust?

For a new hypothesis to be accepted, it has to provide a better explanation for observations than previous ones. Expanding earth does not. And reliance on magic and/or god to explain the physically impossible is hardly going to commend the idea to science!

And as for species being larger in the past - how does a heavy horse compare with eohippus

Is it not law that all heat creates expansion, and the center of our earth, hollow or not, seems pretty damn hot to me. With this thought in mind I'm not so certain how we can believe that the earth is 'not' growing in size over time, especially with the events which are happening daily in hawaii.

Another thought is how much space dust falls into our planet every million years, how many comets have smoked through our back yard and left billions of tons of debris for us to pick up as we complete 65 million cycles around our sun.

65-80 million years, and we think this earth is the same then as it is now?

Change is constant, and it would be very interesting to pin point just how it was different it has become and why.

Everything in this universe grows.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
This is an intriguing thread that raises some interesting questions.
The first thought that came to my head was the peculiar result that the apparent measured speed of light has been decaying in recorded human history.

ldolphin.org...
ldolphin.org...

What if the gravitational constant has been likewise increasing? For example if the total energy is conserved but the velocity of light is decaying then

E = m c^2 implies that m = E / c^2 and thus m is getting bigger ! G may also increase for similar reasons.

Are you suggesting the earth is turning into a black hole? I think it is likelya combination of thicker, oxygen rich air and lower gravity which allowed them to grow to this size.

As for larger than expected animals to exist in the jungle sis not so far fetched as jungles should have a higher concentration of oxygen than most other places on earth.

reply to post by BobAthome


If I misinterpreted what you were trying to state, then I apologize as it was a bit difficult to ascertain what exactly you were trying to get at.

Unfortunately so many around here seem to try to debate known facts with fringe theories and just plain crazy notions that have little to no support that it's an easy assumption to make.

It's like having 2 people drinking soda that is clearly marked as being Pepsi. Person 1 says they are drinking Pepsi, but person 2 says that #1 is lying and that it is actually Root Beer. A lot would rather believe the word of #2 because it's more exciting to think that #1 would have some reason to lie to them. It looks like Pepsi...one guy says it is Pepsi...but this guy (#2) says that #1 is trying to trick me (for no reason) and it's Root Beer...."How dare #1 lie to me!?" Which becomes even more ludicris when all they'd have to do is taste it to find out that #2 is just being stupid and it really is just Pepsi.

Slight derailment there, but you get the idea. There are some that do seem to try and debate this so what I was getting at can be directed at them instead.