Dinosaur eggs said found in Russia

page: 2
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Speaking of dinosaurs, I was sitting in the dentist office today and picked up a magazine called Answers In Genesis. They had a special section in there about dinosaurs and how they walked with humans. I learned so much, like they were once plant eaters, until Adam and Eve sinned...then some of them became meat eaters for some reason, and grew jagged teeth and sharp claws. They also were on Noah's ark, but even though the biblical god is omniscient, the dinosaurs all went extinct shortly after being on the ark.




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Hmmm, you didn't "learn" anything at all I am afraid.

Looking in Genesis, or a piece about Genesis, for answers on Dinosaurs is like studying a book on Ancient Rome to understand differential equations.

I will say, however, that Genesis contains no mention of such animals, so any article on the Bible which pupports to offer any insight is simply making it up.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Hmmm, you didn't "learn" anything at all I am afraid.

Looking in Genesis, or a piece about Genesis, for answers on Dinosaurs is like studying a book on Ancient Rome to understand differential equations.

I will say, however, that Genesis contains no mention of such animals, so any article on the Bible which pupports to offer any insight is simply making it up.
Answers In Genesis magazine says that it does mention them when it says, "All creeping things". I mean, it doesn't mention sharks when it talks about the fish of the sea....



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Any anyone who knows anything about Dinosaurs would certainly not describe them as "creeping". That sort of reference is meant for insects, snakes, that sort of thing. Most dinosaurs were very active, warm blooded creatures.

We're not honestly going to get into a religious discussion about Dinosaurs, are we?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Hmmm, you didn't "learn" anything at all I am afraid.

Looking in Genesis, or a piece about Genesis, for answers on Dinosaurs is like studying a book on Ancient Rome to understand differential equations.

I will say, however, that Genesis contains no mention of such animals, so any article on the Bible which pupports to offer any insight is simply making it up.


All of the "experts" that have written literature on the subject of dinosaurs are no more informed. The discovery channel will put out programs on the mating habits of a t-rex, based on finding a pile of bones. Now dinosaurs are related to birds even though their bone structures, circulatory systems, and scales are way different, what proof are they actually using because all bones can tell you definatively is that the organism existed and died at one point. By the way, the word "dinosaur" didnt exist until 1841. The generic term dragon was used to describe anything resembling what we now call dinosaurs. Book of Job chapter 40 gives an eyewitness description of a saurapod

“Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by goochball

Originally posted by stumason
Bah, I hate it when they call Dino's "reptiles", they are not..


What are they then?

They have far more in common with birds than reptiles (especially bone structure). We only assume they are cold blooded like reptiles ands its difficult to assess whether they are warm or cold blooded from fossils. However, ever more dinosaur fossils are being found with feathers or downy fur.

On balance far more evidence points to dinosaurs evolving into birds rather being ancestors of reptiles.

A T.Rex with wings.....now there's a thought



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Awee I thought I grew out of Dinosaur hunting :[



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


The person in the quote is a paleontologist, they might have an idea. Also if you notice the variation in size you can see they are not eggs but concretions. Did you see the other links I put in the post about concretions? Did you see the size they can reach and their shape? These are concretions in my opinion and nothing more.

The larger an egg is the thicker the shell. A thick shell limits the amount of oxygen the embryo can receive. It is the simple structure of an egg that keeps the size of egg limited. Just because dinosaurs were huge does not mean their eggs were. The largest known egg was no bigger than a basketball.

I will stick with them not being eggs, the size is too big and the sizes vary too much.


If we could link other forums I would link one with both real and amature paleontologists who all agree these are concretions. If you have seen enough of them you start to recognize them.

By your logic things are true until proven otherwise. When it is in fact the one making the claim that needs to provide proof. Where is the proof these are anything other than concretions?


Raist
edit on 4/18/12 by Raist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


Sure this is dinosaurs and not Aliens????

Could have been the extinction of Aliens!!
edit on 18-4-2012 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I know what concretions are, I've seen many. I also know the shape and sizes of Dino eggs. I've seen eggs. Eggs are sometimes coated with mudstone and look like concretions when found also. I'll wait for evidence that includes actual testing before making an opinion. I do not have to believe a person just because they are certified, especially since no real testing has been done. A geologist knows what a concretion is, they are in the field that actually named them. I see motive for deception possibilities on both sides.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I just have a problem with some of the news coming out of Russia as of late. First we have the "mastodon" video and now this. It seems they are attempting to pull a lot of eyes their direction. Sort of like where Blaine mentions Chinese imposter fossils. There are many who are taken as suckers daily from forged fossils.

The only fossils I trust are those I collect or those a trusted person has collected or inspected. In this case though I think my son (5 years old) found more fossils in his preschool play ground yesterday. He found two pieces of coral, tiny pieces but fossils none the less.

I hate to be the party pooper but I really think these are concretions. We shall see, if they are eggs it will be known around the world with proof they are within a week, two weeks tops. If they are concretions we will never hear of this story again.

Raist



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
60 million year old eggs is not what I call "news" ---- now if they found fresh dinosaur eggs then that would be real news!!



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 

They are trying to capture some of the tourism money. It doesn't mean they are not what they say though. I'm a person who doesn't jump the gun and say something isn't true till I see some kind of real evidence. If no evidence gets produced it is probably concretions. As you said,We'll probably hear something within a week or two if they are real. The claylike stone they are in looks like the stone that sometimes exists around eggs, that doesn't look like it was mountain stone forever. It looks like it was pushed up and hardened. I watched some videos and read a few other articles. Most of the articles are pretty much the same exact thing. I had to scout twenty articles to find some that varied a little. There sure are a lot of similar articles from different sources.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

Look in your refrigerator for fresh dinosaur eggs. Chickens are related to dinosaurs I guess.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Yeah I seen a few other articles all the same but on different sources. It seems basically a copy/paste or just a pass a long of the same article. What a waste really, they did not put much detail into the main subject but instead just kind of threw some stuff together. Very poor journalism for the most part, at least from my opinion of years of articles I have seen on ATS. They really could have done a much better job of detail and even tossed in a few more photos.


One that I would say could be an egg is the one shown in the second photo. The size is about right for one of the larger eggs. Then again I am not sure if those dinosaurs lived in that area. The biggest eggs I believe come from Argentinosaurus, but please do not quote me on that part. They certainly were not as big as the things in the first photo though.


As for one who likes to see proof, when it comes to faith I work at that. However, with things that are in the real world for sure I like proof, I blame that on my home state though, I live in the show me state


Raist



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Half the finds these days seem to be at construction sites. I wonder as soon as a foreman hears "fossil" he swears. lol



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I like to see actual scientific evidence. The opinions of archeologists and Paleontologists have caused much testing of things to be ignored. They call it discounting of evidence if it doesn't fit standard train of thought.

Not all species of dinosaur have been discovered. How many haven't been discovered because we fail to understand some could have existed that were super huge? Rock formations ignored because they are too big to be considered? I Do examine probabilities on things also and the probability is these will be concretions but on the other hand geologists know concretions so it makes me wonder.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


That is true. At the same time look at how the idea of some dinosaurs has changed over time, and even then we are still really guessing. I mean we compare to what we have now, but we could still be wrong about stuff.

It will be interesting though to see how this turns out. I will certainly be watching for any further news on this.

Raist



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


Actually, a fair amount of info can be gleamed these days from fossils, including blood vessel structure, bone structure etc. The way the bones of many Therapods are built shows striking similarities to birds (they have air sacs they can fill to improve cardio-vascular efficiency for example, meaning they were very active) which also means they have to have been warm-blooded.

I'm not even going to bother with the guy above you and his Bible verses...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Here is a link with a video that IMO proves concretions.

www.msnbc.msn.com...-sl


Here is a still from that video posted on another forum this is being discussed.





I looks like a huge toy catepiller, made of stone of course.

Raist





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join