Dinosaurs

[Sandy]

DeAnna, when I read the following from one of your posts

...I'm not sure I believe in "carbon dating" or any of that stuff. I'm not even sure I believe a tyrannosaurs looks like they say it does. Just because they put a bunch of bones together and said; "there". Not sure I believe they put them together correctly...

I was inspired to share a message that I had received from an egroup.

• Were there REALLY huge reptiles walking the earth at one point in time?
  
  Before you anwer, "Yes, of course, they have the bones", remember that the bones are the only thing they have. Whether these were reptiles or mammals is completely up to the artist's rendering of what covered those bones.
  
  I offer an alternate explanation...
  As a fisherman will tell you, the biggest, strongest and smartest fish is the OLDEST fish. In fact, at the bottom of the ocean today are found huge sea creatures - take for example the giant squid that are occasonally found dead
  floating in the ocean. Now, these animals grow older and stronger, not older and weaker as do humans and land animals, alot of this is because they do not have radiation like we do. They have an ocean above them that filters it out.
  
  Radiation is what breaks down our bodies quickly. With this in mind, remember what Genesis 1 said about there being an ocean ABOVE the earth at one time (before the flood). Now, that would mean that there would be no radiation hitting the people and animals at the time (Noah would have been a very big, and a very strong 600 year old man. Huge people (Gen 6:4) AND huge ANIMALS! These animals would have grown for hundreds of years, and would have been very BIG and very strong. A fast growing mammal of course would tower over a slow growing mammal as the years went on.
  
  Consider this...Have you ever seen the structure of a kangaroo? Do you think that if this fast growing mammal would continue to grow for a few hundred years, that it just might fit the exact description of a T-Rex? Think about it, big powerful hind legs and tail, little tiny forearms, razor sharp claws and teeth, same shaped head.
  
  How about a giraffe and a brontosaurus? Same long neck, both herbavours. Or an elephant and a wooly mammoth - obvious connection, and the elephant is an extremely slow growing mammal. So the size difference between it and a wooly mammoth was not as drastic as it would be in a kangaroo or giraffe. How about the tiger and a saber tooth tiger?
  
  We actually went to the library and pulled out the books on dinosaur bones, and the animal physiology books, and sat there and matched them up. They are so incredibly similar, that it is hard to believe that they could possibly be different creatures. We even matched up a "teradactyl" with a bird with an elongated head that lives today in Africa.
  
  Also, one of the dinosaur books said that up until about 100 years ago, scientists DID believe that these creatures were large animals, and that the bones of the "dinosaurs"
  appear to be the bones of warm blooded mammals. Also, consider this...if these creatures really were reptiles, they would be cold blooded and therefore require a whole lot of heat. One of the reasons that reptiles are so close to the ground is that they obtain a lot of heat from the rocks and sand, etc. But these "dinosaurs" are not anywhere near the ground, so they are not getting that heat. And if the earth were hot enough to sustain a reptile of that size, it would be too hot to be suitable for humans or any other warm blooded animal to live on.

[Bratu McCaskey]

Hi Sandy

Wow i never thought i would be arguing whether dinosaurs exist or not.

Alright here goes: I think that was completely and totally false. I have seen real dinosaur bones and they look nothing like the animals he described. Now granted things below the ocean do get stronger as they get older that i will agree with. The reality is that the bones of those animals first off from what i know to be true is that dinosaurs weren't reptiles but birds. I know that was the jurassic park theory but due to advances that is actually a very plausible theory. Humans couldn't have lived at the same time because it would have been to warm this is true but the ice age isn't to be forgotten. For instance if we had a different chemical in our ozone 1 million years ago it might have trapped heat more efficiently, and when that chemical was disovlved due to the population increases of the Dinosaurs it grew colder and they couldn't survive. Now part of the theory that i understand is that Dinosaurs were in fact cold blooded, but evolution tooke care of them that way. The thing is that animals don't just keep growing even if there was no radiation. The human body automatically stops after a give period of time because the body can't handle anything further. And the cells do deteriorate however radiation isn't the sole cause everytime DNA splits part of it is destroyed or decayed so to speak. Because of this we age. The sun's radiation speeds this process up though. So in conclusion i am pretty sure there were dinosaurs.
But it was an interesting theory

Bratu