Do You Believe In Dinosaurs?

5 Grand said:
I'm not much of a Orthopedists, but here's some very basic information that I found on google's search engine



View attachment 419466

View attachment 419467





Basically, bone itself is a living organism. Whether or not bone continues to live after the heart stops beating, even if its just a couple of seconds or minutes I don't know.

But if bone has the ability to live and breath independent of the human body, then if that bone has been "mummified", for lack of a better word, by soil then it's at least worth considering that the dinosaur's bones grew 0.1 millimeter per year, over the course of 100 millions of years, just as the Earth grew.

So your next question is probably, well then how come the mummies in Egypt didn't grow? Because they were wrapped in cloth, not soil.


View attachment 419468

In conclusion, I think it's more likely that the dinosaur bones grew as the Earth grew than the Dinosaur skeleton being 50 feet tall and remaining the same size over 100 million years, while the Earth itself grew a gigameter in size.
Click to expand...
I kinda think the earth was smaller and hence larger animals.
 
5 Grand said:
You just shot yourself in the foot

View attachment 419484
Click to expand...

You’re on the right track, let’s keep reading from the source you used...

5CF13C29-127E-42E9-9A4B-59BAB1CFCD86.jpeg


It’s rock that has filled to the shape of the bone that used to be there.
 
Rubato said:
You’re on the right track, let’s keep reading from the source you used...

View attachment 419488

It’s rock that has filled to the shape of the bone that used to be there.
Click to expand...


Good stuff. I'm enjoying this.


But the link you provided didn't address the NASA link that says the Earth is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per year. When you factor the Earth's growth this is what you end up with:

"Over millions of years...what's left is a solid rock copy of the original specimen"
+
The Earth is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per year.
_______________________________________________________________________________

= What's left is a solid rock copy of the original specimen that grows at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per year.
 
Last edited:
5 Grand said:
Good stuff. I'm enjoying this.


But the link you provided didn't address the NASA link that says the Earth is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per year. When you factor the Earth's growth this is what you end up with:

"Over millions of years...what's left is a solid rock copy of the original specimen"
+
The Earth is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per second.
_______________________________________________________________________________

= What's left is a solid rock copy of the original specimen that grows at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per year.
Click to expand...

The earth expanding at that rate doesn’t mean all the matter on or in the earth is expanding....but I’m sure you know that
 
Bones stop growing in length when people reach adulthood. Bones can get denser during the lifetime of a person based on muscle activity and stress. Bones dont grow after death. Just like the rest of the body. How can the earth have any affect with the growth of a dead object?
 
5 Grand said:
So you posted a link from NASA that says the Earth is growing 0.1 millimeters per year.

And we both agree that there are fossils underground

But you don't agree that the fossils could have grown as the Earth grew?


Am I understanding you correctly?
Click to expand...

No, I don't agree. You assume the linear without any evidence.
 
5 Grand said:
Good stuff. I'm enjoying this.


But the link you provided didn't address the NASA link that says the Earth is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per year. When you factor the Earth's growth this is what you end up with:

"Over millions of years...what's left is a solid rock copy of the original specimen"
+
The Earth is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per second.
_______________________________________________________________________________

= What's left is a solid rock copy of the original specimen that grows at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per year.
Click to expand...

You keep incorrectly assuming a linear relationship. Why?
 
Rubato said:
@5 Grand

Fossils get smaller over time due to tectonic shifting and pressure, not larger


View attachment 419489
Click to expand...
Fightbackmode2005 said:
You keep incorrectly assuming a linear relationship. Why?
Click to expand...


Look, I'm not an archeologist and probably know as much about paleontology as any other person on ABW.

According to the link @Rubato posted, there is such thing as "fossil distortion". If a fossil can naturally be distorted to appear smaller, then if the Earth has grown a gigameter in the past 100 million years, that could have distorted the fossils in the other direction.


I don't have it all figured out, but I think it's plausible that the so-called "dinosaurs" that lived "100-200 million years ago" might have just been insects, birds, amphibians, reptiles who's corpses were mummified in soil over 100s of millions of years and grew as the Earth grew.


That's all I have to say about dinosaurs.

As far as time itself, Elijah Muhammad said that time is measured by motion. A day is the length of time it takes for the Earth to rotate on it's axis once. A year is the length of time it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun once.

A day is broken up in to 24 hours
An hour is broken up into 60 minutes
A minute is broken up into 60 seconds
There are 86,400 seconds in a day
A picosecond is one trillionth of a second

A jiffy is the length of time it takes for light to travel one fermi, which is considered the shortest length of time.


Screen Shot 2020-12-14 at 12.07.31 PM.png





According to the link Fightbackmode2005 posted, the Earth itself is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeters per year. Which means if we go back far enough, the Earth was just a speck of dust, maybe the size of a grain of sand, or a pebble.

Once you go back that far in time, it becomes difficult to measure time because there's no Earth rotating on it's axis, and there's no Earth revolving around the Sun. So how would you measure a day or a year if the Earth is just a grain of sand floating in space?

So-called scientists claim that the Earth is 4 billion years old, or 14.5 billion years old. Or whatever.

I've never heard (although I've never done any research either) of a scientist explain how they calculated the Earth's age, or what unit of measurement they used to calculate the Earth's age? As I mentioned earlier, if you go back in time far enough, the Earth wasn't rotating nor revolving.

In fact, the Earth is 93 million miles away from the Sun. It travels at 66,000 miles per hour as it revolves around the Sun.

But if the universe is expanding, then it's reasonable to assume that at one point the Earth was 92 million miles from the Sun, or 91 million miles away.

At what rate is the universe expanding and is it linear?



Q. How would you calculate time in an expanding universe when the Earth was only 33 miles from the Sun? How would you calculate a day, or a year?

$1,000,000 in ABW dollars for the best answer.

You must show your work
 
5 Grand said:
But if the universe is expanding, then it's reasonable to assume that at one point the Earth was 92 million miles from the Sun, or 91 million miles away.
Click to expand...

It would take me a full day’s work to unpack how much is wrong with your post so I’ll just start here. The outer limits of the macro universe expanding has little to no impact on the distance between two objects, that is more tied to their relative gravitational fields.
 
Fightbackmode2005 said:
But what intelligence are you displaying? It seems your position is the Earth is a few thousand years old.

Is that how you feel, or what you have learned?

What verifiable information can you provide?

And please don't say the bible. Stick to the science.
Click to expand...
bro nobody has any verifiable information concerning the age of the earth, it's all speculative. It's a question of what methods and facts a person use in their speculation to arrive to a conclusion. Every bit of which will yield a different conclusion based on both the method used and the facts either examined or ignored.

Answer this, where does religion come from? And do you have any logical reason to reject the accounts given in the Bible notable the book of Genesis?
 
Rubato said:
It would take me a full day’s work to unpack how much is wrong with your post so I’ll just start here. The outer limits of the macro universe expanding has little to no impact on the distance between two objects, that is more tied to their relative gravitational fields.
Click to expand...

Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun. It takes 500 seconds (8 minutes, 20 seconds) for Sunlight to reach Earth. We travel around that Sun at 66,615 miles per hour. It takes 365 1/4 days to make a complete revolution around the Sun. The orbital speeds of the planets vary depending on their distance from the Sun. This is because of the gravitational force being exerted on the planets by the Sun. Additionally, according to the Kepler’s laws of planetary motion; the flight path of every planet is in the shape of an ellipse.



Your premise is flawed. You claim that the, "outer limits of the macro universe expanding has little to no impact on the distance between two objects".


I'm not even sure if that makes any sense


Are you suggesting that our solar system has always been the same size?

According to NASA Earth is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeters per year

How on Earth (pun intended) could our solar system remain the same size over billions of years, while the Earth is growing 0.1 millimeters per (edit) year?


Do you really think your premise makes sense or are you just playing devil's advocate?
 
Last edited:
16bitSheez said:
bro nobody has any verifiable information concerning the age of the earth, it's all speculative. It's a question of what methods and facts a person use in their speculation to arrive to a conclusion. Every bit of which will yield a different conclusion based on both the method used and the facts either examined or ignored.

Answer this, where does religion come from? And do you have any logical reason to reject the accounts given in the Bible notable the book of Genesis?
Click to expand...


I have a, " logical reason to reject the accounts given in the Bible in the book of Genesis".

1. It says Adam and Eve were the first two people. A serpent tricked Eve into eating an apple

2. It goes on to say they had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain married Adam's daughter

Screen Shot 2020-12-14 at 12.57.40 PM.png


How is that possible?

3. Then it goes on to say Noah gathered two of every animal, put them on a big boat and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and the whole world was wiped out, but, humans and the animals procreated.


Now I'm not rejecting the Bible. It's a great book and has alot of parables that can be useful today. But as far as logic, and debating science the Bible is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top