SH Archive Ask Pro | - All you ever wanted to know about dinosaurs but never dared to ask

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-07-15 21:41:01
Reaction Score: 7

Some where's about I read a study done on dinosaur physiology by a couple of professors from the University of Florida, and they concluded that a sauropod would have had to have neck muscles nearly twice the girth as they do have, and just in order to be able to lift their head to shoulder level.
The study put aside the other over riding significant issues, such as how blood could reach the brain of a giant dinosaurs such as a suropod without exploding the blood vessels. So, while not even considering other hugely important and glaring issues, it immediately becomes apparent that we have titanic sized problems with the official narrative. This survey of the physiology was based upon the calculation that muscles are equal in relative strength inch per square inch, which is to say that one square inch of mouse muscle is equal to one square inch of elephant muscle or human muscle. So apparently this relationship between muscle mass and relative strength doesn't change.

Calculating the relative strength necessary for survival of virtually any creature can be done based on the physiology of the animal, and what this shows (conclusively IMOP) is that we have a gravitational issue which is almost certain to be the main cause behind the extinction of giant critters.
Arguments about a much richer oxygen environment really can't hold water because it doesn't matter how much oxygen a critter takes in if the muscle mass doesn't exist to use the oxygen in the first place.

When we consider the physiology of insects the same counter arguments, such as arguing that a greater more enriched oxygen environment was an enabling factor in creating the scale of insects is nonsensical. It's about like saying a human couldn't breath if they were 3X or 4X the size they are right now. Conversely, if it is true that oxygen is an enabling cause to giganticism then you have another alternative explanation for giants. Not sure they could walk or lift themselves off the ground without their brains exploding but let's not complicate this any more than necessary.

I really think there's no way around what logically and most simply can be explained by a significant and large change in the gravitational constant.
* Note: Elephants and giraffe's are right now undergoing another extinction event.

Insects do not use the same methods as other critters. Here we really and truly are looking at Alien Critters. There's just no way of denying that Insects are completely alien critters. The exoskeleton provides a pressure hull an movement in some insects is more akin to a hydraulic system, which some of you will then realize explains their enormous strength.
Projects - AGGorb
Dragonfly Wing Nodus: a One-Way Hinge Contributing to the Asymmetric Wing Deformation - AGGorb

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Divine Wind
Date: 2020-07-15 22:28:07
Reaction Score: 1

Some where's about I read a study done on dinosaur physiology by a couple of professors from the University of Florida, and they concluded that a sauropod would have had to have neck muscles nearly twice the girth as they do have, and just in order to be able to lift their head to shoulder level.
The study put aside the other over riding significant issues, such as how blood could reach the brain of a giant dinosaurs such as a suropod without exploding the blood vessels. So, while not even considering other hugely important and glaring issues, it immediately becomes apparent that we have titanic sized problems with the official narrative. This survey of the physiology was based upon the calculation that muscles are equal in relative strength inch per square inch, which is to say that one square inch of mouse muscle is equal to one square inch of elephant muscle or human muscle. So apparently this relationship between muscle mass and relative strength doesn't change.

Calculating the relative strength necessary for survival of virtually any creature can be done based on the physiology of the animal, and what this shows (conclusively IMOP) is that we have a gravitational issue which is almost certain to be the main cause behind the extinction of giant critters.
Arguments about a much richer oxygen environment really can't hold water because it doesn't matter how much oxygen a critter takes in if the muscle mass doesn't exist to use the oxygen in the first place.

When we consider the physiology of insects the same counter arguments, such as arguing that a greater more enriched oxygen environment was an enabling factor in creating the scale of insects is nonsensical. It's about like saying a human couldn't breath if they were 3X or 4X the size they are right now. Conversely, if that's true then if humans existed you have an explanation for giants. Not sure they could walk but let's not complicate this any more than necessary.

I really think there's no way around what logically and most simply can be explained by a significant and large change in the gravitational constant.
* Note: Elephants and giraffe's are right now undergoing another extinction event.

Insects do not use the same methods as other critters. Here we really and truly are looking at Alien Critters. There's just no way of denying that Insects are completely alien critters. The exoskeleton provides a pressure hull an movement in some insects is more akin to a hydraulic system, which some of you will then realize explains their enormous strength.
Projects - AGGorb
Dragonfly Wing Nodus: a One-Way Hinge Contributing to the Asymmetric Wing Deformation - AGGorb

The sauropods appear to have spent most of their time in the water judging by Mokele mbembe who is a smaller sauropod and appears to be doing OK, even with an oxygen content of 21%

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Randolph C
Date: 2020-07-15 22:42:37
Reaction Score: 1

The sauropods appear to have spent most of their time in the water judging by Mokele mbembe who is a smaller sauropod and appears to be doing OK, even with an oxygen content of 21%

Well, this is the old model that people belived for more than a century. Nowadays sauropods are usually depicted as some kind of glorified reptilian giraffes or horses Makes them much more attarctive and easier to sell colorful plastic models to the kids, I guess.

Mokele Mbembe, if it existed/still exists (there is a good chance that the poor critters have just all been killed and eaten, considering the state of Central Africa at large and the Congo in particular in the past decades) and if it is a sauropod (you notice there are a lot of "if's" here), is indeed described as a smallish critter, so he would not face the severe problems of a fully grown Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus or a true titan like Amphicoelias fragillimus (which was probably not even the largest dinosaur, there are indications that some were even bigger than 50 m in length). The small size of Mokele Mbembe would rather tie in with Dielectric's argument.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Divine Wind
Date: 2020-07-15 23:11:35
Reaction Score: 3

Well, this is the old model that people belived for more than a century. Nowadays sauropods are usually depicted as some kind of glorified reptilian giraffes or horses Makes them much more attarctive and easier to sell colorful plastic models to the kids, I guess.

Mokele Mbembe, if it existed/still exists (there is a good chance that the poor critters have just all been killed and eaten, considering the state of Central Africa at large and the Congo in particular in the past decades) and if it is a sauropod (you notice there are a lot of "if's" here), is indeed described as a smallish critter, so he would not face the severe problems of a fully grown Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus or a true titan like Amphicoelias fragillimus (which was probably not even the largest dinosaur, there are indications that some were even bigger than 50 m in length). The small size of Mokele Mbembe would rather tie in with Dielectric's argument.

How do we know if dino's were living in swamps, lakes or in the sea? how much guesswork is there, I am assuming quite a bit?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Randolph C
Date: 2020-07-15 23:19:30
Reaction Score: 2

How do we know if dino's were living in swamps, lakes or in the sea? how much guesswork is there, I am assuming quite a bit?

You can replace "quite a bit" with "complete", except for the sea.

Marine vertebrate creatures (fully marine that is) don't have legs. They have fins. Seen in ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs and the like among fossil reptiles. Some facultatively marine reptiles of today, like Crocodylus porosus and Amblyrhynchus cristatus (too lazy to look up their English names) are fully legged, but they are also not fully marine, but can move very well on land if in the mood.

The sediments and the other fossils also give us a clue. If you find a critter in marine sediments it does not mean much, because the carcass may have been washed in via a river during a flooding event or something. If you find the beast in freshwater/terrestrial sediments chances are slim that it was originally marine.

Caveat: How do we know that these sediments are marine/terrestrial/freshwater? Well, by comparing them to today's environments (yeah, uniformitarianism again) and by comparing their fossil content to living animals (and yet again). So you see there is a lot of circular reasoning and speculation involved, and therefore I say that in most cases we don't know anything. It's just bedtime stories in the shape of thousands of scientific papers.

I am just quite sure that Tyrannosaurus was not a marine animal, though, because each and every of these weak arguments speaks against it.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Divine Wind
Date: 2020-07-15 23:32:06
Reaction Score: 1

You can replace "quite a bit" with "complete", except for the sea.

Marine vertebrate creatures (fully marine that is) don't have legs. They have fins. Seen in ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs and the like among fossil reptiles. Some facultatively marine reptiles of today, like Crocodylus porosus and Amblyrhynchus cristatus (too lazy to look up their English names) are fully legged, but they are also not fully marine, but can move very well on land if in the mood.

The sediments and the other fossils also give us a clue. If you find a critter in marine sediments it does not mean much, beacuse the carcass may have been washed in via a river during a flooding event or something. If you find the beast in freshwater/terrestrial sediments chances are slim that it was originally marine.

Caveat: How do we know that these sediments are marine/terrestrial/freshwater? Well, by comparing them to today's environments (yeah, uniformitarianism again) and by comparing their fossil content to living animals (and yet again). So you see there is a lot of circular reasoning and speculation involved, and therefore I say that in most cases we don't know anything. It's just bedtime stories in the shape of thousands of scientific papers.

I am just quite sure that Tyrannosaurus was not a marine animal, though, because each and every of these weak arguments speaks against it.

I am of the opinion that the sea levels were much much lower, judging by all the sunken cities and river beds continuing hundreds of miles out to sea. Therefore, the seas would have been much smaller, and the seas would have backed onto a lot more swamps, marshes and nearby rivers and lakes. I think we would have seen an awful lot more of this

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-07-16 03:07:03
Reaction Score: 3

The sauropods appear to have spent most of their time in the water judging by Mokele mbembe who is a smaller sauropod and appears to be doing OK, even with an oxygen content of 21%

We may have to put elephants and giraffe's in zoo's with giant water tanks in order to keep them from going extinct, or else convince Elon Musk that his first priority is build a Zoo in space because it appears that we are beginning to suffer an alteration in the relative gravitational constant. These may be localized since flux's in our gravitational field and which would likely be related to the disturbed and disrupted magnetic field of earth. Gravity waves are fictional constructs probably created specifically ahead of what we ourselves may soon enough encounter: Difficult to say at present.

What you say Divine Wind provides an opportunity to see how a medium alters the relative relationship between weight and mass. Water is about 18 times thicker than air and modifys the relative weight of the animal by altering the surrounding medium. Of course we have been brainwashed to call this displacement, which it is, but looking further it is also a way to see how a changed medium can alter the relative weight of an object. We can use that understanding to grasp a concept of how gravity can be modified.

Gravity, or weight in mass, is rightly theorized by people not subscribing to Einstein to be the result of inductive energies. Gravity or weight is thought to be produced by an incoherent all pervasive surrounding in-coherent dielectric field, and which then produces a magneto~electric effect in matter. This theory, which is the right and correct theory btw, explains why rocks have a magnet field, and why all other matter has a magnetic field.

A change in the energy field which creates this magneto-electric effect could, then, drastically alter the relative weight of matter. So now, rather than rocks from space being responsible for mass extinctions, (*hint-missing humans), we now have another vastly more logical explanation for a plethora of supposed phenomena and mysteries.

With the Ken Wheeler dielectric simplex theory we suddenly also don't have to have an increased mass to alter the gravitational field either. That is to say we don't need more dirt to increase the gravitational field. All we really need is an alteration of the surrounding incoherent dielectric field that produces a magneto-electric induction in mass in order to change the relative weight of a mass.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: mythstifieD
Date: 2020-07-16 04:52:14
Reaction Score: 2

That's a hard NOPE from me. Yikes!!

This site says
How Big Was the Heart of Brachiosaurus?

Based on a 50,000 kilogramme specimen the heart would have been something like the size of a dust bin, very muscular and weighing perhaps in excess of 150 kilogrammes.

They make an interesting clarification that the job is extra hard when the head is above the heart due to gravity.

Largest heart

A heart extracted from a 24-metre (78-foot) blue whale carcass that washed up on the coast of Newfoundland in 2014 weighed 440 pounds (199.5 kilograms); it measured around 5 feet (1.5 metres) from the top of the aorta to the bottom of the lowest chamber.

By contrast, the largest heart for a terrestrial animal is that of the African elephant, weighing 12–21 kilograms (26–46 pounds), while the human heart is on average 310 grams (11 ounces).

And then I think about a giraffe which must have a similar, scaled down, problem...

How big is a giraffe's heart? - Giraffe Conservation Foundation

It was previously thought that a giraffe had a really big heart, but recent research has revealed that there isn’t room in the body cavity for this. Instead, the giraffe has a relatively small heart and its power comes from a very strong beat as a result of the incredibly thick walls of the left ventricle.

Another related issue is food. Those giants must have had to eat SO MUCH. Were they eating all day? Did the carnivores only get big after the herbivores? They'd have an abundance of greens, and if the smaller carnivores could take down the giants, they'd have a huge feast. Eventually the biggest carnivores would likely need to keep finding the biggest herbivores to ensure a big enough meal to keep their giant bodies satisfied?

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-07-17 23:45:20
Reaction Score: 5

Well my next question, which isn't really a question I expect Randolph to have an answer to, I'm mainly asking it because it's the only way I can think of to cause problems, is are there ways we might try to use to recover lost species such as dinosaurs?

Before starting let me just point out that I never said I'd agree with Randolph if "we disagreed," I only said I'd claim I'd support whatever he said if others disagreed. The devil is in the details ya know.

So anyways we have at least two possible alternatives with regard to solutions about the missing dino problem. Now I've collected some links for examination by those interested. The idea here is how to grow your own dinosaur; who needs time travel when it's far simpler than anyone has previously imagined to simply hatch one. You read that correctly, it's time to chinch up you're britches; we are heading in to the land of Woo-woo.

Electric Biology
Der Urzeit-Code
The Primeval Times Code
Living archetypes of plants and animals created at the laboratory.
The Primeval Code

Next we have DNA teleporation. Thought I was done huh?

Is cancer a disease that can be cured by DNA teleportation
Searches related to dna teleportation
transduction of dna information through water and electromagnetic waves
electromagnetic signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures derived from bacterial dna sequences
luc montagnier coronavirus
luc montagnier death
water memory
nobel prize-winning biologist who suggested bacteria could generate radio waves
french virologist
water memory 2018
Page Navigation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Next

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2020-07-18 00:18:14
Reaction Score: 3

@Dialectric, I love everything that's wrong with you.

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-07-18 01:52:59
Reaction Score: 3

So because I need a time out and can no longer see the computer screen I'm just posting some early first thoughts.
I couldn't really decide where to put this information because this material could fit many other places on the site as well, especially those having to do with mass extinctions, missing persons, and possibly even petrification, but really aren't those all related to the dinosaur problem?

Another reason is the issue of petrification, and can that possibly happen in a magical way, acting like a wave sweeping over the face of the earth? Well maybe, and my first thoughts on this is that depends on how much crap is in the air (hint..hint) and which then becomes a part of the host victim.

It might not be obvious in the article from Thunderbolts but I'm pretty sure that's at least one other part of the whole quote "electro-bio-transmutation" hypothesis. A careful reading of the Thunderbolts article suggests that an energy wave moving across the face of the earth could have dramatic consequences with the ability of life to replicate, and also to mutate, but it fails to also take in to account the possibility that a changing climate where the atmosphere is filled with particles from volcono's and possibly other debris from meteors or unknown space dust may act in conjunction with an sweeping energy wave to create a fusion like process resulting in mass petrification.

Consider microwaves/5G and chemtrails. I'm not saying that to form a conspiracy theory about these seemingly independent things, it's to formulate a hypothese that there may be enough information to warrant some experimentation to see if there's any potential for such a thing. Maybe idiots with way too much money are brainlessly marching the rest of us off to cell phone death not realizing they are just pawns in a larger game. The reason this seems significant are the many forms of petrification which are depicted in fantasy fiction might not be quite as fantastical as the whole idea comes off as being. They are constantly telling us stuff through media so this seems like it might have legs long enough on it to warrant digging deeper.

Where does life come from and how's it get it's information? Is DNA what we think it is, or is it something else, a vehicle picking up unseen scribbling from the vacuum? I know that ultra high vibrations are used to meld machines with a counterspatial energy field. This field is commonly referred to as the Vacuum by a majority of today's physicists. You might tend to evision this connection as a sort of series of micro worm holes leading to a hidden energy field which is often just called the vacuum, but may be understood as being located in a space opposite our own. Hence the reference to counter spatial, counter space, hyper space, and finally hyper spatial. These all refer to the same location and it's innate quality of ubber high speed transport but it's much more than that. It seems to be more like an invisible mirror through which information passes and is recorded.

"Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania using Magnetic Resonance Imaging were surprised to discover that the calmodulin protein molecule possesses an internal "jitter" that shakes it billions of times per second."
Electric Biology

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Randolph C
Date: 2020-07-18 19:27:29
Reaction Score: 5

So because I need a time out and can no longer see the computer screen I'm just posting some early first thoughts.
I couldn't really decide where to put this information because this material could fit many other places on the site as well, especially those having to do with mass extinctions, missing persons, and possibly even petrification, but really aren't those all related to the dinosaur problem?

Absolutely fascinating stuff. I have read "Der Urzeit-Code" a while ago. There are a lot of things we are probably just beginning to understand about how organisms truly work. I never bought the simplistic model that everything is just genetics. No geneticist has ever managed to produce a new species or basically re-surrected an extinct one. We are missing something. What the Swiss guys did may be the clue to a lot of very fundamental questions.

I would suggest that we discuss this topic in another thread. Not because I think you are derailing this one, but i think it is too important and deserves a thread of its own. But where to put it?

I have the feeling that we basically need a subforum which may be called something like "non-mainstream academia" or the like, because there is a lot of academics who are thinking outside the box and produce outstanding research. All the main intelligent design people I know personally are e.g. real biologists and palaeontologists with outstanding academic credentials. Fomenko is a mathematician who is full professor at a renowned Russian University. The Swiss "Urzeit-Code" guys were working in the labs of Ciba-Geigy, one of the largest multinational pharma- and chemistry trusts (now part of Novartis, together with Sandoz, both companies involved in some of the worst scandals in recent history) and sure saw a lot of things that the average Joe will not ever hear a word about. There is a lot of "mainstream academics" who go against the mainstream. Maybe we need a subforum for that?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Red Bird
Date: 2020-07-19 01:04:36
Reaction Score: 0

Well my next question, which isn't really a question I expect Randolph to have an answer to, I'm mainly asking it because it's the only way I can think of to cause problems, is are there ways we might try to use to recover lost species such as dinosaurs?

Before starting let me just point out that I never said I'd agree with Randolph if "we disagreed," I only said I'd claim I'd support whatever he said if others disagreed. The devil is in the details ya know.

So anyways we have at least two possible alternatives with regard to solutions about the missing dino problem. Now I've collected some links for examination by those interested. The idea here is how to grow your own dinosaur; who needs time travel when it's far simpler than anyone has previously imagined to simply hatch one. You read that correctly, it's time to chinch up you're britches; we are heading in to the land of Woo-woo.

Electric Biology
Der Urzeit-Code
The Primeval Times Code
Living archetypes of plants and animals created at the laboratory.
The Primeval Code

Next we have DNA teleporation. Thought I was done huh?

Is cancer a disease that can be cured by DNA teleportation
Searches related to dna teleportation
transduction of dna information through water and electromagnetic waves
electromagnetic signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures derived from bacterial dna sequences
luc montagnier coronavirus
luc montagnier death
water memory
nobel prize-winning biologist who suggested bacteria could generate radio waves
french virologist
water memory 2018
Page Navigation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Next

How do I get on these links? The bacterial one in particular.

Absolutely fascinating stuff. I have read "Der Urzeit-Code" a while ago. There are a lot of things we are probably just beginning to understand about how organisms truly work. I never bought the simplistic model that everything is just genetics. No geneticist has ever managed to produce a new species or basically re-surrected an extinct one. We are missing something. What the Swiss guys did may be the clue to a lot of very fundamental questions.

I would suggest that we discuss this topic in another thread. Not because I think you are derailing this one, but i think it is too important and deserves a thread of its own. But where to put it?

I have the feeling that we basically need a subforum which may be called something like "non-mainstream academia" or the like, because there is a lot of academics who are thinking outside the box and produce outstanding research. All the main intelligent design people I know personally are e.g. real biologists and palaeontologists with outstanding academic credentials. Fomenko is a mathematician who is full professor at a renowned Russian University. The Swiss "Urzeit-Code" guys were working in the labs of Ciba-Geigy, one of the largest multinational pharma- and chemistry trusts (now part of Novartis, together with Sandoz, both companies involved in some of the worst scandals in recent history) and sure saw a lot of things that the average Joe will not ever hear a word about. There is a lot of "mainstream academics" who go against the mainstream. Maybe we need a subforum for that?

Yes, and the main one being electro magnetIcs. This what is being hidden on SO many levels.

Thanks for your input. Yes, I do think there was a Noah's flood. And it was not the only one. There have been numerous similar events in Earth's history.

well, I mean a flood that covers the whole earth, which there was only one, with only 8 survivors. I would think your answer a bit weasily but you may not be familiar with the Bible, and misunderstood my question in a secular way.

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-07-19 01:45:32
Reaction Score: 0

New Thread Created.
Genesis Archaeogenetic: Technology, Theories, Discoveries, & Discussions
Genesis Archaeogenetic: Technology, Theories, Discoveries, & Discussions

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ibiseyedmack
Date: 2020-07-19 02:31:00
Reaction Score: 1

@Dialectric, I love everything that's wrong with you.

Eye second this. Dialectric is the cat eye have been looking for without the search. Such a beautiful example is set that keeps my journey/search revitalized. The wit is just the cherry on top!!!

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: curvedpluto
Date: 2020-07-19 04:02:05
Reaction Score: 0

So if I was granted one question to ask Randolf C, it would be:
How many dinosaur do you think actually walked, flew or swam on the earth? And how many different species? Two questions. Thank you

I should add in your honest opinion to the above questions

 

[Samson4prez]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Samson4prez
Date: 2020-07-19 05:34:14
Reaction Score: 2

Seeing that most threads in this subforum are pretty "Mesozoic" by now, I decided to come up with a new one.

I am an absolute newbie here, but I am no absolute newbie when it comes to paleontology in general and dinosaurs in particular. Having worked for a long time as a professional paleontologist, and publishing on dinosaurs and fossil reptiles (and other fossil stuff) for 25 years now, having a lot of first-hand experience in actual fieldwork and digging up fossil critters, doing preparation of the fossils and of course the most controversial part of it all - interpretation - feel free to ask me anything.

I just have to set up some "rules of the game":

1. Please be and stay friendly, even if we should not agree. I don't get the feeling that any two people on this forum agree on all points. How should we, we want to find out the truth, and we are connecting dots. Not more, not less.

2. Please ask concise questions, so I can give concise answers.

3. Don't expect that I can explain every oddity. I have my fields of expertise, and I have my blind spots, just as all "experts" have. We are programmed like that. If I know basically nothing about a certain specific topic I will tell it to you frankly, not make up some pseudo-sophisticated convoluted blah.

Some things in adavance: The topic here is dinosaurs (and other fossil reptiles, like ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs and the like), because this is in the "Dinosaurs and pterosaurs" section. It is not intended to discuss evolution or the geological timescale in general (although these things obviously tie in). But I can give you a very concise statement on these two hot topics from my personal point of view, so that you don't get the impression that I am a cowardly dodger.

Evolution - I am not buying the neodarwinian extended synthethic theory or whatever they call it nowadays anymore. Actually I never really have. But I had (and have to) work within that paradigm, if I do not want to be literaly grilled by my peers. Although I have left official academia 10 years ago, I am still a very active researcher and publish scientific papers regularly in peer-reviewed international journals. Personally I think Intelligent Design is the only way in which we can explain the observed facts coherently. Because there was obviously change among the living organisms of this realm, and obviously also an increase in complexity and diversity. The Darwinian paradigm, however, works for microevolution at best. Intelligent design means there has to be a designer (or designers), an actual entity (or entities), and this is by extension likely to be not only true for organic life forms, but for the entire realm which we inhabit.

Geological time scale - from all I know it could be completely off the mark. the only real method for so-called "absolute" dating we have is radiometric dating, but that comes with a lot of caveats and is most probably plagued by a decent number of systemic sources of error of astounding magnitude, if analyzed at closer scrutiny. I do not buy into "the earth is just 6000 years old" or stuff like that and never will, because it just does not make sense. It contradicts the observable geological facts (just thinking about the enormous thickness of sedimentary rocks deposited, such a time frame is impossible, at least if you stick to the paradigm that this world is not a complete simulation or a big strategy MMO for some otherworldly beings). But it could well be one or two orders of magnitude younger than the current official consensus has it (or older). Relative dating by means of biostratigraphy (when available) usually works like a charm, however, and there can be absolutely no doubt about the general relative age of the major sedimentary fossiliferous formations. Our entire coal and oil industry would be impossible if biostratigraphy did not work. Simple as that.

Just these two statements, if associated with me as a scientist, would cost me any credibility among the scientific community/establishment. Nonetheless these are what I am totally convinced of. So you may get the impression that it is not hopeless to discuss with me on any more specific things

I'm going to bed now, because it's bedtime in Germany, so don't expect any answers too soon, but I promise not to dodge a single question, as long as it is within the rules of the game (see above).

When comparing the fossils you find in layers of sediment to the layers of sediment left after Mount St. Helens blew I’m convinced that the dating of different periods based on what later the bones are found in can not be right... Also are you familiar with the soft tissue being cultured on just about half of all the dinosaur bones in recent years... And have you ever considered that the monsters in old tales and dragons might actually be dinosaurs? In the Bible the behemoth sounds an aweful lot like a brontosaurus

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Randolph C
Date: 2020-07-19 08:29:08
Reaction Score: 3

When comparing the fossils you find in layers of sediment to the layers of sediment left after Mount St. Helens blew I’m convinced that the dating of different periods based on what later the bones are found in can not be right... Also are you familiar with the soft tissue being cultured on just about half of all the dinosaur bones in recent years... And have you ever considered that the monsters in old tales and dragons might actually be dinosaurs? In the Bible the behemoth sounds an aweful lot like a brontosaurus

Hi there

We basically discussed your points already, nonetheless here are short answers I can provide:

I agree that radiometric dating is highly problematic. Even mainstream science slowly admits it, like e.g. in this article

Paper spotlights key flaw in widely used radioisotope dating technique

It is very possible that we are making some fundamentally wrong assumptions. the method itself should work IN THEORY, however we have taken it too much at face value and also have for a long time striven to keep withing the established framework, radically censoring any controversial or contradictory data. The prime assumptions on which the method is based are unproven and unprovable:

1, The assumption of the original chemical and mineralogical composition of the analyzed rock when it formed. It is just assumed that no daughter isotopes were present at rock formation. There are studies which contradict this assumption, all heavily and brutally attacked by the mainstream (such as Austin's 1996 study of the Mt. St. Helens lavas).

2. The problem of contamination.

3. The problem of the unproven assumption of a constant decay rate.

We don't have a lot of alternatives when it comes to stuff older than a few thousand years to radiometric dating. Hoever, the method has to be seen with due caution.

Concerning the soft tissue issue: yes, it is an anomaly pointing to major flaws in our geological timescale. It should not be possible. Ties in with the radiometric dating issue.

Concerning dinosaurs surviving longer than expected: yes, I guess so. Too many artifacts and stories all around the world. Maybe they are truly completely extinct by now, but some might have survived longer than generally assumed in some corners of the Earth. Also ties in with the radiometric dating issue.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: BrokenAgate
Date: 2020-07-19 15:37:38
Reaction Score: 5

My question is: How do you know where to look for fossils? You mentioned which parts of the world they are most likely to be found, but that doesn't mean much if you're actually looking for them. China is a huge place, for example. How do you narrow it down to a particular location?

I read that a new dino species is discovered every week, and there's one paleontologist (can't remember his name, sorry) who has discovered around a dozen. We are told that dinosaur fossils are rare, but then we get stories like that. What are the chances of being in the right place at the right time to find even a single dinosaur bone, never mind multiple species? How did this guy get so lucky?

Just look at the varying depictions here, allegedly all of St. George and his dragon Saint George and the Dragon - Wikipedia So I seriously can not answer your question if you don't formulate it more precisely, i.e. which depiction of the dragon do you regard as the most truthful?

There is no single depiction of a dinosaur that is the most truthful. Maybe there were different species of dragon?

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-07-19 17:48:43
Reaction Score: 8

My question is: How do you know where to look for fossils? You mentioned which parts of the world they are most likely to be found, but that doesn't mean much if you're actually looking for them. China is a huge place, for example. How do you narrow it down to a particular location?

I read that a new dino species is discovered every week, and there's one paleontologist (can't remember his name, sorry) who has discovered around a dozen. We are told that dinosaur fossils are rare, but then we get stories like that. What are the chances of being in the right place at the right time to find even a single dinosaur bone, never mind multiple species? How did this guy get so lucky?



There is no single depiction of a dinosaur that is the most truthful. Maybe there were different species of dragon?

Remember there's also this thread BrokenAgate. Take a look at this painting Randolph. Don't think those are Camels. They look like Sauropods of some kind.

Dinosaurs on the 1562 painting of Pieter Bruegel the Elder