Did dinosaurs really exist that long ago?

[techman]

This is in no way a subject of creationism, but I've often been puzzled about many things regarding dinosaurs, or rather how long they lived. I find it quite hard to believe they flourished for over 150 million years, yet suddenly went extinct around 65 million years ago. When I see images of skulls and fossils (and fragments of fossils) I kind of find it hard to believe that any bone of any animal that died that long ago could survive for that long, more remarkably rare discoveries of skin impressions. I think all that would be left would be dust, no matter how well preserved that fossil may've been in at the time. A million years maybe, but 65 million years?.

Also, this maybe nothing but, anyone who has remotely studied fossils of extinct animals from the time of the dinosaurs will know that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds. If there were no birds around (or very few of them), minus pterosaurs and Archaeopteryx, then what would stop or help stop the spread of diseases that can be caught through animals feeding off of dead carcasses?. I learned something interesting when I went to watch a falconry display once, when the falconer showed a vulture and stated they help get rid of infectious diseases from spreading by eating the parasites that feed on rotting carcasses, and without them our chances of survival would be slim. Maybe the pterodsaurs of the time did the same job.

[hokuspokus]

What I cannot get my head around is the sheer size of these beasts.
How much food , for example, would one T Rex have to consume each
day?. The mind boggles. Would there be enough hours in a day to consume
the calories required to survive ?. And did the T Rex hibernate during periods
of low food?

[paddy_blake]

The bones don't survive, as they're fossilized (turned to stone).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil...tion_processes

[kaito9]

Dinosaurs may very well have been living together with the miocene upright walking apes up until few thousand years ago when last of dinosaurs got slain by humans.

[cosmicpurpose1.618]

Thank you for raising this topic that I wanted to start a thread on.

Many things about the dinosaurs do not make sense.

Like the sheer size of the beasts, as one poster mentioned.

Some more questions about the dinosaurs :

Scientists delight in devising explanations for the
great dinosaur extinctions.
But there are several questions which they have
failed to even ask, much less tried to answer.

Why, for instance, in all of the time
claimed to have passed since the
dinosaur extinctions, has nothing ever
re-evolved to the sizes of the large
dinosaurs? If such sizes worked for creatures which
ruled the Earth for tens of millions of
years, then why would not some species
of elephant or rhinoceros have evolved
to such a size again? What kinds of problems, if any, would
sauropod sizes entail in our world as it is
presently constituted? Could it be that some aspect of our
environment might have to be massively
different for such creatures to exist at
all?

A careful study of the sizes of these antediluvian
creatures, and what it would take to deal with
such sizes in our world, has led me to believe that
the super animals of Earth's past could not live in
our present world at all.

A look at sauropod dinosaurs as we know them
today requires that we relegate the brontosaur,
once thought to be one of the largest sauropods,
to welterweight or at most middleweight status.
Fossils found in the 1970's now dwarf this
creature.

Both the brachiosaur and the supersaur were
larger than the brontosaur, and the ultrasaur
appears to have dwarfed them all.1 The ultrasaur
is now estimated to have weighed 180 tons.2
A comparison of dinosaur lifting requirements to
human lifting capabilities is enlightening, though
there might be objections to doing so. One
objection that might be raised is that animal
muscle tissue was somehow "better" than that of
humans. This, however, is known not to be the
case.
According to Knut Schmidt-Nielson, author of

Scaling: Why is Animal Size So Important?, the
maximum stress or force that can be exerted by
any muscle is independent of body-size and is the
same for mouse or elephant muscle.3

Another objection might be that sauropods were
aquatic creatures. But nobody believes that
anymore; they had no adaptation for aquatic life,
their teeth show wear and tear which does not
come from eating soft aquatic vegetation, and
trackways show them walking on land with no
difficulty.

A final objection might be that dinosaurs were
somehow more "efficient" than top human
athletes. This, however, goes against all observed
data. As creatures get bulkier, they become less
efficient; the layers of thick muscle in limbs begin
to get in each other's way and bind to some
extent. For this reason, scaled lifts for the super-
heavyweight athletes are somewhat lower than
for, say, the 200-pound athletes.

By "scaled lift" I mean a lift record divided by the
two-thirds power of the athlete's body weight.
As creatures get larger, weight, which is
proportional to volume, goes up in proportion to
the cube of the increase in dimension. Strength,
on the other hand, is known to be roughly
proportional to the cross-section of muscle for any
particular limb and goes up in proportion to the
square of the increase in dimension. This is the
familiar "square-cube" problem.4

Consider the case of Bill Kazmaier, the king of
the power lifters in the 1970s and 1980s.
Power lifters are, in my estimation, the strongest
of all athletes; they concentrate on the three
most difficult total-body lifts, i.e. bench press,
squat, and dead-lift. They work out many hours a
day and, it is fairly common knowledge, use food
to flavor their anabolic steroids. No animal the
same weight as one of these men could be
presumed to be as strong.

Kazmaier was able to do squats and dead lifts
with weights between 1,000 and 1,100 pounds
on a bar, assuming he was fully warmed up.

Standing Up at 70,000 pounds
Any animal has to be able to lift its own weight off
the ground, i.e. stand up, with no more difficulty
than Kazmaier experiences doing a 1,000-pound
squat.

Consider, however, what would happen to Mr.
Kazmaier, were he to be scaled up to 70,000
pounds, the weight commonly given for the
brontosaur. Kazmaier's maximum effort at
standing, fully warmed up, assuming the 1,000
pound squat, was 1,340 pounds (1,000 pounds
for the bar and 340 pounds for himself). The
scaled maximum lift would be 47,558 pounds
(the solution to: 1,340/340.667 = x/70,000.667).
Clearly, he would not be able to lift his weight off
the ground!

A sauropod dinosaur had four legs you might say;
so what happens if Mr. Kazmaier uses arms and
legs at 70,000 pounds? The truth is that the
squat uses almost every muscle in the athlete's
body very nearly to the limits, but in this case, it
does not even matter.

A near maximum bench press effort for Mr.
Kazmaier would fall around 600 pounds. This
merely changes the 1,340 pounds to 1,940
pounds in the equation above, and the answer
comes out as 68,853 pounds. Even using all
muscles, some more than once, the strongest
man who we know anything about would not be
able to lift his own weight off the ground at
70,000 pounds.

To believe then, that a brontosaur could stand at
70,000 pounds, one has to believe that a
creature whose weight was mostly gut and the
vast digestive mechanism involved in processing
huge amounts of low-value foodstuffs was,
somehow, stronger than an almost entirely
muscular creature its size, far better trained and
conditioned than any grazing animal.

That is not only ludicrous in the case of the
brontosaur, but the calculations only become
more absurd when you try to scale up to the
supersaur and ultrasaur at their sizes.

How heavy can an animal get to be in our world,
then? How heavy would Mr. Kazmaier be at the
point at which the square-cube problem made it
as difficult for him to stand up as it is for him to
do 1,000-pound squats at his present weight of
340 pounds?

The answer is 20,803 pounds (the solution to:
1,340/340.667 = x/x.667). In reality, elephants
do not appear to get quite to that point.

Christopher McGowan, curator of vertebrate
paleontology at the Royal Ontario Museum, claims
that a Toronto Zoo specimen was the largest in
North America at 14,300 pounds,5 and
Smithsonian personnel once informed me that
the gigantic bush elephant specimen which
appears at their Museum of Natural History
weighed around 8 tons.
Sauropod Dinosaurs' Necks

A study of the sauropod dinosaurs' long neck
further underscores the problem these creatures
would have living under current gravitational
conditions. Scientists who study sauropod
dinosaurs now claim that they held their heads
low, because they could not have gotten blood to
their brains had they held them high.6

McGowan mentions the fact that a giraffe's blood
pressure - which at 200-to-300 mm Hg
( millimeters of mercury) is far higher than that of
any other animal-would probably rupture the
vascular system of any other animal. The giraffe's
blood pressure is maintained by thick arterial
walls and by a very tight skin that apparently acts
like a jet pilot's pressure suit. A giraffe's head
might reach to 20 feet.

How a sauropod might have gotten blood to its
brain at 50 or 60 feet is the real question.
"Gravity is a pervasive force in the
environment and has dramatically shaped
the evolution of plants and animals," notes
Harvey Lillywhite, a zoologist at the
University of Florida at Gainesville.

As some land animals evolved large body sizes,
"cardiovascular specializations were needed
to help them withstand the weight of blood
in long vertical vessels. Perhaps nowhere in
the history of life were these challenges
greater than among the gigantic, long-
necked sauropods"

For a Barosaurus to hold its head high, Lillywhite
has calculated that its heart,
"must have generated pressures at least six
times greater than those of humans and
three to four times greater than those of
giraffes." 7

Faced with the same dilemma, University of
Pennsylvania geologist Peter Dodson remarked
that while the Brachiosaurus was built like a
giraffe and may have fed like one, most
sauropods were built quite differently.
"At the base of the neck," Dodson writes, "a
sauropod's vertebral spines, unlike those of
a giraffe, were weak and low and did not
provide leverage for the muscles required
to elevate the head in a high position.
Furthermore, the blood pressure required
to pump blood up to the brain, thirty or
more feet in the air, would have placed
extraordinary demands on the heart and
would seemingly have placed the animal at
severe risk of a stroke, an aneurysm, or
some other circulatory disaster." 8

Within recorded history, Central Asians have tried
to breed hunting eagles for size and strength,
and have not gotten beyond 25 pounds or
thereabouts. Even at that weight they are able to
take off only with the greatest difficulty.
Something was vastly different in the pre-flood
world.

The only way to keep the required blood pressure
"reasonable," Dodson goes on to add,
is "if sauropods fed with the neck extended
just a little above heart level, say from
ground level up to fifteen feet..."

One problem with this solution is that the good
leaves were, in all likelihood, above the 20-foot
mark; an ultrasaur that could not raise its head
above 20 feet would probably starve.

Dodson, it should also be noted, entirely neglects
the dilemma of the brachiosaur. And there is
another problem, which is worse. Try holding your
arm out horizontally for even a few minutes, and
then imagine your arm being 40 feet long.

Given a scale model and a weight figure for the
entire dinosaur, it is possible to use volume-based
techniques to estimate weight for a sauropod's
neck. An ultrasaur is generally thought to be a
near cousin - if not simply a very large specimen -
of the brachiosaur.

The technique, then, is to measure the volume of
water which the sauropod's neck (severed at the
shoulders and filled with bondo or auto-body
putty) displaces, versus the volume which the
entire brachiosaur displaces, and simply
extrapolate to the 360,000-pound figure for the
ultrasaur. I did this using a Larami Corporation
model of a brachiosaur, which is to scale.

To make a long story short, the neck weighs
28,656 pounds, and the center of gravity of that
neck is 15 feet from the shoulders, the neck itself
being 38 feet long.

This equates to 429,850 foot-pounds of torque.
If we assume the sauropod could lift its head at
least as easily as a human with an 18-inch neck
can move his head against a neck-exercise
machine set to 130 pounds, then the sauropod
would require the muscular strength of a neck
17.4 feet in diameter.

With a more reasonable assumption of effort,
equivalent to the human using a 50-pound
setting, the sauropod would require a neck of
over 20 feet in diameter. But the sauropod's
neck, at its widest, apparently measured about
ten feet by seven feet where it joined the
shoulders, then narrowed rapidly to about six or
seven feet in diameter over the remainder of its
length.

McGowan and others claim that the head and
neck were supported by a dorsal ligament and
not muscles, but we know of no living creature
using ligaments to support a body structure
which its available musculature cannot sustain.
In all likelihood, sauropods, in our gravity at least,
could neither hold their heads up nor out.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...inosaurs01.htm

[techman]

Good points here. I'm aware of the theory that dinosaurs, particularly the sauropods, could only have attained their sheer gigantic size if the earths gravity or mass was much lower than it is now. Richard D Hall did an interview with a researcher awhile back about his theories on dinosaurs and the expanding earth; can't remember persons name off hand. I think this could likely be the reason. However, I doubt many palaeontologist and scientists will ever be willing to accept or even consider this idea. A very good point someone made about why there has never been any other land animal since the time of the dinosaurs that has ever attained anywhere near those colossal sizes.

[reverendjim]

well, the fossilized bones exist. and the easy answer to those big dinosuars is that they didnt walk amongst the trees eating leaves...they roamed around in relatively shallow water which supported their weight while they ate aquatic plants. they probably spent their lives for the most part submerged. they were probably just a "step up" in evolution from the long necked aquatic varieties that had flippers instead of legs. that makes more sense than saying they couldnt have existed because of this or that...the fossils...exist.

[oz93666]

Dinosaurs certainly existed , but in a time when the Earth had less gravity ...

Also These creatures could not have flown in current earth conditions , but could have in lower gravity ...



The best source we have (Mr Bartzis) says the dinosaurs are still alive and well , living inside Earth.

[decim]

Good point Oz.

Gravitational pull is in proportion to the planetary mass.

Less Gravity = Smaller/less dense earth..

How does science reconcile this problem?

From where did the extra mass come from?

Unless gravity is generated via other mechanisms.

Originally Posted by oz93666

Dinosaurs certainly existed , but in a time when the Earth had less gravity ...

Also These creatures could not have flown in current earth conditions , but could have in lower gravity ...



The best source we have (Mr Bartzis) says the dinosaurs are still alive and well , living inside Earth.

[reverendjim]

earths mass doesn't change much. add some space dust...subtract a little atmosphere continuously. dinosaurs weighed what they would weigh now. there is no evidence to the contrary. their is no evidence of an expanding earth either. or a flat or hollow earth for that matter.

[oz93666]

Originally Posted by reverendjim

earths mass doesn't change much. .....

That's what establishment science tells us ... It's not so much the mass changes but the universal "constant" for gravity 'G' is not constant at all ,we just haven't measured it over a long enough time period to know it changes.

Here's the formulae for gravity ...where have I seen that G before?... the gravity we feel depends on big G



There's no other logical way such large creatures could fly and walk except in reduce gravity ..

But most importantly the great Mr Bartzis tell us this is what happened! ..also that establishment dates are not correct

[cosmicpurpose1.618]

Originally Posted by reverendjim

they roamed around in relatively shallow water which supported their weight while they ate aquatic plants.

That would explain it.

Well for example the Brachiosaurus was first said to have mainly lived in water, as it's nostrils are on the top of it's head.

This was later determined unlikely as sauropods had pockets of air in their bodies, that would have caused instability in the water.

So in shallow water, their weight would not be supported, and in deeper water that could support them, They would be too unstable, so I don't think your water theory holds water
.

I'm not saying dinosaurs didn't exist, the fossil record is clearly real, but they are unexplained creatures so far.

[cosmicpurpose1.618]

Originally Posted by oz93666

That's what establishment science tells us ... It's not so much the mass changes but the universal "constant" for gravity 'G' is not constant at all ,we just haven't measured it over a long enough time period to know it changes.

Here's the formulae for gravity ...where have I seen that G before?... the gravity we feel depends on big G



There's no other logical way such large creatures could fly and walk except in reduce gravity ..

But most importantly the great Mr Bartzis tell us this is what happened! ..also that establishment dates are not correct

Lol, you say its not the mass that changes, but 'G' that changes...

Well 'G' is based on the mass of earth so the only way 'G' could change is if the earth's mass changed

[oz93666]

Originally Posted by cosmicpurpose1.618

Lol, you say its not the mass that changes, but 'G' that changes...

Well 'G' is based on the mass of earth so the only way 'G' could change is if the earth's mass changed

Big G is absolutely not based on the mass of anything... (small g is local gravity , which is dependent on earth's mass)

in the equation the mass of earth could be m1 ...mass of dinosaur m2 ... r is the radius of earth...F is the force the dinosaur experiences

G is a number... 666 x 10^-13 ...... it's true 666 (nearly)

If this "constant" halved , gravity would halve ...scientists are already understanding this 'constant' is not so constant ... http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravita...tant-vary.html

[cosmicpurpose1.618]

Originally Posted by oz93666

Big G is absolutely not based on the mass of anything... (small g is local gravity , which is dependent on earth's mass)

in the equation the mass of earth could be m1 ...mass of dinosaur m2 ... r is the radius of earth...F is the force the dinosaur experiences

G is a number... 666 x 10^-13 ...... it's true 666 (nearly)

If this "constant" halved , gravity would halve ...scientists are already understanding this 'constant' is not so constant ... http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravita...tant-vary.html

Hmmm...

It might have been long enough for gravity to be seeping in from another dimension, that it has increased significantly...

65 mil years?

Seems long enough, though what about creatures that have survived in the same state since that time, like alligators?

Did they also live in less gravity, if so, how do they still function in our present-day gravity?

More questions than answers

[cosmicpurpose1.618]

Antediluvian Flying Creatures

The large flying creatures of the past would also
have had difficulties in our present-day gravity.

In the antediluvian world, 350-pound flying
creatures soared in skies which no longer permit
flying creatures above 30 pounds or so. Modern
birds of prey, like the Argentinian teratorn,
weighing 170 to 200 pounds, with 30-foot
wingspans, also flew. Within recorded history,

Central Asians have been trying to breed hunting
eagles for size and strength, and have not gotten
them beyond 25 pounds or thereabouts. Even at
that weight they are able to take off only with the
greatest difficulty.

Something was vastly different in the pre-flood
world.

Nothing much larger than 30 pounds or so flies
anymore, and those creatures, albatrosses and a
few of the largest condors and eagles, are
marginal. Albatrosses, notably, are called "goonie
birds" by sailors because of the extreme difficulty
they experience taking off and landing, their
landings being badly controlled crashes, and this
despite long wings made for maximum lift.

In remote times, the felt effect of the force of
gravity on Earth must have been much less for
such giant creatures to be able to fly. No flying
creature has since re-evolved into anything of
such size, and the one or two birds that have
retained this size have forfeited flight, their wings
becoming vestigial.

Adrian Desmond, in his book The Hot-Blooded
Dinosaurs, has a good deal to say about some of
the problems the Pteranodon faced at just 40-
to-50 pounds. Scientists once thought this
pterosaur was the largest creature that ever flew.
The bird's great size and negligible weight must
have made for a rather fragile creature.
"It is easy to imagine that the paper-thin
tubular bones supporting the gigantic
wings would have made landing
dangerous," writes Desmond.

"How could the creature have alighted
without shattering all of its bones? How
could it have taken off in the first place? It
was obviously unable to flap 12-foot wings
strung between straw-thin tubes. Many
larger birds have to achieve a certain speed
by running and flapping before they can
take off and others have to produce a wing
beat speed approaching hovering in order
to rise.

To achieve hovering with a 23-foot
wingspread, Pteranodon would have
required 220 pounds of flight muscles as
efficient as those in humming birds. But it
had reduced its musculature to about 8
pounds, so it is inconceivable that
Pteranodon could have taken off actively."
9

Since the Pteranodon could not flap its wings, the
only flying it could ever do, Desmond concludes,
was as a glider.
It was, he says,
"the most advanced glider the animal
kingdom has produced."10
Desmond notes a fairly reasonably modus
operandi for the Pteranodon.

Not only did the bird have a throat pouch like a
pelican but its remains were found with fish
fossils, which seems to suggest a pelican-like
existence, soaring over the waves and snapping
up fish without landing.

If so, then the Pteranodon should have been
practically immune from the great extinctions of
past ages. Large animals would have the greatest
difficulty getting to high ground and other safe
havens at times of floods and other global
catastrophes. But high places safe from flooding
were always there, oceans were always there, and
fish were always there.

The Pteranodon's way of life should have been
impervious to all mishap.
There is one other problem. The Pteranodon was
not the largest bird.

The giant Teratorn finds of Argentina were not
known when Desmond's book was written. News
of this bird's existence first appeared in the
1980s. The Terotorn was a 160-to-200 pound
eagle with a 27-foot wingspan, a modern bird
whose existence involved, among other things,
flapping wings and aerial maneuvers.
But how so? How could it even have flown?
How large can an animal be and still fly?

"With each increase in size, and therefore
also weight," writes Desmond, "a flying
animal needs a concomitant increase in
power (to beat the wings in a flapper and to
hold and maneuver them in a glider), but
power is supplied by muscles which
themselves add still more weight to the
structure.

The larger a flyer becomes the
disproportionately weightier it grows by the
addition of its own power supply. There
comes a point when the weight is just too
great to permit the machine to remain
airborne. Calculations bearing on size and
power suggested that the maximum weight
that a flying vertebrate can attain is about
50 pounds..."

It is for this reason that scientists believed
Pteranodon and its slightly larger but lesser
known Jordanian ally Titanopteryx were the
largest flying animals of all time.

The experience from our present world coincides
well with this and, in fact, don't go quite that
high. The biggest flying creatures which we
actually see are albatrosses, geese, and the like,
at 30 to 35 pounds.

The Pteranodon's reign as the largest flying
creature of all time actually fell in the early 1970s
when Douglas Lawson of the University of
California found partial skeletons of three ultra-
large pterosaurs in Big Bend National Park in
Texas. This discovery forced scientists to rethink
their ideas on the maximum size permissible in
flying vertebrates.

The immense size of the Big Bend pterosaurs may
be gauged by noting that the humerus or upper
arm bones of these creatures is fully twice the
length of Pteranodon's. Lawson estimated the
wingspan for this living glider at over fifty feet.
The Big Bend pterosaurs were not fishers. Their
remains were found in rocks that were formed
some 250 miles inland and nowhere near any lake
deposits. This led Lawson to suggest that these
birds were carrion feeders, gorging themselves on
rotting mounds of dismembered dinosaur flesh.
But this hypothesis raised numerous questions in
author Desmond's mind.

"How they could have taken to the air after
gorging themselves is something of a
puzzle," he wonders.

"Wings of such an extraordinary size could
not have been flapped when the animal
was grounded. Since the pterosaurs were
unable to run in order to launch themselves
they must have taken off vertically.

Pigeons are only able to take-off vertically
by reclining their bodies and clapping the
wings in front of them; as flappers, the
Texas pterosaurs would have needed very
tall stilt-like legs to raise the body enough
to allow the 24-foot wings to clear the
ground.

The main objection, however, still rests in
the lack of adequate musculature for such
an operation."12

The only solution seems to be that they lifted
passively off the ground by the wind. But this
situation, notes Desmond, would leave these
ungainly Brobdignagian pterosaurs vulnerable to
attack when grounded.

While Desmond mentions a number of ancillary
problems here, any of which would throw doubt
on the pterosaur's ability to exist as mentioned,
he neglects the biggest question of all: the
calculations that say 50 pounds are the
maximum weight have not been shown to be in
error; we have simply discovered larger creatures.
Much larger.

This is what is called a dilemma.

Those who had estimated a large wingspan for
the Big Bend bird were immediately attacked by
aeronautical engineers.

"Such dimensions broke all the rules of
flight engineering," wrote Colorado
paleontologist Robert T. Bakker , in The
Dinosaur Heresies, "a creature that large
would have broken its arm bones if it tried
to fly..."13

Subsequently, the proponents of a large
wingspan were forced to back off somewhat,
since the complete wing bones had not been
discovered.

But Bakker believes these pterosaurs really did
have wingspans of over 60 feet and that they
simply flew despite our not comprehending how.
The problem is ours, he says, and he proposes no
solution.

So much for the idea of anything re-evolving into
the sizes of the flying creatures of the
antediluvian world. What about the possibility of
man breeding something like a Teratorn? Could
man actively breed even a 50-pound eagle?

Berkuts are the biggest of eagles.
And Atlanta, an eagle that Sam Barnes, one of
England's top falconers in the 1970s, brought
back to Wales from Kirghiz, Russia, is, at 26
pounds in flying trim, as large as they ever get.14

These eagles have been bred specifically for size
and ferocity for many centuries. They are the
most prized of all possessions amongst nomads,
and are the imperial hunting bird of the Turko-
Mongol peoples.

The only reason Barnes was allowed to bring her
back is that Atlanta had a disease for which no
cure was available in Kirghiz and was near to
death. A Berkut of Atlanta's size, Barnes was told,
would normally be worth more than a dozen of
the most beautiful women in Kirghiz.

Elephants are simply too heavy to run in our
world. The best they can manage is a kind of a
fast walk. Mammoths were as big and bigger than
the largest elephants, however, and Pleistocene
art clearly shows them galloping.

The killing powers of a big eagle are out of
proportion to its size. Berkuts are normally flown
at wolves, deer, and other large prey. Barnes
witnessed Atlanta killing a deer in Kirghiz, and
was told that she had killed a black wolf a season
earlier. Mongols and other nomads raise sheep
and goats, and obviously have no love for wolves.

A wolf might be little more than a day at the
office for Atlanta with her 11-inch talons,
however, a wolf is a big deal for an average-sized
Berkut at 15-to-20 pounds. Obviously, there
would be an advantage to having the birds be
bigger, i.e. to having the average Berkut weigh
25 pounds, and for a large one to weigh 40-to-50
pounds. It has never been done, however, despite
all the efforts and funds poured into the
enterprise since the days of Genghis Khan.

The breeding of Berkuts has continued apace
from that day to this, but the Berkuts have still
not gotten any bigger than 25 pounds or so.15

It is worth recalling here the difficulty which
increasingly larger birds experience in getting
airborne from flat ground. Atlanta was powerful
enough in flight, but she was not easily able to
take off from flat ground. This could spell disaster
in the wild. A bird of prey will often land with
prey, and if take-off from flat ground to avoid
trouble is not possible, the bird's life becomes
imperiled.

A bird bigger than Atlanta with her 10-foot
wingspan, like a Teratorn with a 27-foot wingspan
and weighing 170 pounds, would simply not
Survive.

Assorted Other Evidence

There are other categories of evidence, derived
from a careful analysis of antediluvian predators,
to show that gravitational conditions in the
distant past were not the same as they are today.
It is well known, for example, that elephant-sized
animals cannot sustain falls, and that elephants
spend their entire lives avoiding them.

For an elephant, the slightest tumble can break
bones and/or destroy enough tissue to prove
fatal. Predators, however, live by tackling and
tumbling with prey. One might think that this
consideration would preclude the existence of any
predator too large to sustain falls. Weight
estimates for the tyrannosaurs, however, include
specimens heavier than any elephant.

That appears to be a contradiction.

Moreover, elephants are simply too heavy to run
in our world. As is well known, they manage a
kind of a fast walk. They cannot jump, and
anything resembling a gully stops them cold.

Mammoths were as big and bigger than the
largest elephants, however, and Pleistocene art
clearly shows them galloping.

Finally, there is the Utahraptor. Recently found in
Utah, this creature is a 20-foot, 1,500-pound
version of a Velociraptor.16

The creature apparently ran on the balls of its two
hind feet, on two toes in fact, the third toe
carrying a 12-inch claw for disemboweling prey.

This suggests a very active lifestyle. Very few
predators appear to be built for attacking prey
notably larger than themselves; the Utahraptor
appears to be such a case.

In our world, of course, 1,500-pound toe dancers
do not exist. The only example we have of a
1,500-pound land predator is the Kodiak bear,
the lumbering gait and mannerisms of which are
familiar to us all.

And so, over and over again, this same kind of
dilemma-things which cannot happen in our
world having been the norm in the antediluvian
world.

An Explanation Ventured

The laws of physics do not change, nor does the
gravitational constant, as far as we know.

But something was obviously massively different
in the world in which these creatures existed, and
that difference probably involved a change in
perceived gravity. This solution derives from the
continuing research of neo-catastrophists, that is,
followers of the late Immanuel Velikovsky, and
is known as the "Saturn Myth" theory.17

The basic requirement for an attenuated
perception of gravity involves the Earth being in a
very close orbit around a smaller and much cooler
stellar body (or binary body) than our present
Sun. One pole would always be pointed directly at
this nearby small star or binary system. The
intense gravitational attraction would pull the

Earth into an egg shape rather than its present
spherical shape, so that the planet's center of
gravity would be off center towards the small
star.

This would generate the torque necessary to
counteract the natural gyroscopic force and keep
the Earth's pole pointed in the same direction as
it revolved around the star.

The consequences of this intense gravitational
pull would be dramatic. It would allow, first of all,
for gigantic animals like the dinosaurs (just as any
change in gravity to the present situation would
likely cause their demise). It would also tend to
draw all of the Earth's land mass into a single
supercontinent (Pangea).

Why else, after all, should the Earth's continental
masses have amassed in one place?

And finally, with the Earth's pole pointed straight
at this star or binary system, there would be no
seasons. All literature of the distant past points
out that the seasons did not appear until after the
flood.

The state of the present solar system indicates
that this previous system was eventually
captured by a larger star, our present Sun.
But the pieces of this old system have not
vanished. The influential small star or binary
system of the past remains, though its reign of
power has ended. The star or stars are Jupiter
and Saturn, the next largest objects to the Sun in
our present system.

It is instructive that the ancients worshiped
Jupiter and Saturn as the two chieftain gods in all
of the antique religious systems.

If the present solar system was present in the
distant past, one would expect primitive peoples
to have worshiped the most visible of the astral
bodies:

the Sun
the Moon
Venus

There is no conceivable reason they would
worship as gods two planets which most people
cannot even find in the night sky - unless, of
course, these bodies occupied a far more
prominent place in the heavens than they do
today.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...inosaurs01.htm

[techman]

Well the general established official theory of what happened to the dinosaurs 65 million years ago is of the meteor impact resulting in their total extinction (some point out that around that time dinosaurs were on their way out, others say they were flourishing well) and the reason they generally give for Crocs and other aquatic animals escaping this is due to their adaptation and being aquatic rather than land based. I don't know how that makes sense. Ammonites and other creatures also went extinct. Why were aligators, turtles etc so lucky?.

[techman]

One thing I find odd about dinosaur fossil findings, or rather large fossils of any prehistoric animal, is that they are never found or discovered (or rately), either by accident or intentionally upon by the ordinary person. Of course the obvious reason for this could be due to a number of things, ie that people don't normally go looking for them unless involved in a digging expedition of some kind, or that those large bones and fossils aren't likely to be found on your doorstep so to speak but in areas where terrain is rough and non accessible to people. But still with that in mind it does make you wonder why they're always found by some kind of palaeontology group that is linked to some official institution. You never see a T Rex being discovered by some random amateur fossil hunter, or do you?. There's the quite well documented case of Sue the T Rex (the only complete T Rex skeleton ever found) in the early 90s where, shortly after the discovery, the FBI and authorities confiscated the fossil, resulting in a massive legal campaign. There's even a film about this called Dinosaur 13 (interesting number BTW). I wonder what was really going on with that.

http://www.slashfilm.com/dinosaur-13...nce-14-review/

I don't trust this story one bit, the "discovery" nor the people involved in the finding, maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

[reverendjim]

Originally Posted by cosmicpurpose1.618

That would explain it.

Well for example the Brachiosaurus was first said to have mainly lived in water, as it's nostrils are on the top of it's head.

This was later determined unlikely as sauropods had pockets of air in their bodies, that would have caused instability in the water.

So in shallow water, their weight would not be supported, and in deeper water that could support them, They would be too unstable, so I don't think your water theory holds water
.

I'm not saying dinosaurs didn't exist, the fossil record is clearly real, but they are unexplained creatures so far.

air pockets? why not? fish have swim bladders to control bouyancy. no prob for them. so why not aquatic dino's? by relatively shallow i mean shallow enough for them to walk. kind of like hippo's stay submerged a lot. that head wasn't going to lift far. and yes, theres more mystery and speculation to dinosuars than whats known. so i would have to ask why did they start to grow legs when they did just fine in the deep water with flippers? its like...why are there lung fish? kind of reminds me of what they call the fossil record for human evolution. some say it would fit on a kitchen table. hardly definitive. i dont believe in the creation myth but science needs to do better. its like calling the pyramids tombs when they didnt find bodies in them, then they say they were robbed of the bodies yet they had to blast their way in because they could find no way in. how did they get robbed? yeah...questions...

[reverendjim]

Originally Posted by cosmicpurpose1.618

Antediluvian Flying Creatures
......
...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...inosaurs01.htm

food for thought