Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

New study suggests Tyrannosaurus rex could barely run


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 1747 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Some studies suggest that the earth may have been smaller in the days of the dinosaurs, in which case gravity would have been less. If this is true, then the T-Rex would have been designed by our creator proportionate to its size in relation to the gravity at the time. The studies theorize that the core of the earth is made up of plasma, and that it is constantly absorbing more matter from the sun and universe in the form of solar wind and coronal mass ejections, which we see as auroras. As the matter is absorbed, the earth expands, and we feel this expansion as earthquakes. Although controversial, it does answer some questions about the dinosaurs. Here's a video explaining the theory:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

 

"Do you not know? Have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is a God for all eternity. He never tires out or grows weary. His understanding is unsearchable." (Isaiah 40:28)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Motherhen said:

Some studies suggest that the earth may have been smaller in the days of the dinosaurs, in which case gravity would have been less. If this is true, then the T-Rex would have been designed by our creator proportionate to its size in relation to the gravity at the time. The studies theorize that the core of the earth is made up of plasma, and that it is constantly absorbing more matter from the sun and universe in the form of solar wind and coronal mass ejections, which we see as auroras. As the matter is absorbed, the earth expands, and we feel this expansion as earthquakes. Although controversial, it does answer some questions about the dinosaurs. Here's a video explaining the theory:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

 

"Do you not know? Have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is a God for all eternity. He never tires out or grows weary. His understanding is unsearchable." (Isaiah 40:28)

 A problem with that theory and a Bible contradiction.  The scriptures indicate that the water came first,  then land. This video advocates the Earth was a ball of rock which then expanded giving way to the oceans. 

 

Unless, Earth was a ball of water, which then had land put on top of it in that manner, the flood happens, then to answer the question some atheists put out "where did all the water go?" Perhaps it never "went" anywhere, perhaps some evaporated  which exposed some of the land, and giving way to the rain cycle we have today, where as before the Earth had a "mist" to water the plants, (Genesis 2:6  which would also explain why Jehovah gave Noah a rainbow as a promise that he would not flood the Earth again, in order that he didn't have to be paranoid every time it rained :lol:)  and perhaps Jehovah expanded the Earth in that manner as the video shows in order to fit the new amount of water on the globe along with the land?

 

Hmmm.

Edited by EccentricM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Core of the Earth is molten iron. This generates the magnetic field that protects the earth from harmful solar radiation.  It also is why compass work. 

 

If the core was plasma, a form of energy, there would not be such a magnetic field. 

Would this prevent expansion however? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is causing the expansion?  The theory suggests the "plasma core" is absorbing plasma energy.  The more energy it absorbs, the more it expands.  By this reasoning, the planet should be under constant expansion as it has continually been exposed to solar radiation since creation.  There should be a constant and continuous expansion.

 

A molten iron/nickel core is composed of liquefied iron and nickel.  It is molten due to the intense pressure exerted upon it from the rest of the planet.  Regardless, it's still iron and nickel.  This, along with other elements and minerals and chemical compounds comprise the building blocks that make up the Earth.

 

Quote

 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qsolwindcomp.html

The composition of the solar wind is a mixture of materials found in the solar plasma, composed of ionized hydrogen (electrons and protons) with an 8% component of helium (alpha particles) and trace amounts of heavy ions and atomic nuclei: C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe ripped apart by heating of the Sun's outer atmosphere, that is, the corona (Feldman et al., 1998).

 

 

So, we're back to the question that if the Earth is expanding, where is the stuff coming from?  If the Earth is expanding due to solar radiation, and since we've been measuring the Earth for over 2,000 years now, there should be some data to support the expansion idea.  

 

The same would also hold true for the other inner planets of the solar system.  Mercury, Venus and Mars should likewise be expanding as they are similarly composed.  

Edited by Shawnster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shawnster said:

What is causing the expansion?  The theory suggests the "plasma core" is absorbing plasma energy.  The more energy it absorbs, the more it expands.  By this reasoning, the planet should be under constant expansion as it has continually been exposed to solar radiation since creation.  There should be a constant and continuous expansion.

 

A molten iron/nickel core is composed of liquefied iron and nickel.  It is molten due to the intense pressure exerted upon it from the rest of the planet.  Regardless, it's still iron and nickel.  This, along with other elements and minerals and chemical compounds comprise the building blocks that make up the Earth.

 

 

So, we're back to the question that if the Earth is expanding, where is the stuff coming from?  If the Earth is expanding due to solar radiation, and since we've been measuring the Earth for over 2,000 years now, there should be some data to support the expansion idea.  

 

The same would also hold true for the other inner planets of the solar system.  Mercury, Venus and Mars should likewise be expanding as they are similarly composed.  

 

Well, I would guess that the Earth is 'not' expanding, but rather "did" in the past by means of Jehovah manually. So the theory being half correct, but the means and the 'ever expanding' nature of the Earth being incorrect. I go back to the idea of the flood, the creation of the water cycle by means of evaporation and then the split of the land (as shown in the video) due to an expansion of Earth in order to deal with the mass of water covering the land with nowhere to go. Is this also how the animals when coming out the ark ended up in various places all over the world? Was Earth still "spreading out" during this time? (An explanation for how certain species got to Australia?)

 

The alternative was for God to use a giant straw and suck up the water. Lol.

 

I can't find many other reasons why the land seems to all connect up and seems to have obviously split other than the idea of volcanic activity which they say caused the dino extinction and continental drift. 

 

 

Edited by EccentricM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EccentricM said:

Well, I would guess that the Earth is 'not' expanding, but rather "did" in the past by means of Jehovah manually.

Why?  Based upon what evidence?

 

1 hour ago, EccentricM said:

I go back to the idea of the flood, the creation of the water cycle by means of evaporation and then the split of the land (as shown in the video) due to an expansion of Earth in order to deal with the mass of water covering the land with nowhere to go. Is this also how the animals when coming out the ark ended up in various places all over the world? Was Earth still "spreading out" during this time? (An explanation for how certain species got to Australia?)

 

The alternative was for God to use a giant straw and suck up the water. Lol.

 

 

We had a nice, long discussion (maybe more than one) about the flood waters, where they came from and where they went.  Never once was an expanding Earth mentioned.  Why couldn't one of those suggestions be plausible?

 

http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/18249-the-water-canopy-a-question-with-no-real-answer-up-for-discussion/#comment-259983

 

http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/24034-rain-before-the-flood/

 

http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/24104-opinion-poll-did-it-rain-before-the-flood/

 

 

1 hour ago, EccentricM said:

I can't find many other reasons why the land seems to all connect up and seems to have obviously split other than the idea of volcanic activity which they say caused the dino extinction and continental drift. 

 

 

 

Modern science dealing with plate tectonics accounts for this without mentioning the idea of an expanding Earth.

 

Again, it goes back to where did all the stuff come from that expanded the Earth?  Are you suggesting the Earth is retaining water?  

 

 

 

 

Edited by Shawnster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, EccentricM said:

 A problem with that theory and a Bible contradiction.  The scriptures indicate that the water came first,  then land. This video advocates the Earth was a ball of rock which then expanded giving way to the oceans.  

I don't think the video maker cared about the where the water was. There's no remnant of the water, only the land. So the land could have been under the water, as the Bible goes on to explain:

‘Then (on the third day) God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas.’ (Gen. 9, 10) Also on that day plants and trees were made. On the fourth day, the luminaries appeared. On the fifth day, the fish and flying creatures were made, long after the earth had been covered with water.

So that leads to the question of what were the flying creatures? Evolutionists would have us believe that the fish grew legs and walked up out of the oceans. For that reason, dinosaurs were generally portrayed as scaly reptiles. However, more recent studies have come to the conclusion that "dinosaurs, including the Tyrannosaurus rex, must have had feathers, and display a host of other bird- like traits. Recent CT scans of the insides of dinosaur skulls, for example, show that the parts of the brain that control sight, flight, and high-level memory functions were every bit as expanded in theropods as they are in living birds. And they have found small predators called Citipati protecting their nests of eggs, as well as large Allosaurus with the same hollow bone structures that make birds light enough to fly."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160405-dinosaurs-feathers-birds-museum-new-york-science/

So, regardless of where the earth was in its course of expansion, these huge dinosaurs may well have been among the flying creatures that were created on the fifth day, suggesting that the earth was smaller and the gravity reduced. Otherwise, a ‘flying dinosaur the size of a T. Rex would've been WAY too heavy for wings to work.’

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ut11k/did_trex_have_wings/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Core of the Earth is molten iron. This generates the magnetic field that protects the earth from harmful solar radiation.  It also is why compass work. 

 

If the core was plasma, a form of energy, there would not be such a magnetic field. 

It's possible that our elementary school science needs to be updated. According to more recent research, "the inner core’s intense pressure—the entire rest of the planet and its atmosphere—prevents the iron from melting. The pressure and density are simply too great for the iron atoms to move into a liquid state. Because of this unusual set of circumstances, some geophysicists prefer to interpret the inner core not as a solid, but as a plasma behaving as a solid."

And as for the magnetic field, the same source states: "It might be easy to think that Earth’s magnetism is caused by a big ball of solid iron in the middle. But in the inner core, the temperature is so high the magnetism of iron is altered. Once this temperature is reached, the atoms of a substance can no longer align to a magnetic point. So the earth’s magnetic field is created in the swirling outer core."

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/core/

Similarly, another source reasons: "The core of the Earth cannot be solid, or magma -- rather it must be something hotter than all known elements, something which generates it's own magnetic field, it's own gravitational field, and something which REFLECTS incoming seismic waves as if it were "solid".

The only known state of matter that fits the bill for being hot enough to melt all elements, produce it's own magnetic field, produce it's own gravity (carries mass / weight), and something that reflects blasts/waves..... is PLASMA.

Clearly the Earth's core is indeed on the move (expanding / growing) in power. 

The power feeding the plasma core must come (normally) from the sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-agsNAxnNg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Motherhen said:

 

So, regardless of where the earth was in its course of expansion, these huge dinosaurs may well have been among the flying creatures that were created on the fifth day

I am growing more intrigued by the idea dinosaurs may have been part of the bird family.  Obviously they lacked wings since there is 0 fossil evidence of such. But, the idea dinosaurs had feathers is growing on me.  After all, as you said, evolutionists want us to believe dinosaurs evolved into birds and feathers came from scales. 

 

Of course, birds also gave hollow bones.  Did dinosaurs have hollow bones? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Obviously they lacked wings since there is 0 fossil evidence of such. But, the idea dinosaurs had feathers is growing on me.

Actually, there's abundant evidence, as the source I just referenced explains:

"Thousands of feathered dinosaurs have been discovered, many of which seem to be branches in the bird family tree. And in 1996, scientists in China unearthed Sinosauropteryx, the first feathered theropod that isn't a direct relative of birds. These discoveries are helping scientists not only piece together the origin of modern avians, but also to re-write long-held notions about the ways many dinosaurs looked and behaved."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160405-dinosaurs-feathers-birds-museum-new-york-science/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if it can be confirmed that they were birds, even flightless birds, it's another blow against evolution, and great support for the Bible's order of appearance of creation, which I have always used against evolutionists in how the fossil record and the "evolution order of appearance" lines up with the biblical order of appearance of animals. The only contradiction has always been the dinosaurs coming before birds according to evolutionists, (though we don't know if that's fully accurate as the dates could be so close) since people classify dinos as "land animals", but if God classified them as birds in the Bible... and now we are seeing evidence that were basically were just birds, both in behaviour and appearance... well. 

 

What's even better is the people behind this research are not even religiously biased. :D 

 

Combine this information with the fact there there is no fossil evidence of animals evolving into other species, but that they just appear suddenly in the record, it's hard stuff to ignore even  for the most devout atheist. 

 

 

 

Edited by EccentricM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Motherhen said:

These discoveries are helping scientists not only piece together the origin of modern avians, but also to re-write long-held notions about the ways many dinosaurs looked and behaved."

This is right, the most popular idea among paleonthologists right now is that dinosaurs, or many dinosaurs, were actually birds. We use to think of dinosaurs as a single category, but there were many completely different species, so some could actually be birds while others could be reptiles.

 

When paleonthologists say they were birds that means they had some important birdlike features but it doesn't mean that they all could fly. There's no way a Tyrannosaurus could fly since it didn't have wings. Oystriches and hens are birds but don't fly. :)

 

19 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Of course, birds also gave hollow bones.  Did dinosaurs have hollow bones? 

Not all birds have hollow bones. For example ostriches, kiwis and penguins don't have hollow bones. They don't fly, either, but are birds.

 

Some dinosaurs, such as velociraptors, had hollow bones. Scientists are not sure about others. The Wikipedia entry on T-Rex states: "To compensate for the immense bulk of the animal, many bones throughout the skeleton were hollow. This reduced the weight of the skeleton while maintaining much of the strength of the bones."

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.1.2 (changelog)