[geocentrism] Re: Dinosaurs

  • From: "Steven Jones" <midclyth@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:45:21 +0100

Flood like conditions that you say a dinosaur could ride out for a year:


Here a cruise liner (without engines) has entered beam sea, the most dangerous sitation for any boat. Bare in mind, this is not a “North Atlantic Storm”.


On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:14:51 +0100, Steven Jones <midclyth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sorry Phillip, but to suggest that dinosaurs didn’t need to board the ark because they could survive the ocean is simply untenable. Whilst it’s true modern secular knowledge believes that many species bathed in water and even almost totally submersed themselves, it is in much the same way that Elephants and Hippopotamus’s do in modern day Africa. Put simply, that is to say that they either need a supporting riverbed underneath their feet (security) or they can “paddle” but not for long. Take Brachiosaurus for example, coming in at about 35 tonnes (Christiansen 1997), built for land, and a very slow mover, there is simply no way this creatures morphology could cope with being out in an ocean for long, ask yourself how long a modern day African elephant would last if air-lifted and placed in the sea? A terrible cruelty of course, and instead you expect me to believe that an 82-feet beast can ride out the floodwaters for almost a year? What about it’s food? Brachiosaurus ate no fish; his long slender neck was used for pine and other type trees, crunching needles and all that with powerful molars “built” for such.

Regarding developing from a little lizard, sorry too, but there are no connection links. We are expected to believe that fish that could barely walk would somehow develop into all the vast and complex animal types that are dinosaurs? I would be very dubious of a dinosaur missing link. There is much forgery in the world of dinosaurs as it is, let alone this. “New” species have already come into being in the past by simply mixing and matching bones. Remember too, many of these fossils have to be constructed and different constructors will of course have different ideas. The bones are not always found in order. Even how they should stand has changed, Iguanodon for example, is a classic illustration. I believe the modern view to be correct, but it highlights different interpretations. In short, all of this bone pick-and-mixing is deceiving, and there is no real evidence for any evolution amongst the dinosaurs anywhere. I’ve even forgotten to mention the financial drive too of putting more “exotic” creatures on displays in the museums of the 19th century. The famous “bone wars” of ED Cope and OC Marsh, is a great example. Two businessmen shaping American science, with perhaps forgery at the best of times, but did it make money? It’s sad when people spend their lives studying the fossils of forgery’s, Piltdown man has been shown to be a hoax now say, but for those that studied him? Well, they just can’t let go.

Open your eyes to divine design Phillip, it’s simple and clear to see. And what about the spirit? How do evolutionists explain this? We are according to them only physical, some kind of chemical conglomerate thinking machine, but that is rubbish. We have a heart, a spirit, and a soul. My own experiences prove there is a God, but your probably unlikely to receive anything without the right heart. God desires each and everyone of us to seek him out and we must be looking in the first place. Music to me too is deeply spiritual. And composers have always been striving for new sounds and ideas, at the cutting edge of innovation, that innovation did not spring about by chance. Even wind-chimes (which I find annoying anyway) are thought out to be less intrusive. It could be a pentatonic scale so the notes are less likely to clash, what if it were pure chaos I ask you? Do you think it will be worthy of notation?


On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:00:29 +0100, philip madsen <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dinosaurs would not need to have gotten onto the ark now Steven would they? Wern't they natural water beasts? They could have floated around on the sea eating fish, which likewise suffered little from the flood.

Just wondering. But then maybe they developed from a little lizard, which Noah could easily have accomodated. You see we can accept Darwins theory, in that Tigers developed after the flood from Mrs. Noah's pussy cat.

Lets all keep in mind as well that fossil dating is pure guess work...

The American mastodon (scientific name Mammut americanum) roamed North America from at least 3.75 million to 11,000 years ago. Mastodons, along with mammoths and modern elephants, are members of the order Proboscidea. As adults they stood between 2.5 and 3 meters (8-10 feet) at the shoulder and weighed betweeen 3500 and 5400 kilograms (4-6 tons).

Mastodons became extinct approximately 11,000 years ago. Today, paleontologists are trying to understand why.

But, but but....

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Steven Jones
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 2:39 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Dinosaurs

  Hi All,

Just while we’re touching upon the topic of dinosaurs, I would like to say I was once a very big hobbyist concerning them, collecting vast quantities of secular data and both reading and learning it avidly. But, times haves
  changed rathRe: [geocentrism] Re: Evolutioner substantially, I was
significantly younger then and I’ve grown in spirit concerning God. The following statement I hope is not too radical, but I have come to question many of the species labeled as "dinosaurs" entirely. After all, how many of you have actually seen a real fossilized dinosaur skeleton? The answer
  is probably none, since almost every museum has only plaster casts on
display. This all suggests a rather large mass conspiracy, but how do the
  skeletons look so realistic you ask? It’s often mooted in the secular
world that birds descended the evolutionary path from dinosaurs, why do they believe such? It’s simple, because many dinosaur fossils have similar structures to birds. Could this not be because the plastercasts are really
  based upon birds in the first place. Meet the real Tyrannosaurus rex,
probably an enlarged chicken skeleton, with a massive skull and tail added
  plus two pointless little arms. This, iconic and typical “ultimate”
monster is so similar to those "classic" beasts and dragons dreamed up by man’s imagination that perhaps it is only an element of the imagination. And don’t be fooled into thinking this 5-7 tonne beast is an agile hunter,
  because it does have some serious flaws with it’s morphology. The
  balancing act required for that huge skull, the pointless little arms
which can’t even pick teeth and even the art of getting up after sleeping are all a bit suspicious. Computer models have demonstrated I believe that
  this is not an easy balancing act. Any beast seeing the site of those
  teeth coming along would be away as fast as lightning, making hunting
nearly impossible, don't believe 35 mph, sorry, even modern results are
  showing 17.9 mph at best. You'll need RealPlayer for the computer
  simulation video link below:


Anyway, there are only thoughts for the time being, but it is interesting to further add that it wasn’t always the case that dinosaurs were thought to have lived and “ruled the Earth” in their own right 65,000,000 years
  ago. Many museums of the 19th century put abundant evidence of the
  co-existence of dinosaurs and man on display. If someone is going to
  challenge me on this, they are most welcome.

  Former dinosaur expert,


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date: 21/09/2007 2:02 PM

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Other related posts: