Posted on 03/21/2008 2:01:20 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Right, as long as we are clear that it is an “opinion” based on your personal preference rather than some objective conclusion based on the evidence.
What is the objective conclusion based on the evidence, then?
Here you'd like that the answer is a biological one. Me, I'd like the variant-G one. WHY I like the G one is not fully known to me -- but it includes that I think that the ramifications of G variance haven't been fully explored, and that the red shift has always bothered me.
answered adequately above...
Still their muscles are essentially equally strong per square centimeter of cross section within a few percentage points if any difference at all... Connection of the muscles to the bones and the moment of leverage has a lot more to do with the differences.
A Teratorn WAS a bird... and we have entire skeletons.
What makes you think that Bio-physics is not a mature science? And who is overturning Newton and Einstein... not me. There are potential answers to this dilemma that do not offend either Newton or Einstein (ignoring for the moment that Einstein's work in some instances invalidated Newton). The point is to not ignore the data, sweeping it under the rug.
What scaling?
Did you read the article?
Of course there are possible solutions that don't violate physics, but they aren't coming from Ted.
You have a few data points which, when interpreted by idiots, suggest that the earth's day was two or three hours long as recently as 65 million years ago. Nothing else in physics is consistent with this interpretation, but never mind.
And by the way, Einstein did not invalidate Newton. There is no gravitational phenomenon in the vicinity of the earth that requires invoking relativity.
Re: ...but they aren’t coming from Ted.
So you assert. Yet you have not offered anything substantive, just a bunch of negative claims without evidence. As I have said these are the facts. These animals existed yet if they were to exist today under today’s conditions, their physics and biology don’t work.
What all if anything is known about the 200’ sauropod whose image you posted above?? A real weight figure for that guy assuming he ever existed would likely fall between half a million and a million pounds. Weights you read for other large sauropods are lowball figures since the scientists who study them know they have a basic problem. Christopher McGowan originally published a figure of about 180 tons for the ultrasaur based purely on volumetrics and figures for similarly built but smaller creatures and caught all sorts of grief for it, but the original estimate was probably right.
The problem is not with the physics. It is insanely stupid to assert, based on reconstructions projected from a few fossils, that physics and astronomy is all wrong about the physical history of the earth.
"Amphicoelias (pronounced /ˌæmfɨˈsiːliəs/, meaning 'doubly hollow', from the Greek amphi: "on both sides", and koilos: "hollow, concave") is a genus of herbivorous sauropod dinosaur that includes what may be the largest dinosaur ever discovered, A. fragillimus. Based on surviving descriptions of a single fossil bone, A. fragillimus may have been the longest known vertebrate at 40–60 meters (131–196 ft) in length, and may have had a mass of up to 122 metric tons (135 short tons), rivaling the heaviest animal known, the blue whale. However, because the only fossil remains were lost at some point after being studied and described in the 1870s, evidence survives only in drawings and field notes."
>>Aside from that, the comparison in the article did not involve apes; the contrast was between a top human athlete who works out with weights 25 hours a day and uses food to flavor his dyanabol with, and a herbivore (sauropod) whose body is mainly gut and digestive system. There’s no possible way the herbivore figures to be stronger on a per pound basis.<<
So are you basically arguing that Dinosaurs are impossible?
>>The Impossible Dinosaurs - Megafauna and Attenuated Gravity
Maybe the flood changed the gravity.
The larger dinosaurs would be impossible in present gravity. They used to think they lived in water but nobody believes that any more since they had no adaptation for any sort of an aquatic life.
>>The larger dinosaurs would be impossible in present gravity. They used to think they lived in water but nobody believes that any more since they had no adaptation for any sort of an aquatic life.<<
Are you saying its simpler to believe that gravity changed than that we don’t yet understand something about dinosaurs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.