Posted on 09/30/2015 8:54:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Dinosaurs were shown to be warm-blooded a while back. The evidence was always there. Just look at the fossilized bone marrow. It was slavish devotion to early evolutionary theories that led to the “consensus” that they were cold-blooded.
Maybe because it used to be warm in what is now Alaska, global warming aside of course.
Puhlease! It's so obvious, naturally the dinosaurs parkas and mukluks have long since rotted away.
https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Me9c39d1a51b67cd727658d829a589372H0&pid=15.1
As for power, hell, they WERE fossil fuel....
Well, the “fossil fuel” theory was never really about “dinosaur goo”, that’s just a popular myth, probably stemming from poorly written books for kids.
Under the theory, coal is supposed to originate from vegetation that got buried on land. Oil and tar, on the other hand, are supposed to originate from simple organisms like plankton buried under the sea floor.
“Even more intriguing is the way they apparently died.
The majority of the bones of the Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis were collected from a single layer of rock called the Liscomb Bonebed. The layer, about 2 to 3 feet thick, contains thousands of bones of primarily this one species of dinosaur.
Researchers believe a herd of juveniles was killed suddenly to create this deposit of remains.”
OMG you don’t say? Could it be that God was actually telling the truth when He said what He said in Genesis 6:17?
Floods do cause massive pile ups of debris, carcasses, and eventual formations.
This happens a dime a dozen with dinosaur quarries, but the fundamentalist Big-Bang Scientists will never admit the coincidence.
Yet the “scientific community” insists a damn meteorite killed off the dinosaurs.
They’d really need a lot more atmospheric pressure to grow that large again. That’s the only thing I think could offset gravity enough to keep the large ones from collapsing under their own weight.
Dinosaur & Human Footprints Together
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
And more food for thought...
Thanks, those look interesting just by the title.
Great link!
The conflict between biotic vs abiotic origins of petroleum is fascinating.
I work a lot in oil and gas, and the topic in and of itself infuriates some folks.
Synolsis: only conspiracy theory types support the abiotic theory. You know, Ron Paul types.
Gotta love “Darwin Flubber”... handy stuff that’s a must have in every evolutionist’ medicine cabinet.
Well. That is a heavy hitter!
Oh, yeah. I remember that. I don't think 2 billion years is enough time to make that much goo in that manner. That is just me. Having hydrocarbons synthesized somewhere between the surface and the magma makes more sense. The magma is just full chemical goodies waiting to be put to use.
Yeah, we can only partially simulate the kinds of temperature and pressure conditions down there, and we were already able to turn simpler hydrocarbons like methane into ones closer to the stuff in crude oil. So I think it’s a good bet that no biological material is required to produce it.
However, we can also use similar processes to turn simple organisms like algae into more complex hydrocarbons. So I think the real truth will turn out that there is both a biotic and an abiotic origin to this stuff. I think the planet can produce it without biological material, but when there is biological material buried deep, it probably accelerates the process and results in bigger deposits.
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.