34 replies to this topic

[Joshua West Spirit]

Didnt need that much energy!!! Even though he's big he still only walks. Mopes around. Just use your nose and healthy sized eyes

[JennRose]

Quote

Didnt need that much energy!!! Even though he's big he still only walks. Mopes around. Just use your nose and healthy sized eyes

Write complete sentences much?


Obviously cloning technology hasn't advanced to the point where we can use incomplete DNA.  Scientists are having a hard enough time with it when there is plenty of readily available DNA.  Jurassic Park won't be happening anytime soon.

[JoeBean24]

I say if we can clone the T-rex we should it would give us invaluable information on the past.

[starlitkate]

Quote

But wouldn't they have killed all the other animals on the ark? How did Noah lure them in? With corndogs?

LOL that's the funnies thing I've heard all day!!

[dragonlady_mothman]

Quote

I think the bigger discovery was, that it was never killer, but a scavenger. Big Turkey Dino big nostrols prove he rathers smell dead things than alive things. His small arms cant do anything, his big thighs make him have to paste up a attack run. Even with two of them its to big to hunt like a silent predetor. A t-Rex presence is felt by heards of dino birds from miles away, because of its high weight. Like I said T-Rex Biiig Turkey

I saw something on this not long ago.  They were saying that, like all carnivores today, the line between predator and scavenger is blurred.  All carnivores do a bit of both, even hyenas will hunt if it happens to be an exeptionally well-fed year and carcasses are hard to come by, and lions will eat carcasses if it's a bad year and pickings are slim (rough summary).  

Anyway, if Rexy walked past a dead triceratops, he wouldn't pass it up.  But if he didn't, and passed by one lone triceratops...

Besides which, something I saw once on juvenile rexes.  The babies had longer legs and slimmer bodies than their parents, which filled out as they got older.  The theory is Baby Rex chased supper to Mommy Rex, who ambushed it, which implies parental care.

[dragonlady_mothman]

Quote

Write complete sentences much?
Obviously cloning technology hasn't advanced to the point where we can use incomplete DNA.  Scientists are having a hard enough time with it when there is plenty of readily available DNA.  Jurassic Park won't be happening anytime soon.

A good question the movie brought up:...why would we want to?

[snuffypuffer]

Quote

A good question the movie brought up:...why would we want to?

In a quick word- tourism. Just like in the movie. Admit it. I know if there were a place I could see living, breathing dinos, I'd make it a point to check it out.

[dragonlady_mothman]

As far as adaptations go, Jurrasic Park was pretty good.  There were some subtle differences, but for the most part, it was the same.  One major difference is Mr. Hammond's personality.

In the book, it was pure proffit.  In the movie, it was the delight of seeing children looking at live dinosaurs.

They're thinking about making a fourth, if I'm not mistaken.  I read the rumors about it, and it's...well, if they do it right, it's awesome.  If they do it not-right, it's...well...

The gist of it (that I heard) is that the pterodactyls are attacking people, and Hammond feels guilty, and wants to make sterile ones that will breed with the other ones, but produce no offspring, ending the species without going on a hunting trip.  BUT for obvious reasons, the UN has banned cloning and so forth, and the selling of amber.  So Hammond sends this guy to go get the embryos Nedry dropped in the first movie (ten-hour coolent and it lasts three more movies?!  Wow!).  He gets it, but gets hijacked by the bad guy and offered more money to train T-rex-like (I forget the species, but it was a relative of Rexy) human/dinosaur hybrids.

For those of you taking notes, this is where it goes from awesome to "Well...maybe."

[draconic chronicler]

The "T-Rex is a scavenger" theory is complete BS invented by a huckster/charlatan paleontologist trying to get on TV and sell books.  
Yes, the T-Rex has very small arms that can't be used while hunting, but when has that stopped every species of carnivorous bird, that also does alright without any arms at all.

There is no such thing as a mammal, reptile or bird that is a pure scavenger, and especially not in the reptile world.  The T-Rex can best be described as an "ambush" predator, much like a crocodile that merely waits in ambush for unwary creatures to come close to the water.

A T-Rex is a "land crocodile" that does exactly the same thing, waiting in ambush in places where other dinos are sure to pass, and then lunging out and dispatching them in their huge jaws.  This is really a "no brainer" yet its amazing how people will believe any bit of nonsense if it is in print or on television.

Back to Noah's T-Rex escapade, another fundamentalist christian site recognized this problem and suggests that Noah just brought the T- Rex eggs on board the ark.  How he knew he had male and female eggs is not mentioned, nor how he incubated them.  They still did not say how Noah got the mother away from her nest long enough to take the eggs either.  Maybe it was those corn dogs again.  T-Rexes are a real "sucker" for them!

[snuffypuffer]

There is no bait, now, then, or in the future, as deadly effective as the mighty corndog.

Just out of curiousity, Dracon, where do you get your knowledge? Granted, I'm more a casual observor than an expert on just about everything, but you come with ideas I've never even heard of.

[JoeBean24]

haha trying to practicalize noah's ark is impossible in order to fit the billion tons of millions of animal species onto a ship would be impossible and also the thousands of years traveling around the world through every jungle ect ect, why do people insist it has to be true anyways sry to digress into an ark rambling i could spew statistical facts forever and people will believe what they want no matter how improbable. once again i should create my own religion because people will believe it.
i also do not buy into the T rex being a slow clumsy scavenger just because it had little arms, which were the size of a well muscled mans arms so they were not completely useless.but, even if they were why the heck would the Rex need them anyways, if i had a 5-6 foot long mouth with teeth over 6 inches long what would i need longer arms for.

[draconic chronicler]

Snuffy,
At this point let's just say I have a "reliable source".  It will all become apparent if you read my book.  

JoeBean,
The arms of most theropod dinosaurs gradually decreased in size over the many millenia, culminating in the tiny arms of the T-Rex and Carnotaurus.  I suspect however, that they remained big enough and strong enough to firmly grip their mates while copulating, which was likely their main purpose.  
PS
You do realize of course that we are "making fun" of the fundamentalist absurdity of the "T-Rexes on Noah's Ark" idea, not trying to rationalize it. (As if the "mythic" Noah's Ark were not absurd enough without adding 40 foot killer dinosaurs!).

Edited by draconic chronicler, 30 September 2005 - 03:06 AM.

[angrycrustacean]

Quote

haha trying to practicalize noah's ark is impossible in order to fit the billion tons of millions of animal species onto a ship would be impossible and also the thousands of years traveling around the world through every jungle ect ect, why do people insist it has to be true anyways sry to digress into an ark rambling i could spew statistical facts forever and people will believe what they want no matter how improbable. once again i should create my own religion because people will believe it.
i also do not buy into the T rex being a slow clumsy scavenger just because it had little arms, which were the size of a well muscled mans arms so they were not completely useless.but, even if they were why the heck would the Rex need them anyways, if i had a 5-6 foot long mouth with teeth over 6 inches long what would i need longer arms for.

The short and easy answer to the ark issue that people forget is that there could have been considerably less types of animals on the planet at that time, seeing as pre-flood times are described as very different from post-flood times, i.e. The Nephilim or giants thing.

The other thing to remember is a two-part problem. Firstly, in Biblical times they would have had expressions in the manner we have today. In four thousand years, do you think people will understand the meaning of 'It's raining cats and dogs'? Similarly, the number 40 in the Bible could simply mean 'many'. Because of discrepancies like this, we can't literally (despite the included measurements, etc.) believe in the Ark as it is written.

This brings me to my second point, the fact that if the Bible was dictated by God, it was still written down by people, over and over again, for thousands of years. To use my number 40 analogy, suppose that God dictated to the first writer of the Bible (If I recall correctly, Moses) to write down the word many. The writer does this. When these writings are copied, many years later, perhaps editors/scribes change 'many' to '40' because that is what is said in their day. This is continued over the years in all the parts of the bible until you end up with a completely changed book.

My point in all this is that even if you're a Christian (Which I myself am), it's ridiculous to take the Bible or any specific events in it seriously, because any book compiled, translated, edited and re-edited over some 5-6,000 years is going to be vastly different from the original.

Edited by angrycrustacean, 30 September 2005 - 03:05 AM.

[draconic chronicler]

Understand,  AC, that on this same subject there are many sincere Christians, Biblical scholars even, who will say that the Bible  really meant that the  flood only affected "Noah's World", but not the whole world.  And that the "animals" meant his livestock, and not the worlds entire population of wild animals. We even know through archaeology that the Black Sea created a great flood in the middle east around the historic time of Noah. So here we have the Bible and archaeology in great harmony and very believable, yet people want to turn it into a fairy tale instead. The whole point was God warning and preserving Noah and his family, the root of what would be His Chosen People.  The fact the gentiles lived or died in the flood is inmaterial.  

And since this thread began with dinosaurs, I should add the fact that the "dragons" mentioned in the Bible after the flood do not refer to dinosaurs that survived extinction 65 million years ago, but to the reptilian heavenly creatures called Cherubim and Seraphim, that spew fire and bimstone and devour sinners.  God flies on their backs and they sing praises to him - not something I would attribute to dinosaurs, but both mentioned in the book of Psalms.  This is why Sataniel is described as a dragon, it is a fearsome heavenly creature that seeks out the inequities of and punishes humans,  not to be confused with the more human-like angels.  Even the word for them in Hebrew means a fiery and flying serpent, yet many christians tend to ignore the things in the Bible they are uncomfortable with.  They don't like the idea of "dragons" in heaven so they have merely changed them into freakish winged humans which is never mentioned at all in the Bible.  Somehow, I don't think the biblical Satan could have caused nearly as much mischief (which is a grave misunderstanding of the Bible as well), if his "dragon/dinosaur" brain was the size of a walnut.  In virtually every culture these "dragons" possess great wisdom (probably unlike most dinosaurs). and even Jesus said as much, though most Bibles today use the word serpent instead of dragon, but then this makes even less sense, for a typical snake  of moderate size would have a brain no bigger than a pea.  

Believe it or not, science and the Bible can be very compatible.  It just depends on ones insistence to take every word literally, and accepting fairy tale notions when scientific explanations for many things can be found.  Taking the Bible so literally is pointless anyway, because in the last few decades, editions of the Bible have been published in which various scriptures have been rewritten, and this has happened for centuries. The whole  "Lucifer" thing, for example was a later addition by Christian copyists, trying to give this religion a pagan, dualistic slant complete with a "bad god" (Satan-Lucifer) to be at war with the "good god".  This in incompatible with the concept of a monotheism.  (emphasis on mono).

[Diary of a Monster]

I saw it on the discovery channel that in there language that land is the same word for world so it is really easy to get mixed up with translations. And also there are ancient documents that say they only had knowledge of certain speises of animals. i don't know the name of these documents, i just saw them on the show