Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Saru

Did dinosaurs live in the water ?

50 posts in this topic

A startling new theory suggests that dinosaurs were simply too big and cumbersome to live on land.

Professor Brian J Ford said the prehistoric creatures “just don’t work” in the way palaeontologists have understood for decades. He believes their tails were too large and cumbersome for them to hunt or move with agility, and said they could not have consumed enough food to sustain their energy needs.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes perfect sense. Plenty of dinosaurs have methods of swimming.

Look at the T-Rex for example. Perfect limbs for such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A startling new theory suggests that dinosaurs were simply too big and cumbersome to live on land.

The most absurd theory of paleontology I've heard in recent years. What will they dream up next? That sauropods walked with their legs sprawled like a lizard? Oh, yes... They debunked that a century ago as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they built nests under water and their eggs didn't float away? Twoddle. Next crackpot theory please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a brilliant theory... That fully explains why there are no fossilized dinosaur foot prints!!!!....

oh wait....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this goes hand in hand with aquatic ape theory. the only evidence off the top of my head is the fossilized ancient chinese forest that they found under a coal mine. the picture they drew was of a partially submerged environment. i read it on UM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the idea being they are not swimming most of the time. things get debunked and then somtimes get undebunked in science. like flat earth. some water type creatures today go to land to lay their eggs. i thought that dino footprints were rare compared to the amount of dinos there were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not ... certainly there are distinct parallels with, for example the hippo, where the aquatic setting is dominant. Given the diversity in lifeforms that currently exist, certainly there would have been a great deal of diversity in these earlier ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why not ... certainly there are distinct parallels with, for example the hippo, where the aquatic setting is dominant. Given the diversity in lifeforms that currently exist, certainly there would have been a great deal of diversity in these earlier ages.

For sauropods (the huge four legged ones) sure... a marshy, watery environment makes sense... But for the large therapods (two legged like the T-Rex, hadrosaurs, etc) a marshy, swamp would be a hinderance for two legs, especially considering their weight... (IMO)...

Edited by Taun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Professor Brian J Ford said the prehistoric creatures “just don’t work” in the way palaeontologists have understood for decades.'

It looks like Professor Brian J Ford is looking for his 5 minutes of fame...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he says does present a fascinating theory, and it is indeed interesting. I for one would like to see further evidence than just his supposition, because the evidence to the contrary makes his theory all but extinct at the moment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everywhere large Dinosaurs inhabited must have been partially submerged? That seems unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is to me a total "wind up" by B.J.Ford who is a Professor and therefor must have researched the subject including past history of what his eminent colleagues have written and said.He is either trying to gain recognition in the subject or he has been at the back of the bicycle sheds having a bit of Wacky Baccy,Which ever .The subject from my p.o.v. is not worth the time debating as its all been said before by people who have spent their lives researching the period....and who must be regarded as specialists in this field...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the idea being they are not swimming most of the time. things get debunked and then somtimes get undebunked in science. like flat earth. some water type creatures today go to land to lay their eggs. i thought that dino footprints were rare compared to the amount of dinos there were.

I am very confused by this comment...

When exactly did the Flat Earth Theory become 'un-debunked'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he says does present a fascinating theory, and it is indeed interesting. I for one would like to see further evidence than just his supposition, because the evidence to the contrary makes his theory all but extinct at the moment!

Indeed, well said. A theory at best, strictly confined to evolutionary locale. He's saying that they developed partially submerged, and that might be true.

However with such creatures as T-Rex roaming the landscape (with a full set of land moving apparatus and zero water movement capability) the theory leaves much to be desired...

- Brand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is to me a total "wind up" by B.J.Ford who is a Professor and therefor must have researched the subject including past history of what his eminent colleagues have written and said.He is either trying to gain recognition in the subject or he has been at the back of the bicycle sheds having a bit of Wacky Baccy,Which ever .The subject from my p.o.v. is not worth the time debating as its all been said before by people who have spent their lives researching the period....and who must be regarded as specialists in this field...

When ever someone comes along and says "everyone else is wrong", you can bet the house that they're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not ... certainly there are distinct parallels with, for example the hippo, where the aquatic setting is dominant. Given the diversity in lifeforms that currently exist, certainly there would have been a great deal of diversity in these earlier ages.

Parallel would be a stretch. Hippos are Mammals...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Gaden,

LOL, um they are. The answers are in the top secret cores taken from the cores. The ozone layer as well as an ice shield around the earth played an major factor in gravity and growth size in creatures and other living things from different points in the past. Ozone increase makes things lager as the layer gets thicker, and smaller for the opposite....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops, correction sorry..."Top secret cores taken from the poles"..(not cores, lol its early and haven't had my coffee yet heh)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@ Gaden,

LOL, um they are. The answers are in the top secret cores taken from the cores. The ozone layer as well as an ice shield around the earth played an major factor in gravity and growth size in creatures and other living things from different points in the past. Ozone increase makes things lager as the layer gets thicker, and smaller for the opposite....

If they are so secret, how do you know about them? Ice shield? Around the earth? The only thing that would increase gravity is more mass, that is, adding to it. Changeing water to ice would not change the amount of mass. Can you show the proof that exposure to ozone increases the size of a creature?

Edited by Gaden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes perfect sense! why else would dinosaurs have developed shark defenses to hide their eggs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess i should have said round earth theory was undebunked. i thought the stronger magnetic field and bigger/higher atmosphere is what made the creatures bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought most sharks dont do shallow water

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive heard the ice shield theory to explain the "golden age" weather and the great flood. if such were true it would fit in nicely with this always wet idea. i keep seeing 2 legged dino examples. what about the fliers? were they in the water also? hey, whos side am i on anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i almost remember the ozone size test with rodents or insects but i cant quite recall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.