symptom378 Posted March 1, 2022 Posted March 1, 2022 (edited) The archeologists disagree with geologists when they say that dinosaurs were necessarily prehistoric lizards. Those fossils found in egypt and what not, could be human fossils. My reasoning runs as follows. The universe is expanding, therefore, in the beginning, the universe was a tiny place, and so were it's planets and stars. Baby earth was the size of a tennis ball. Russia was the size of a thumbnail. China was the size of a fingernail. The people of those times, were the size of microbes. A zillion years later... Earth was the size it is today. People are normal sized. The staggering conclusion: People who died in the year zillion BC, aka human fossils of zillion BC, would have expanded along with the rest of the universe. So a microbe-size human fossil of zillion BC would appear gigantic if unearthed today, for the simple reason that it grew from teeny sized to massive, between the years zillion BC and 1933, when archimedes the archeologist discovered it under a mummy's crypt and mistakenly thought wow, here be a dinosaur fossil. Edited March 1, 2022 by symptom378
Phi for All Posted March 1, 2022 Posted March 1, 2022 ! Moderator Note You need to focus on ideas you can support with evidence. Try to avoid lumping everyone in a profession together (all archeologists?! all geologists?!). Study some mainstream science (the early universe was tiny, and too tiny for stars and planets, and the matter that eventually became China was NOT scaled to fit). In other words, humans have accumulated a great deal of knowledge so you could study it, instead of making stuff up from square one.
Recommended Posts