I may win a nobel for this: the dinosaur theory was bonkers!

[NobelPrizeLaureate]

You know that Dinosaur theory, 

"There were once massive prehistoric lizards called dinosaurs, they found the blighters bones buried under the soil in 1950..yes, bones, 150 feet long....enough to finish off the fossil fuel crisis"...

Bonkers, I say, bonkers.

THE GEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE BEGS TO DIFFER. 

According to the big bang theory, THE PLANET HAS BEEN EXPANDING SINCE THE DAYS OF THE BIG BANG.

Inverse logic: In the Triassic/Jurrasic era, when the Park were in place, 

THIS PLANET WAS THE SIZE OF A TENNIS BALL. 

So...if something died in 1627351235576 BC, then the fossilized bones of that specimen, would have EXPANDED WITH THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE. 

You see what I mean?

1000000000 BC: A human being, or a dog, for Gods sakes, dies, on planet earth. 

Fast forward to 1930 when archeologists stumble across those bones. 

How is it that those bones are so huge? Well, they EXPANDED ALONG WITH THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE. 

No, those were not GIANT bones when they were buried in the Triassic Era. They were normal sized bones. The dogs of the Triassic era were like dalmations, alsations, normal cute cuddly ones like they are today. 

They expanded with the rate of expansion of the universe.

So if THE BIG BANG THEORY AND THE RATE OF EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE THEORY WERE THROWN OUT OF THE WINDOW, THEN AND ONLY THEN....

Would the 'Dinosaur theory' (massive prehistoric lizards, 1000 feet long, theory) make sense

In short, the Dinosaur theory doesnt take into account the rate of expansion of the universe.....

Up for debate

Edited October 14 by NobelPrizeLaureate

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, NobelPrizeLaureate said:

According to the big bang theory, THE PLANET HAS BEEN EXPANDING SINCE THE DAYS OF THE BIG BANG.

!

Moderator Note

No, it doesn’t

Feel free to ask questions to improve your knowledge, but we don’t have a WAG forum