[Dr. Isaiah Jones]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

The rex are from lizzard family and kangaroos are clearly not from lizzard family.,.. you sir need to restudy and get a real degree of something that is useful in today's world.

As my studies show, the theory that the T. Rex was a reptile is erroneous and outdated. It was a marsupial just like the kangaroos of modern times.

[True Disciple]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

The rex are from lizzard family and kangaroos are clearly not from lizzard family.,.. you sir need to restudy and get a real degree of something that is useful in today's world.

How on earth can you know that this creature was a lizard? There are not any scales preserved, and the marsupial pouch doesn't contain hard parts, so it comes as no surprise that it leaves no fossil evidence for its existence. Which means that it might just as well have existed.

And anyway, how could you say that God didn't intelligently design the T-Rex as a kangaroo? God can do anything, so he can also give a reptile a pouch.

[Jack O'fagan]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

The rex are from lizzard family and kangaroos are clearly not from lizzard family.,.. you sir need to restudy and get a real degree of something that is useful in today's world.

The process of modern science works through peer group analyses. A theory is suggested and then others try to disprove it. If it cannot be disproved this then becomes valid evidence.

Yes you are correct that it was previously thought that Kangasaurus was from the lizard family however Dr Jones's outstanding and thorough research has now disproved this theory and must be now accepted at valid information.

Buy the way, It's not 'lizzard', it's 'lizard', you sir need to get a dictionary or something that is useful in todays world.

YiC

Jack

[natureboyuk6]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

How can you disprove the evidence that this is clearly a load of rubbish. It is not thorough analysis at all, it is looking at a picture and saying it looks a bit like something else. It is like saying that an eel is a snake that lives in water because both are cylindrical in structure.

If you researched more you would clearly find that bone structure is completely different for starters the skull i.e. T.rex have a Diapsid skull and kangaroos have a Synapsid skull. Another example can be the legs ... In a T. rex they are clearly not designed for jumping with their entire structure suggesting this! This is just a couple of the massive list that suggests that your theory on this is wrong.

[True Disciple]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

How can you disprove the evidence that this is clearly a load of rubbish. It is not thorough analysis at all, it is looking at a picture and saying it looks a bit like something else. It is like saying that an eel is a snake that lives in water because both are cylindrical in structure.

Why couldn't you say that? After all, the Bible confirms that there are snakes that live in the water:

Isaiah 27:1:
In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

If you researched more you would clearly find that bone structure is completely different for starters the skull i.e. T.rex have a Diapsid skull and kangaroos have a Synapsid skull.

Why does that matter? We are talking about pouches, not about the number of holes God intelligently designed their skulls with. Try to keep up.

Another example can be the legs ... In a T. rex they are clearly not designed for jumping with their entire structure suggesting this!

Again, you cannot say that. Did you ever see a live T-Rex? Of course not. Secular scientists draw their assumptions from ridges and grooves on individual bones, and then say: "this is how the muscles probably went, so these animals couldn't have jumped."

But these are just assumptions, not facts. We can never say with certainty what the muscular structure of a T-Rex was, because there is no muscle tissue preserved. This means that the musculature of the T-Rex might just as well have been one designed for jumping.

This is just a couple of the massive list that suggests that your theory on this is wrong.

Why don't you bring on the rest, then?

[Two-Dollar Bill]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

This is a most interesting revelation and one that will certainly open up further scientific study. I for one started to think about other marsupials and how their skeletons also appear similar to dinosaur skeletons. Granted this is not my area of expertise but is it not possible that, say, the stegosaurus is but a giant opossum? Or that another upright walking dinosaurus was merely a large wallaby?

As for the post by natureboyuk6, I think their first sentence should end in a colon rather than a period.

[Dr. Isaiah Jones]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

How can you disprove the evidence that this is clearly a load of rubbish.

My research is based on Biblical FACTS and the Holy Bible, my dear unsaved friend, is infallible.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It is like saying that an eel is a snake that lives in water because both are cylindrical in structure.

Except that eels actually ARE snakes just like the T. Rex is, in fact, a kangaroo. The Bible refers to (giant) pre-flood eels as sea serpents or leviathans.

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

If you researched more you would clearly find that bone structure is completely different for starters the skull i.e. T.rex have a Diapsid skull and kangaroos have a Synapsid skull.

I can't see any difference except that the skull of the T. Rex is, of course, much, much bigger.

Another example can be the legs ... In a T. rex they are clearly not designed for jumping with their entire structure suggesting this!

How would you know? Do you hold a doctorate in Biblical archaeology and pre-flood animal anatomy? Didn't think so.

[natureboyuk6]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

It is not a snake. Nothing about it is similar to a snake!

Where is the proof that they had pouches if tissue etc. is not still here? There foot and leg structure would not allow for significant jumping nor would the size of the tail which would be needed for balance! Surely either way what your suggesting supports evolution? - loss of teeth, head structure etc.?

Why have we got an appendix if evolution isn't happening?

[James Ussher]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

Why have we got an appendix if evolution isn't happening?

Because the Almighty God created us with an appendix.

What a dumb question!

[Dr. Isaiah Jones]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

Surely either way what your suggesting supports evolution? - loss of teeth, head structure etc.?

You clearly have not read my research. Evolution is when one animal magically transforms into another. Moreover, it is just a theory and has no real basis in Biblical research.

What my research actually supports is the Biblical FACT that due to a canopy of water being present in the stratosphere (Genesis 1:6-8) everything grew much larger than it does today (Genesis 6:4).

It also supports the FACT that dinosaurs did not become extinct, as that would mean Noah having to exclude them from the Ark.

Genesis 8:19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

Instead, after God having released the waters from the firmament, they just shrunk due to all the changes in the atmosphere.

[Jack O'fagan]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

It is not a snake. Nothing about it is similar to a snake!

Where is the proof that they had pouches if tissue etc. is not still here? There foot and leg structure would not allow for significant jumping nor would the size of the tail which would be needed for balance! Surely either way what your suggesting supports evolution? - loss of teeth, head structure etc.?

Why have we got an appendix if evolution isn't happening?

If Kangorasaurus did not jump how did it leave deep footprints in solid rock?? And don't tell me that it is 'fossilisation'

The Earth is around 6,000 years old, that would not be enough time for mud to 'magically' turn into rock. Surely even you must realise that?

YiC

Jack

[natureboyuk6]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

The Earth is around 6,000 years old

Except that its not!

[Dr. Isaiah Jones]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

Except that its not!

Could you please support this unfounded statement with scripture?

[MisterM]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

Except that its not!

You are right. It is 6020 years old.

Edit: You must understand that Dr. Jones only gave approximation. No need to nitpick him.

[natureboyuk6]

Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex: The Giant Kangaroo

No I cannot support this idiocy with scripture as humans wrote the bible not God - why can't you see this???

The World is definitely much older than 6020years old ... surely you can see this and there is so much proof backing this up!

How do you explain DNA that supports evolutionary theories? And in response to an earlier question: evolution is not an appearance of species just like that, it is a gradual change over time! I still can't see how you can even comprehend that the T rex is similar in anyway to a kangaroo. Explain the teeth? Explain the feet and leg structure? - I think you need to go back to the drawing board and think of another group of animals to back this up!