The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Crustinator on November 09, 2009, 02:46:24 PM
-
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?
Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.
-
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?
Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.
Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.
-
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?
Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.
Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.
To be fair, they are hypotheses.
-
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?
Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.
Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.
Then it must be passive and unspoken support. I've never seen anyone else make a post promoting colonial dinosaurs.
-
Hypothesis or theory, it merits more than just compulsive skepticism disguised as clear-sightedness. I support James and I think there are others, Ski for instance.
-
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?
Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.
Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.
Then it must be passive and unspoken support. I've never seen anyone else make a post promoting colonial dinosaurs.
I've done so on several occasions. You've been here two months, I've been here 31/2 years. Just because you haven't seen something happen in the last two month isn't a reason to assume it hasn't happened at all.
-
I've done so on several occasions. You've been here two months, I've been here 31/2 years. Just because you haven't seen something happen in the last two month isn't a reason to assume it hasn't happened at all.
First you're appealing to ignorance in that we are to assume that such evidence exists. Then you're appealing to antiquity in that the fact that you've been here longer than me means that you shouldn't have to present such evidence.
That's not the zetetic way.
-
I'm not appealing to ignornance, because you are free to use the search function. If you do so, you will easily find several, lengthy threads where I defend that theory. In fact, I doubt there's more than one or two significant threads on that subject in which I do not state my support for that theory. Honestly, search dinosaurs, and you'll find me in those threads. Search for dinosaurs under my username, and you'll find endless examples.
To prove how easy it would be for you to use the search function, I just did so. Searching 'dinosaurs' under my username, one of the dirst results is this:
To be honest, that this is even a matter of debate any more perplexes me. Given the evidence, to doubt that dinosaurs had a maritime society strikes me as irrational.
I made that post within the last two weeks. Really, you had no reason to assume what you did.
Secondly, appealing to antiquity? You came out point blank and told me that you'd
never seen anyone else make a post promoting colonial dinosaurs.
My point is that you not having seen it doesn't mean you should assume that my support
must be passive and unspoken support.
It really is very simple.
-
My point is that you not having seen it doesn't mean you should assume that my support "must be passive and unspoken support."
Are we to assume things are true without seeing evidence for them?
To be honest, that this is even a matter of debate any more perplexes me. Given the evidence, to doubt that dinosaurs had a maritime society strikes me as irrational.
I made that post within the last two weeks. Really, you had no reason to assume what you did.
You could have just posted this first time round.
*shrugs*
However, having searched it seems that you are the only one to support James in his colonial dinosaur boat theory. So "one" not "several" support James.
The point still stands, most FEers seem to have their own "flat earth". There is little unity. See our discussion on redundancy in the FAQ for details.
-
However, having searched it seems that you are the only one to support James in his colonial dinosaur boat theory. So "one" not "several" support James.
Tom Bishop has supported that theory on many occasions. So has Ski. I'm pretty sure John has as well. Learn to search better.
You could have just posted this first time round.
You could have avoided making such a groundless assumption in the first place.
Are we to assume things are true without seeing evidence for them?
Should you assume they are untrue without seeing evidence? I stated I had supported James on several occasions; you made the assumption that I had not done so openly The Zetetic way is based on removing assumptions. You should look into it.
-
The point still stands, most FEers seem to have their own "flat earth". There is little unity.
The point doesn't stand because you have no idea about the unity within the FE community, flat earthers in general, or really any population other than that of a site specifically designed to encourage and bring out different theorists.
-
I've in the past argued in support of the possibility of colonial dinosaurs despite it being against my personal worldview.
I know Tom has argued for theories similar to colonial dinosaurs - but instead the methods of travel were floating eggs, etc.
-
However, having searched it seems that you are the only one to support James in his colonial dinosaur boat theory. So "one" not "several" support James.
If you will only do a proper search, you will see you are wrong. Try the threads 'Do Dinosaurs exist in FE theory?' and 'Antartica' (sic).
-
*Ahem*
The topic of discussion seems to have strayed from sky mirrors to dinosaurs. Unless the dinos had something to do with erecting the sky mirrors, I'd say that you guys should get back on topic.
-
I've in the past argued in support of the possibility of colonial dinosaurs despite it being against my personal worldview.
I've seen no evidence of this. I have searched.
I know Tom has argued for theories similar to colonial dinosaurs - but instead the methods of travel were floating eggs, etc.
Similar is not equal to.
If you will only do a proper search, you will see you are wrong.
I've seen no evidence to indicate such. I have searched the threads mentioned.
Since we are getting off topic I suggest a new topic be launched.
-
I've in the past argued in support of the possibility of colonial dinosaurs despite it being against my personal worldview.
I've seen no evidence of this. I have searched.
Obviously larger nests might be able to weather the ocean. I know that at least one of those species lives in the sea during certain parts of the year.
So to restate, the claim that they cannot build "technology" (which is silly, look at the level of technology present in those brave boat goers on easter island) is a bit false.
If a bird can make a sea worthy vessel, why not a smarter creature an oceanic one?
Many routes of travel would only require minimal travel, especially if there were less oceans in the past.
I know Tom has argued for theories similar to colonial dinosaurs - but instead the methods of travel were floating eggs, etc.
Similar is not equal to.
It's under the same realm of theories, but you are correct.
If you will only do a proper search, you will see you are wrong.
I've seen no evidence to indicate such. I have searched the threads mentioned.
Apparently you haven't.
-
Apparently you haven't.
I have.
This would be the point where you prove me wrong. Instead of just insisting I'm wrong without posting anything to back your statements up.
:-\
-
Obviously larger nests might be able to weather the ocean. I know that at least one of those species lives in the sea during certain parts of the year.
So to restate, the claim that they cannot build "technology" (which is silly, look at the level of technology present in those brave boat goers on easter island) is a bit false.
If a bird can make a sea worthy vessel, why not a smarter creature an oceanic one?
Many routes of travel would only require minimal travel, especially if there were less oceans in the past.
-
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.
edit: I see someone has locked the topic in which I asked FE'ers to declare their support for James and his civilised colonising dinosaurs.
I'm not sure why that was, it would have been much more interesting pursuing that topic of discussion rather than the dog end of another thread.
I'll have to restate the question here.
In another thread Lord WIlmore suggested that there are several FEers who support James/Dogplatter in his belief that dinosaurs were an advanced and civilised race who colonised the planet building cities and boats.
Would all such supporters please state their support in no uncertain terms here.
-
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.
edit: I see someone has locked the topic in which I asked FE'ers to declare their support for James and his civilised colonising dinosaurs.
I'm not sure why that was, it would have been much more interesting pursuing that topic of discussion rather than the dog end of another thread.
I'll have to restate the question here.
In another thread Lord WIlmore suggested that there are several FEers who support James/Dogplatter in his belief that dinosaurs were an advanced and civilised race who colonised the planet building cities and boats.
Would all such supporters please state their support in no uncertain terms here.
Alright Crustinator, instead of trying to disporve flat earth theory, You've resorted to personally attacking Lord Wiillmore, which is just.. low brow.
Now, I agree that Willmore is not a likable character, but can we try to focus on raising the average IQ of the people who red these forums, not textually attacking one person.
IOf there's one thing you learn from this forum, let it be .. Some people, You just CAN'T reach.
-
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.
You never specified boat building. I also think it's hilarious that you assume you have the right to demand that other people state their beliefs to you at a time and place of your choosing. We've already shown that there are a number of people on this site who support that theory, and that your initial statement was false.
-
You never specified boat building.
Yes I did. James' colonial dinosaur theory encompasses boat building amongst many other things. I claified what I was requesting in the new topic.
We've already shown that there are a number of people on this site who support that theory, and that your initial statement was false.
No you haven't. There's just you so far. All I'm asking is that the others make themselves known by stating it explicitly.
Alright Crustinator, instead of trying to disporve flat earth theory, You've resorted to personally attacking Lord Wiillmore, which is just.. low brow.
I'm not attacking Wilmore at all. I'm interested in finding out what people actually support James in his colonial dinosaurs theory. Wilmore says that there are several people. So far I've only found evidence that Wilmore alone supports this theory. If there are more I'd like to know.
If there's any doubt. Here's what I'm refering to:
Even if only one species of dinosaur attained naval capabilities, their travel would doubtless have included the transportation of "livestock" analogous to human society's domain over less developed animals, which would still corroborate fossil evidence.
... building advanced tools and weapons of wood and stone, conquering the high seas to colonize the continents, developing language (maybe even writing) and so on.
My picture only spells out that dinosaurs were the first animals on Earth to build boats (the Egyptian Sun God Ra is depicted ferrying a trio of sauropods on his divine raft).
The evidence for dinosaur colonialism and seafaring is ample. Your refusal to correctly interpret the evidence is the problem. Thousands upon thousands of plant and animal remains testify to the advanced civilisation which the dinosaurs constructed.
And finally...
We can reasonably assume that an adult Deinonychus would require approximately the same capacity as an adult human based on the weight comparison I've cited (the largest Deinonychus specimens would have weighed around 73kg).
...
Further details can be found by reading those threads.
Please no posts quoting other people as believers in James theory. Let them speak for themselves.
-
I somehow got the idea you disliked redundancy. This thread is redundant.
-
Yes I did. James' colonial dinosaur theory encompasses boat building amongst many other things. I claified what I was requesting in the new topic.
Your clarification came after the fact. Please excuse our lack of clairvoyance
We've already shown that there are a number of people on this site who support that theory, and that your initial statement was false.
No you haven't. There's just you so far. All I'm asking is that the others make themselves known by stating it explicitly.
First of all, your initial statement indicated that no-one else supported his theory. Simply by expressing my support (both consistent and long-standing), I have disproved your initial statement. Regarding others besides myself, what other way is there for me to show it? If they post themselves, then plainly they have shown it. By pointing to threads where others express their support, I have shown you that there are a number of people on this site who support his theory.
Please no posts quoting other people as believers in James theory. Let them speak for themselves.
To quote someone is to provide an example of people speaking for themselves. Nobody is obligated to come running at your beck and call.
-
By pointing to threads where others express their support, I have shown you that there are a number of people on this site who support his theory.
You haven't pointed to any such threads.
If there are supporters for this theory then they can show their support here, thereby proving that it is true that there are several who support James in his colonial dinosaur theory.
-
You haven't pointed to any such threads.
You've specifically asked us not to quote such threads! All I can tell you to do is to search for them!
If there are supporters for this theory then they can show their support here, thereby proving that it is true that there are several who support James in his colonial dinosaur theory.
They already proved as much by supporting his theories in previous threads.
-
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.
I disagree, they are the same thing.
-
You haven't pointed to any such threads.
You've specifically asked us not to quote such threads! All I can tell you to do is to search for them!
I did search. I didn't find any. You claimed that you showed me such threads. Now you backing away from that statement. That's fine.
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.
I disagree, they are the same thing.
No they're not.
Let me help you.
Floating nest: http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/13985/wm/pd610785.jpg
Boat building: http://www.indiadailyphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/boat_building_veraval.jpg
I'll ask you directly John. Do belief that dinosaurs were an advanced and civilised race who colonised the planet building cities and boats?
-
I've already answered that.
A nest that travels across oceans is a boat. A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
-
You haven't pointed to any such threads.
You've specifically asked us not to quote such threads! All I can tell you to do is to search for them!
I did search. I didn't find any. You claimed that you showed me such threads. Now you backing away from that statement. That's fine.
You couldn't find my posts either at the start, and they definitely exist. I've used the search function, and I've found posts by others supporting his theory. Conclusion? You fail at searching. I can only show you the door, Neo. You have to walk through it yourself.
I disagree, they are the same thing.
Agreed, especially as Tom has also claimed that Dinosaurs may have used logs to float across the ocean. Used in this manner, a log is essentially a simple raft.
-
I've already answered that.
A nest that travels across oceans is a boat. A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
Do you have any documented evidence of a nest successfully transporting a bird and/or egg across an ocean?
-
Across a sea yes. Given that dinosaur nests would likely be much larger, it is not unreasonable to say its possible.
But to answer your question: no. But I don't support this theory.
-
I've already answered that.
A nest that travels across oceans is a boat. A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration
-
Colonization occurs whenever any one or more species populate an area.
-
I've already answered that.
A nest that travels across oceans is a boat. A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration
OK this is descending into semantic nitpicking. It's like Parsifal never left. John, you know perfectly well that there is a distinction between a floating nest and a boat, you're being obtuse.
-
But to answer your question: no. But I don't support this theory.
Thank you for taking the time to post.
Unfortunately I'm not looking for people who don't support this theory, but those that do.
I invite them to show themselves here.
-
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?
Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.
Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.
To be fair, they are hypotheses.
They aren't testable statements. They're ideas.
-
Across a sea yes. Given that dinosaur nests would likely be much larger, it is not unreasonable to say its possible.
Just because a few modern species of birds can build nests that float in calm waters, I don't see how it's reasonable to expect dinosaur nests to be able to survive trans-oceanic voyages without knowing more about what sort of materials and construction techniques the dinos would have used to make their nests.
But to answer your question: no. But I don't support this theory.
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.
-
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.
I see no evidence that they did.
-
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.
I see no evidence that they did.
I see no evidence of Pangaea
-
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.
This topic isn't about floating nests. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.
See here for details:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg838217#msg838217
Is this something you subscribe to?
-
I see no evidence of Pangaea
That's because anything that points to its existence you either wilfully ignore, claim to be false, or come up with an even more far fetched explanation for (for which there will be less evidence than Pangaea). You are known for your shallowness of research and sycophantic agreement with whichever flat earth ideas are being put forward in any given thread, Kepler. I have yet to see any posts in which you express an opinion of your own.
-
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.
This topic isn't about floating nests. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.
See here for details:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg838217#msg838217
Is this something you subscribe to?
I believe it is possible that dinosaurs built floating nests that enabled the dinosaurs to spread to the different continents.
-
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.
I don't see why lizards can't either. Except for the fact that they lack the parts of the brain necessary for problem solving.
-
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.
I don't see why lizards can't either. Except for the fact that they lack the parts of the brain necessary for problem solving.
Or the requisite manual dexterity (and I'm not referring to just opposable thumbs).
-
I've already answered that.
A nest that travels across oceans is a boat. A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration
OK this is descending into semantic nitpicking. It's like Parsifal never left. John, you know perfectly well that there is a distinction between a floating nest and a boat, you're being obtuse.
A floating nest used for travel is a boat.
-
Dinosaurs didn't build boats. All the mods/admins are huge trolls.
-
Bald eagles are the decendants of dinosaurs and they build quite large nests. Certainly it is possible for a nest to generate a bouyant force to carry a few eggs.
-
Your logic is infallible.
-
I've already answered that.
A nest that travels across oceans is a boat. A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration
OK this is descending into semantic nitpicking. It's like Parsifal never left. John, you know perfectly well that there is a distinction between a floating nest and a boat, you're being obtuse.
A floating nest used for travel is a boat.
It's only a boat if it is built with intent to travel on the water. By that I mean a conscious decision on the part of the builders to use it to travel from point A to point B. If that is not the case, then it's not a boat, merely something that coincidentally behaves like a boat.
-
I've already answered that.
A nest that travels across oceans is a boat. A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration
OK this is descending into semantic nitpicking. It's like Parsifal never left. John, you know perfectly well that there is a distinction between a floating nest and a boat, you're being obtuse.
A floating nest used for travel is a boat.
It's only a boat if it is built with intent to travel on the water. By that I mean a conscious decision on the part of the builders to use it to travel from point A to point B. If that is not the case, then it's not a boat, merely something that coincidentally behaves like a boat.
Intent doesn't matter of the creator, only those who view it retrospectively.
-
Intent doesn't matter of the creator, only those who view it retrospectively.
How would a dinosaur steer a floating nest?
-
The same way coracles are steered.
-
Intent doesn't matter of the creator, only those who view it retrospectively.
If you want it that way, then an iceberg with a penguin standing on it is a boat. A floating dandelion seed on a breeze is an aircraft. An apple falling off a tree and rolling down a hill is a vehicle. Is that the way you want it, John?
-
I've already answered that.
A nest that travels across oceans is a boat. A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration
OK this is descending into semantic nitpicking. It's like Parsifal never left. John, you know perfectly well that there is a distinction between a floating nest and a boat, you're being obtuse.
A floating nest used for travel is a boat.
It's only a boat if it is built with intent to travel on the water. By that I mean a conscious decision on the part of the builders to use it to travel from point A to point B. If that is not the case, then it's not a boat, merely something that coincidentally behaves like a boat.
Intent doesn't matter of the creator, only those who view it retrospectively.
So you aren't saying dinosaurs built boats, you are saying dinosaurs got washed away in nests? A reptile nest being a loosely piled mat of sticks and leaves. I somehow doubt this (we've seen fossilized dinosaur nests) and even so those aren't boats, and that certainly was not his idea.
-
How would the dinosaurs communicate and work together? ???
-
The same way coracles are steered.
Not exactly my first choice for crossing an ocean.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Coracles_River_Teifi.jpg/629px-Coracles_River_Teifi.jpg)
-
The same way coracles are steered.
Not exactly my first choice for crossing an ocean.
Simply speculating, I imagine there were many disasters as with countless other ancient migrations. The success of these dinosaurs should provide us with a new appreciation of their apparent energetic natures.
-
So a success rate of 1/100 would be hopeful. And then they'd have to get two different sexes across, so 1/200 that they get two across, and then a 1/400 that they get a male and female across.
Then you have to factor in that they'd have to have enough for genetic diversity, 100 should be enough for genetic diversity. so the loss of life would be 398*100, though the numbers should allow you to ignore sex, so 198*100 would be the total losses, or 19,800. That of course is per species. I don't think their populations were high enough.
-
I think your 1/100 success rate might be pessimistic, but again this is all speculation. Before applying your numbers, we should try to establish good climate models of the migration periods.
-
How would the dinosaurs communicate and work together? ???
There is already evidence the Theropods were pack hunters. This would require coordination and some form of communication.
-
I think your 1/100 success rate might be pessimistic, but again this is all speculation. Before applying your numbers, we should try to establish good climate models of the migration periods.
Well considering the size of the boats it might be horribly optimistic, we'd have to figure the distance between continents at the time, but the ice caps certainly would be smaller meaning larger oceans.
Also, you'd have to factor in how they'd bring the food and water for month long voyages, and what this sort of stored diet would do to them nutritionally. Basically what kind of scurvy do dinosaurs get.
-
Also, you'd have to factor in how they'd bring the food and water for month long voyages, and what this sort of stored diet would do to them nutritionally. Basically what kind of scurvy do dinosaurs get.
How would dinosaurs even have the intelligence and foresight necessary to plan something like that?
-
I think your 1/100 success rate might be pessimistic, but again this is all speculation. Before applying your numbers, we should try to establish good climate models of the migration periods.
Well considering the size of the boats it might be horribly optimistic, we'd have to figure the distance between continents at the time, but the ice caps certainly would be smaller meaning larger oceans.
Also, you'd have to factor in how they'd bring the food and water for month long voyages, and what this sort of stored diet would do to them nutritionally. Basically what kind of scurvy do dinosaurs get.
Dinosaurs might not get any kind of scurvy, humans and guinea pigs are the only animals (that we know of) that are incapable of synthesizing their own vitamin C.
-
Simply speculating,
This topic isn't about coracles. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.
See here for details:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg838217#msg838217
Is this something you subscribe to?
-
I think your 1/100 success rate might be pessimistic, but again this is all speculation. Before applying your numbers, we should try to establish good climate models of the migration periods.
Well considering the size of the boats it might be horribly optimistic, we'd have to figure the distance between continents at the time, but the ice caps certainly would be smaller meaning larger oceans.
Also, you'd have to factor in how they'd bring the food and water for month long voyages, and what this sort of stored diet would do to them nutritionally. Basically what kind of scurvy do dinosaurs get.
Dinosaurs might not get any kind of scurvy, humans and guinea pigs are the only animals (that we know of) that are incapable of synthesizing their own vitamin C.
Wow, I wasn't using scurvy as an example of a disease sailors get due to malnutrition, I totally meant that dinosaurs have the same vitamin c deficiency reaction as humans. Thank you for jerking off on your fun fact of the day.
-
This topic isn't about coracles. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.
See here for details:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg838217#msg838217
Is this something you subscribe to?
So it's your contention that coracles aren't boats? The type, shape, and complexity of the boats used by the migratory/colonizing dinosaurs is at present, I believe, unknown.
Why semi-weekly affirmations are required I have no idea but yes, I subscribe to Dogplatter's theory.
-
I subscribe to Dogplatter's theory.
Hurrey!
-
He's not called Dogplatter any more.
-
@ Therm:
How could that be? I just now called him Dogplatter.
@Crust:
Just as I said earlier in this thread. Why do you require all the repeats?
-
So it's your contention that coracles aren't boats? The type, shape, and complexity of the boats used by the migratory/colonizing dinosaurs is at present, I believe, unknown.
Yes, coracles are indeed boats. However, I don't see how they would be appropriate for any sort of travel outside of the calmest of waters. I also don't see room for provisions amounting to much more than a picnic lunch.
-
So it's your contention that coracles aren't boats? The type, shape, and complexity of the boats used by the migratory/colonizing dinosaurs is at present, I believe, unknown.
Yes, coracles are indeed boats. However, I don't see how they would be appropriate for any sort of travel outside of the calmest of waters. I also don't see room for provisions amounting to much more than a picnic lunch.
Or room for livestock.
-
Perhaps they used a flotilla of coracles/nests. But as I said before:
The type, shape, and complexity of the boats used by the migratory/colonizing dinosaurs is at present, I believe, unknown.
-
@ Therm:
How could that be? I just now called him Dogplatter.
Are you wanting people to call you Robosteve, then?
-
That not only is totally off topic, it makes no sense.
-
Perhaps they used a flotilla of coracles/nests. But as I said before:
The type, shape, and complexity of the boats used by the migratory/colonizing dinosaurs is at present, I believe, unknown.
Which is exactly why there is no reason to believe that any dinosaurs ever used any sort of boat or nest for migration/colonization.
-
I don't find any reasonable doubt that some dinosaurs migrated. The colonization may have occurred as an evolutionary event of such migrations. If you are disputing any possibility of overseas travel, then, my good friend, we'll just agree to differ.
-
That not only is totally off topic, it makes no sense.
It is pertinent to your assertion that referring to James as Dogplatter makes him so; secondly, since your comment was the sort of semantic nitpicking that the late Parsifal enjoyed so much, that is why I suggested I should call you by his previous name.
If you can't work that out [ad hominem] then you're a bit dim. [/ad hominem]
I can just call you The Rotten Fruit if you like?
-
I don't find any reasonable doubt that some dinosaurs migrated.
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that dinosaurs migrated. I just don't believe that it's reasonable to believe that they crossed oceans without some pretty compelling evidence.
If you are disputing any possibility of overseas travel, then, my good friend, we'll just agree to differ.
If you, or dogplatter, or anyone else can provide some evidence that dinosaurs actually did build boats instead of merely speculating as to what kind of boats they might have built, then you might have a Nobel prize in your future.
-
I don't find any reasonable doubt that some dinosaurs migrated. The colonization may have occurred as an evolutionary event of such migrations. If you are disputing any possibility of overseas travel, then, my good friend, we'll just agree to differ.
What a nice change of words. Now the dinosaurs are migrating (something nobody doubts) and colonizing (also, something nobody doubts). There is no attempt at all to add to the real issue, which is "overseas travel", however.
I have no quarrel at all with anyone who declares him/herself as non-scientist and talks about ufo abductions, Yetis, and, oh yes, dinosaurs using a nest as a boat. If they declare themselves non-scientists, that is.
-
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that dinosaurs migrated. I just don't believe that it's reasonable to believe that they crossed oceans without some pretty compelling evidence.
Why is it so hard to believe that they crossed the bearing straight like we did?
How would the dinosaurs communicate and work together? ???
The same way beavers do. Working together to build dams of waterways is an instinct.
-
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that dinosaurs migrated. I just don't believe that it's reasonable to believe that they crossed oceans without some pretty compelling evidence.
Why is it so hard to believe that they crossed the bearing straight like we did?
Because the Bering Strait didn't exist when the dinosaurs did.
-
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that dinosaurs migrated. I just don't believe that it's reasonable to believe that they crossed oceans without some pretty compelling evidence.
Why is it so hard to believe that they crossed the bearing straight like we did?
Because the Bering Strait didn't exist when the dinosaurs did.
Not according to the static continent model!
-
Not according to the static continent model!
The static continent model is wrong, as can be demonstrated by ongoing continental drift.
-
All this talk of coracles and nests is mere pandering to globularist doubts. They will never admit that dinosaurs could have the same intelligence as birds (capable of tool creation!), despite all the evidence supporting it. Every year, more and more research is rejecting the traditional idea of dinosaurs as lumbering, cumbersome giants. Take this story for example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/11/t-rex-dinosaurs-warm-blooded
So now, instead of being a cold-blooded, ungainly beast, scientists now believe that Tyrannosaurus Rex may have been a nimble, warm-blooded animal! This shows how little modern scientists really know about dinosaurs. I am of the opinion that dinosaurs had a maritime civilisation, and possessed the necessary intelligence to construct large rafts, and perhaps even fully fledged sea faring vessels, similar to the Viking longboat:
(http://www.burrard-lucas.com/photo/norway/oslo/longboat.big.jpg)
-
All this talk of coracles and nests is mere pandering to globularist doubts.
Being a globularist has very little to do with dinosaur studies, apart from the firm rebuttals that are required against the warped logic needed to keep flat earth theory propped up.
This topic is simply created for those who subscribe to James' civilised dinosaur theory to present themselves.
Please stay on topic.
Why is it so hard to believe that they crossed the bearing straight like we did?
This topic isn't about crossing the bearing straight like we did. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.
See here for details:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg838217#msg838217
Is this something you subscribe to?
-
Not according to the static continent model!
The static continent model is wrong, as can be demonstrated by ongoing continental drift.
I haven't seen any drifting continents, have you?
It's actually just a hypothesis from the 1960's. No one actually saw the continents move.
-
Please stay on topic.
Are you a moderator? No. So don't pretend to be one. Never mind that you're being totally hypocritical, in saying that this is off topic:
I am of the opinion that dinosaurs had a maritime civilisation, and possessed the necessary intelligence to construct large rafts, and perhaps even fully fledged sea faring vessels, similar to the Viking longboat
and then saying this:
This topic isn't about crossing the bearing straight like we did. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.
I'd say that's just about as on-topic as one can be. Now quit memberating.
-
Please stay on topic.
Are you a moderator? No. So don't pretend to be one.
I'm not a moderator but I am the thread creator. I am only interested in hearing from those who subscribe to James' civilised dinosaurs theory. You have already made it clear that you do. Thankyou for your participation.
Please don't derail threads by discussing moderating issues. If you wish to discuss it further then take it to Suggestions and Concerns (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=18.0).
-
Crusty, don't try it. I got a ban for making comments in my own thread once. :-\
-
Please stay on topic.
Are you a moderator? No. So don't pretend to be one.
I'm not a moderator but I am the thread creator. I am only interested in hearing from those who subscribe to James' civilised dinosaurs theory. You have already made it clear that you do. Thankyou for your participation.
Please don't derail threads by discussing moderating issues. If you wish to discuss it further then take it to Suggestions and Concerns (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=18.0).
I'd tried being subtle, but you obviously enjoy trying to rub people the wrong way. Let me make this clear: stop memberating, or I'll suspend you for troublemaking. Being thread creator gives you zero ownership over this thread. My advice is to wise up.
And if you have a problem with that, then make sure to follow your own advice.
-
Not according to the static continent model!
The static continent model is wrong, as can be demonstrated by ongoing continental drift.
I haven't seen any drifting continents, have you?
Sounds like you need to take a field trip to Iceland.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Iceland_Mid-Atlantic_Ridge_Fig16.gif)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/albaret-boit/176502393/
It's actually just a hypothesis from the 1960's. No one actually saw the continents move.
Tom, seeing as you live in California, you should be well aware of the effects of continental drift and plate tectonics in the form of earthquakes. Besides, I didn't say that it was necessarily a visible process, just a measurable one.
-
All this talk of coracles and nests is mere pandering to globularist doubts. They will never admit that dinosaurs could have the same intelligence as birds (capable of tool creation!), despite all the evidence supporting it. Every year, more and more research is rejecting the traditional idea of dinosaurs as lumbering, cumbersome giants. Take this story for example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/11/t-rex-dinosaurs-warm-blooded
So now, instead of being a cold-blooded, ungainly beast, scientists now believe that Tyrannosaurus Rex may have been a nimble, warm-blooded animal! This shows how little modern scientists really know about dinosaurs. I am of the opinion that dinosaurs had a maritime civilisation, and possessed the necessary intelligence to construct large rafts, and perhaps even fully fledged sea faring vessels, similar to the Viking longboat:
I don't think that anyone here will dispute that most birds are capable of tool creation, some more complex than others in their use.
I would hardly call it an acceptable leap to go from birds creating simple tools to dinosaurs constructing purpose built seafaring vessels for the puropse of trans-oceanic voyage, mercantile exchange and livestock transportation.
How far does the dollar of simple tools buy them along the road of technology? Is it possible that they had organized ship building organizations? Did they build marinas? Have manufacturing plants? Be segregated into blue and white collar workers? Could they have implemented an assembly line? Could they have formed organized labor unions and gone on strike if not provided a fair wage?
Where does one draw the line of feasibility?
-
We're trying to say that some dinosaurs would have had the intelligence of birds, minimum. That means they would have possessed problem solving abilities and the mental capacity to construct tools. Now, dinosaurs also had far greater physical dexterity and strength than birds, not mention claws and limbs which are far more suitable to tool construction than, say, wings. All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do. And remember, this is a conservative assessment.
Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds. Hardly a giant leap, especially now that more and more scientists believe they may have been warm blooded. What then? Why couldn't they have built simple rafts? Obviously, there would have to have been pressure to migrate in the first place, but that goes without saying. Now, over the kind of periods we're talking about (several million years), why wouldn't such dinosaurs get better at boat construction?
-
We're trying to say that some chimpanzees would have had the intelligence of birds, minimum. That means they would have possessed problem solving abilities and the mental capacity to construct tools. Now, chimpanzees also have far greater physical dexterity and strength than birds, not mention hands and feet which are far more suitable to tool construction than, say, wings, and are similar to ours. All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that chimpanzees would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do. And remember, this is a conservative assessment.
Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds. Hardly a giant leap, especially now that more and more scientists agree they are warm blooded. What then? Why couldn't they have built expanding cities as we have? Obviously, there would have to have been pressure to migrate in the first place, but that goes without saying. Now, over the kind of periods we're talking about (several million years), why wouldn't such chimpanzees get better at house construction?
Bolded and revised for effect.
Again, where does one draw the line?
How far does the dollar of simple tools buy them along the road of technology? Is it possible that they had organized ship building organizations? Did they build marinas? Have manufacturing plants? Be segregated into blue and white collar workers? Could they have implemented an assembly line? Could they have formed organized labor unions and gone on strike if not provided a fair wage?
-
Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work. Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.
-
We're trying to say that some dinosaurs would have had the intelligence of birds, minimum. That means they would have possessed problem solving abilities and the mental capacity to construct tools. Now, dinosaurs also had far greater physical dexterity and strength than birds, not mention claws and limbs which are far more suitable to tool construction than, say, wings. All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do. And remember, this is a conservative assessment.
Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds. Hardly a giant leap, especially now that more and more scientists believe they may have been warm blooded. What then? Why couldn't they have built simple rafts? Obviously, there would have to have been pressure to migrate in the first place, but that goes without saying. Now, over the kind of periods we're talking about (several million years), why wouldn't such dinosaurs get better at boat construction?
There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did. I have yet to see any evidence that any dinosaurs were intellectually or bio-mechanically suited to building boats. Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, this is all just speculation bordering on mental masturbation.
-
There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did. I have yet to see any evidence that any dinosaurs were intellectually or bio-mechanically suited to building boats. Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, this is all just speculation bordering on mental masturbation.
I invite you to read any of Karl Popper's writings on the philosophy of science. Creative speculation has a most respectable place in the generation of scientific theories.
-
All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do.
What you meant to say was "All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to make the baseless conjecture that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do."
Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds.
Let's not. There's no evidence to support it. The smartest dinosaurs are rated at about ostrich level.
Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work.
Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.
Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.
No it doesn't. Not at all.
PS. If there are any other members who support James' idea that dinosaurs were master boat builders who travelled the high seas spreading dino civilisation, let yourself be known.
-
Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work. Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.
There is a record of these craft in the fossil record?
-
Here's an interesting read on dino intel:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls143.html
Just interesting, not making any claims to back it.
-
Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work.
Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.
Christopher Bird, the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Nathan Emery,Queen Mary University of London
-
Christopher Bird, the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Nathan Emery,Queen Mary University of London
You forgot the part where you quote them.
-
Well, Christopher Bird would think that, wouldn't he. Were his exact words, 'Birds are the best!'?
-
Here's an interesting read on dino intel:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls143.html
Just interesting, not making any claims to back it.
Intersting indeed, so far.
The thesis is not self-evidently false, as, say, the idea of a flat earth is.
-
Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work.
Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.
Christopher Bird, the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Nathan Emery,Queen Mary University of London
Actually, limited to corvids and parrots, not birds in general. And they are tremendously unusual among birds indeed, however talented they are, so to extend that back to dinosaurs is a stretch.
-
I invite you to read any of Karl Popper's writings on the philosophy of science. Creative speculation has a most respectable place in the generation of scientific theories.
Speculation, no matter how creative, is just that, speculation. Speculation gives you an idea of where to look for supporting evidence. However, it's not until that supporting evidence is actually found that you can move your idea into the realm of theory.
-
Actually, limited to corvids and parrots, not birds in general. And they are tremendously unusual among birds indeed, however talented they are, so to extend that back to dinosaurs is a stretch.
Well, there we differ. I don't consider it to be a stretch.
@Markjo
We were speaking of hte generation of theory.
-
@Markjo
We were speaking of hte generation of theory.
A theory without any supporting evidence isn't much of a theory, is it?
-
@Markjo
We were speaking of hte generation of theory.
Nice try though. ;D
Gad, I hate it when a typo of mine gets quoted, carved in stone for posterity, or two minutes anyway.
-
There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did.
Even something as basic as whether dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded is essentially a matter of speculation, as proven by the discourse of the last three decades. All studies on how they lived, behaved etc. is essentially speculative in nature. That's a given, and can be applied any suh theory, not just ours. Here's how the section on dinosaur behaviour is introduced on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Behavior
Interpretations of dinosaur behavior are generally based on the pose of body fossils and their habitat, computer simulations of their biomechanics, and comparisons with modern animals in similar ecological niches. As such, the current understanding of dinosaur behavior relies on speculation, and will likely remain controversial for the foreseeable future. However, there is general agreement that some behaviors which are common in crocodiles and birds, dinosaurs' closest living relatives, were also common among dinosaurs.
What you meant to say was "All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to make the baseless conjecture that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do."
It's no more baseless than any other claim regarding dinosaur intelligence. Give us evidence to the contrary, or admit as much.
Let's not. There's no evidence to support it. The smartest dinosaurs are rated at about ostrich level.
There's no real evidence to support that, either. All we have to go on is encephalization quotient, and that's a really dodgy method. For example, Dolphins have a far larger EQ than any primate besides humans, yet most scientists agree that Chimpanzees are probably smarter than Dolphins.
Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.
No problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2178920.stm
The crow is putting our closest cousins to shame.
Experiments show the humble bird is better than the chimp at toolmaking.
British zoologists were astonished when a captive crow called Betty fashioned a hook out of wire to reach food.
It is the first time any animal has been found to make a new tool for a specific task, say Oxford University researchers.
They believe the bird shows some understanding of cause and effect.
"It is not only cleverer than we think in this particular direction but probably, at least in relation to tools, has a higher level of understanding than chimpanzees," says Alex Kacelnik, Professor of Behavioural Ecology.
. . .
"Experiments with primates, who are much closer relatives of humans than birds, have failed to show any deliberate, specific tool making" ~ Alex Kacelnik, Oxford University
Fairly explicit, eh? You can watch a video of it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8029977.stm
Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.
No it doesn't. Not at all.
Yes it does. James has talked about this in past, so use the search function. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you to posts you could easily find yourself.
-
There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did.
Even something as basic as whether dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded is essentially a matter of speculation, as proven by the discourse of the last three decades. All studies on how they lived, behaved etc. is essentially speculative in nature. That's a given, and can be applied any suh theory, not just ours. Here's how the section on dinosaur behaviour is introduced on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Behavior
Interpretations of dinosaur behavior are generally based on the pose of body fossils and their habitat, computer simulations of their biomechanics, and comparisons with modern animals in similar ecological niches. As such, the current understanding of dinosaur behavior relies on speculation, and will likely remain controversial for the foreseeable future. However, there is general agreement that some behaviors which are common in crocodiles and birds, dinosaurs' closest living relatives, were also common among dinosaurs.
You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains. When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.
-
You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains. When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.
There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.
Wood rots.
Metal corrodes.
But solid rock stays around forever.
-
Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.
No problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2178920.stm
See this is how it's done Mrs Peach. It's not hard is it?
However, the eye catching headline is all hooked around this one unscientific sentence:
"Although many animals use tools, purposeful modification of objects to solve new problems, without training or prior experience, is virtually unknown," adds Professor Kacelnik.
That article was written in 2002. This is no longer true For example:
Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals -- the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.
However, it is true that the point remains, regardless of comparative work, which can be deceptive, crows can fashion crude tools.
However, crows bending wire does not a seafaring nation of dinosaurs make.
The smartest dinosaurs are rated at about ostrich level.
There's no real evidence to support that, either. All we have to go on is encephalization quotient, and that's a really dodgy method.
Th EQ is all we can go on, at the moment, to estimate the dinosaurs intelligence. In fact the EQ was good enough for James before it was pointed out that he had completely misunderstood what it meant. Oh dear. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.0) You now want to throw it away because it doesn't agree with your preformed conclusions?
For example, Dolphins have a far larger EQ than any primate besides humans, yet most scientists agree that Chimpanzees are probably smarter than Dolphins.
No I doubt your broad generalisations are true. There is much debate about which is the smartest, probably due to the difficulty in observing both parties exhibit their intelligence. It seems broadly true that they have similar intelligence with aspects such as planning, self recognition, mimicry and so forth.
The EQ is a broad comparative measure that holds true for most animal groups alive today. The reason it's probably skewed for dophins is because they hunt by echo-location. Something chimpanzees don't do.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/smarter.html
There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.
Wood rots.
Orly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood
-
However, the eye catching headline is all hooked around this one unscientific sentence:
"Although many animals use tools, purposeful modification of objects to solve new problems, without training or prior experience, is virtually unknown," adds Professor Kacelnik.
That article was written in 2002. This is no longer true For example:
Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals -- the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.
However, it is true that the point remains, regardless of comparative work, which can be deceptive, crows can fashion crude tools.
I used that article in particular because it had very emphatic quotes. However, crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals. You can find many different studies which reach the same conclusion via a quick google, all from recent years.
However, crows bending wire does not a seafaring nation of dinosaurs make.
True enough, but if crows can construct tools and use them in complex tasks, then I really don't see why we cannot speculate that dinosaurs could do the same, and perhaps more. Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.
Th EQ is all we can go on, at the moment, to estimate the dinosaurs intelligence. In fact the EQ was good enough for James before it was pointed out that he had completely misunderstood what it meant. Oh dear. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.0) You now want to throw it away because it doesn't agree with your preformed conclusions?
I really don't feel that's true:
"The size of a brain does not dictate its intelligence, although in some species it can be indicative of it. The cereberal cortex, a relatively small part of the brain, plays a crucial role in the intelligence of an animal, the size and configuration of which do not necessarily correlate with the size of the whole brain. You have no idea how dinosaurs compared in intelligence to modern animals."
The EQ, as I just said... so yes, I have a pretty good idea how dinousaurs compared in intelligence to moderne animals
No, you are wrong. The configuration of the cerebral cortex can potentially affect intelligence far more than brain-body ratio. Dolphins, for example, have a very high brain-body ratio, but they are also phenomenally stupid.
No I doubt your broad generalisations are true. There is much debate about which is the smartest, probably due to the difficulty in observing both parties exhibit their intelligence. It seems broadly true that they have similar intelligence with aspects such as planning, self recognition, mimicry and so forth.
The EQ is a broad comparative measure that holds true for most animal groups alive today. The reason it's probably skewed for dophins is because they hunt by echo-location. Something chimpanzees don't do.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/smarter.html
Well, it's necessary to generalise to some degree, when the subject is the position of the entire scientific community. It makes a lot more sense than taking the view of one group of scientists and taking that alone as the truth. I'm not denying there's debate on the subject, but through a few quick, intelligent searches it's fairly easy to conclude that most scientists rate Dolphins as less intelligent than, say, chimpanzees.
-
You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains. When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.
There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.
Wood rots.
Metal corrodes.
But solid rock stays around forever.
*sigh* Tom, are you serious? Can you say "petrified wood"? I knew that you could.
Petrified wood (from the Greek root "petro" meaning "rock" or "stone", literally "wood turned into stone") is a type of fossil: it consists of fossil wood where all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals (most often a silicate, such as quartz), while retaining the original structure of the wood.
If 250 million year old dinosaur skeletons can be preserved through fossilization, then why couldn't their boats?
-
How many petrified human boats have been found? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to guess not that many, but maybe you'll prove me wrong. How many have been found that weren't built in the last thouand years? How many Roman and Greek Galleys have we found?
-
How many petrified human boats have been found? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to guess not that many, but maybe you'll prove me wrong. How many have been found that weren't built in the last thouand years? How many Roman and Greek Galleys have we found?
Quite a few actually, but you are right that it is not a huge number. We have even found a number of Phoenician ships, and I think they recently found one in England, though I will have to find the article.
-
However, crows bending wire does not a seafaring nation of dinosaurs make.
True enough, but if crows can construct tools and use them in complex tasks, then I really don't see why we cannot speculate that dinosaurs could do the same, and perhaps more. Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.
A bird reaching visible food to eat so it can stay alive is incomparable to a reptile crossing the sea, essentially to 'see what happens'.
-
Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.
-
Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.
If you can't see land over the ocean, you'd have no reason to assume there was any.
-
Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.
If you can't see land over the ocean, you'd have no reason to assume there was any.
Where can you see Hawaii from? Or New Zealand?
For a wonderful, fictional account of how Hawaii may have been colonised, I highly reccomend James Michener's epic novel:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5149RWBHYHL.jpg)
-
Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.
If you can't see land over the ocean, you'd have no reason to assume there was any.
Where can you see Hawaii from? Or New Zealand?
For a wonderful, fictional account of how Hawaii may have been colonised, I highly reccomend James Michener's epic novel:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5149RWBHYHL.jpg)
I was going to mention this. You can't see it from anywhere; this is why it is astonishing that people did colonise these islands. Let's assume dinosaurs could also. How did they get to America?
-
However, crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.
Feel free to show me a study which shows crows going beyond the chimpanzees creation of spears to hunt small game. I've not seen one.
True enough, but if crows can construct tools and use them in complex tasks, then I really don't see why we cannot speculate that dinosaurs could do the same, and perhaps more.
We can't make such speculation because crows haven't built boats, and they aren't dinosaurs.
...Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.
No it doesn't.
I really don't feel that's true:
No, you are wrong. The configuration of the cerebral cortex can potentially affect intelligence far more than brain-body ratio. Dolphins, for example, have a very high brain-body ratio, but they are also phenomenally stupid.
So you want me to take someone who's opinion is that "dolphins" are stupid over the opinion of countless academics. Interesting.
How many petrified human boats have been found? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to guess not that many, but maybe you'll prove me wrong. How many have been found that weren't built in the last thouand years? How many Roman and Greek Galleys have we found?
You need to get an understanding of how long it takes to petrify wood.
There are countless Roman and Greek galleys found. If they were left a few hundred million years instead of a few thousand then they would petrify. Nice fail.
-
Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.
No it doesn't. Not at all.
Yes it does. James has talked about this in past, so use the search function. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you to posts you could easily find yourself.
I'm assuming this is the evidence I was searching the forum for:
Go to your nearest natural history museum. Fossil distributions which indicate the existence of individuals of the same species on different continents testify to the fact that dinosaurs built boats and colonised the world.
and:
Since the distribution of modern wild flora and fauna is a direct result of the distribution of prehistoric flora and fauna, I will continue. The continents have always been roughly as they are now, though sea-levels have fluctuated throughout natural history. The simple fact of the matter regarding fossil and biological evidence is that dinosaurs travelled between the continents using boats, often taking their crops and livestock with them. In this way, species of the same genus colonised much of the world's landmass, just as humanity has done millions of years later.
The same evidence could then testify to the fact that dinosaurs got there through the building of gliders. They had ample evidence that flight was possible. Perhaps they preceeded the Wright brothers by millions of years.
I'd still like to know how far you think they could have gone given birds can make simple tools. Did they have a system of irrigation for their crops and a farming community to support their livestock? Could they have made processed foods and goods from these? I mean it's not that far of a leap to think that if they were producing crops for a purpose that they could process those crops to make other foods.
-
However, crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.
Feel free to show me a study which shows crows going beyond the chimpanzees creation of spears to hunt small game. I've not seen one.
No problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8182446.stm
Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.
We can't make such speculation because crows haven't built boats, and they aren't dinosaurs.
Then any and all comparison with other animals is rendered obsolete. Say goodbye to your EQ comparisons.
...Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
So you want me to take someone who's opinion is that "dolphins" are stupid over the opinion of countless academics. Interesting.
You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense. You claimed James though EQ was a valid means of comparison. The quote I supplied proves otherwise.
www.rif.org
You need to get an understanding of how long it takes to petrify wood.
There are countless Roman and Greek galleys found. If they were left a few hundred million years instead of a few thousand then they would petrify. Nice fail.
From the link you provided earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood
In general, wood takes less than 100 years to petrify.
www.rif.org
-
How many petrified human boats have been found? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to guess not that many, but maybe you'll prove me wrong. How many have been found that weren't built in the last thouand years? How many Roman and Greek Galleys have we found?
*sigh*
? 2008-07-28 18:21 Ancient Greek ship fished from sea Vessel found off Sicilian coast is the largest of its kind
(ANSA) - Gela, July 28 - An ancient Greek trading ship that had lain on the seabed off the coast of Gela in southern Sicily for 2,500 years was brought to the surface for the first time on Monday. The ancient Greek vessel is 21 metres long and 6.5 metres wide, making it by far the biggest of its kind ever discovered. Four Greek vessels found off the coasts of Israel, Cyprus and France are at most 15 metres long.
The one in Gela is also of particular value for scholars who will be able to delve into Greek naval construction techniques thanks to the amazing find of still-intact hemp ropes used to 'sew' together the pine planks in its hull - a technique described in Homer's Iliad. ''Gela's ancient ship is the patrimony not only of Sicily but of all humanity,'' said Sicily's regional councillor for culture Antonello Antinoro, who watched Monday's operation.
One of the most exciting ancient Greek naval finds was discovered off the northern coast of Cyprus in the 1960s. The wreck of Kyrenia ? a port town in northern Cyprus - was explored by a team of experts in 1967 and recovery work began in 1968.
The wreck was the most well preserved maritime find of its type in the world and was recovered in 6,000 pieces, having been protected in the mud and sand of the sea-bottom.
Well, that took me all of about two minutes to Google.
-
Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.
No apes can use several tools. They have also been observed whittling their own spears. Those crows were given the tools and given the opportunity to figure out which one to use where. Again your fail is showing.
Then any and all comparison with other animals is rendered obsolete. Say goodbye to your EQ comparisons.
Nope. Even the EQ comparison would not suggest dinosaurs built boats. It might suggest dinosaurs could use twigs to get at nuts down a hole though.
...Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
No. Insisting it is so does not make it so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense. You claimed James though EQ was a valid means of comparison. The quote I supplied proves otherwise.
No. I said James used the EQ comparison to insist dinosaurs were capable of building boats. Then he was shown that he'd mis-applied the science. Then he changed his mind and decided that EQ didn't matter anymore. These facts remain true. Read the thread I linked to.
From the link you provided earlier:
In general, wood takes less than 100 years to petrify.
You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense. We have found boats from Roman and Greek civilisations. They weren't petrified. If they were left long enough they would be.
-
You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains. When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.
There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.
Wood rots.
Metal corrodes.
But solid rock stays around forever.
*sigh* Tom, are you serious? Can you say "petrified wood"? I knew that you could.
Petrified wood (from the Greek root "petro" meaning "rock" or "stone", literally "wood turned into stone") is a type of fossil: it consists of fossil wood where all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals (most often a silicate, such as quartz), while retaining the original structure of the wood.
If 250 million year old dinosaur skeletons can be preserved through fossilization, then why couldn't their boats?
Wood doesn't petrify at the bottom of the ocean.
When a ship is no longer in use, you sink it. The NAVY does it all the time.
-
The Navy still uses wood to build its ships? Shit!
Also, you are saying that the dinosaurs were successful. Ergo, the boats made it to land. Wood petrifies on land, and I'm fairly sure it's not literally impossible for it to happen underwater.
-
Well, that took me all of about two minutes to Google.
Sorry, I had class, and I have a lot of work this week. They were two minutes I didn't have. Anyway, as I said, I was genuinely curious, and seems I was right. We don't have many boats from that period. Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.
Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.
No apes can use several tools. They have also been observed whittling their own spears. Those crows were given the tools and given the opportunity to figure out which one to use where. Again your fail is showing.
Crows have been shown creating their own tools, and not just spears ('pointy object bad'), but (relatively) complex tools for manipulating other objects. They have also shown the capacity to use several tools for different purposes. You're attempting to point out a 'fail' that was never there. Nothing you've said contradicts anything in my original statement.
Nope. Even the EQ comparison would not suggest dinosaurs built boats. It might suggest dinosaurs could use twigs to get at nuts down a hole though.
Sorry, but you can't pick and choose when speculation is and isn't acceptable. Stop flip-flopping. I really don't mind which you pick, but you have to pick one.
No. Insisting it is so does not make it so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
Insisting it doesn't is no better. The difference is, we've provided evidence to back up our theory. You haven't.
You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense. We have found boats from Roman and Greek civilisations. They weren't petrified. If they were left long enough they would be.
What do you mean "if they were left ling enough"? The link YOU provided says that it takes less than a hundred years for wood to petrify. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the classical era began well over 2,000 years ago. You know, B.C., before cornflakes. Why would they need to be there any longer?
-
You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains. When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.
There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.
Wood rots.
Metal corrodes.
But solid rock stays around forever.
*sigh* Tom, are you serious? Can you say "petrified wood"? I knew that you could.
Petrified wood (from the Greek root "petro" meaning "rock" or "stone", literally "wood turned into stone") is a type of fossil: it consists of fossil wood where all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals (most often a silicate, such as quartz), while retaining the original structure of the wood.
If 250 million year old dinosaur skeletons can be preserved through fossilization, then why couldn't their boats?
Wood doesn't petrify at the bottom of the ocean.
When a ship is no longer in use, you sink it. The NAVY does it all the time.
The dino Navy scuttles its ships. I love this thread!
-
Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work. Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.
Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.
I never knew that lack of evidence was supporting evidence.
-
Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.
I never knew that lack of evidence was supporting evidence.
I didn't claim it was. You guys are the ones expecting there to be fossilised boats. I'm just pointing out that to do so is completely unrealistic.
-
Nothing you've said contradicts anything in my original statement.
Then you weren't paying attention. You claimed:
crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.
And I said I doubt it. Look at these monkeys making spears to hunt with.
And you said:
Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.
I then told you apes don't use just one tool to aquire food. Here's an article. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=on-the-job-chimps-use-multiple-tool-09-09-09) And another. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31066482/)
So you gave us a crow that can use the different tools it's given for different purposes.
Crows: Different length sticks. Can also bend sticks.
Chimps: Spears, hammers, drills, pounders, enlargers, collectors, perforators and swabbers.
And you want us to believe that crows have gone beyond what has been observed in other animals? That's prime failsteak.
Sorry, but you can't pick and choose when speculation is and isn't acceptable.
I can. One uses a reasonable comparison of brain size in comparable species to infer comparable intelligence and skills.
The other uses... wishful thinking?
Insisting it doesn't is no better. The difference is, we've provided evidence to back up our theory. You haven't.
No. No you haven't. Pretending you have is even worse. How dull.
What do you mean "if they were left ling enough"? The link YOU provided says that it takes less than a hundred years for wood to petrify. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the classical era began well over 2,000 years ago. You know, B.C., before cornflakes. Why would they need to be there any longer?
Oh dear lord.
The petrified wood that we find today was petrified relatively quickly. However they were petrified millions of years ago. It's all about the conditions they find themselves in, the chemicals in the ground necessary to create petrification. Volcanic ash is supposed to be good.
Wood is preserved by denying bacteria, oxygen and disturbance. It is then petrified by silicates. If the silicates are in abundance as was the case millions of years ago, then the process can be quick. If not, then it'll take longer.
Strangely, the same conditions that would be preserving wood at the time of the dinosaurs would also be preserving boats. Hmm.
-
So you gave us a crow that can use the different tools it's given for different purposes.
Incorrect: I gave you a crow that was able to use several tools towards the same goal, in sequence. This is not the same as an ape using a spear to kill prey and a leaf to wipe its ass when it's done digesting said prey. Using multiple tools for different tasks is totally different to using multiple tools in the same task.
I can. One uses a reasonable comparison of brain size in comparable species to infer comparable intelligence and skills.
The other uses... wishful thinking?
The other uses a reasonable comparison with animals that have a similar capability. If the best dinosaur experts in the world can compare them with birds, why can't we? The simple answer is that we can.
No. No you haven't. Pretending you have is even worse. How dull.
Do you actually have anything to contribute? Because as it stands, we've presented an argument, and you're just shaking bleating 'no'.
Oh dear lord.
The petrified wood that we find today was petrified relatively quickly. However they were petrified millions of years ago. It's all about the conditions they find themselves in, the chemicals in the ground necessary to create petrification. Volcanic ash is supposed to be good.
Wood is preserved by denying bacteria, oxygen and disturbance. It is then petrified by silicates. If the silicates are in abundance as was the case millions of years ago, then the process can be quick. If not, then it'll take longer.
Strangely, the same conditions that would be preserving wood at the time of the dinosaurs would also be preserving boats. Hmm.
Ah, so now you're claiming that the conditions during the period in question were exceptionally propitious for the petrification of wood. Can you back this up with evidence of an abundance of petrified wood dating from, say, the Cretaceous period? You're going to need to prove that more petrified wood dates from this period than other periods in history, because otherwise, you're making pie in the sky claims.
-
Well, that took me all of about two minutes to Google.
Sorry, I had class, and I have a lot of work this week. They were two minutes I didn't have.
And yet, you found the time to post. :-X
Anyway, as I said, I was genuinely curious, and seems I was right. We don't have many boats from that period. Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.
And yet we find dinosaur bones and petrified trees from that time frame. Funny, don't you think?
-
Using multiple tools for different tasks is totally different to using multiple tools in the same task.
Probably so.
You said this:
crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.
I showed how wrong you were. Worming about with combinations of tools and tasks gets you nowhere. How embarrassing.
The other uses a reasonable comparison with animals that have a similar capability. If the best dinosaur experts in the world can compare them with birds, why can't we? The simple answer is that we can.
Yes. You could propose that dinosaurs were able to use sticks to get bugs out of holes. This is what I said earIier and you berated me for it. Now you're agreeing with me. Flip flop much?
Do you actually have anything to contribute? Because as it stands, we've presented an argument, and you're just shaking bleating 'no'.
As it stands you've pretended that you had some evidence. I said no. You kept saying you had without showing it. *shrugs* I can stamp my feet like a five year old too.
You're going to need to prove that more petrified wood dates from this period than other periods in history, because otherwise, you're making pie in the sky claims.
No. I just need to explain even more slowly the requirements for making petrified wood.
Around 225 million years ago, during the Triassic Era, the wood was covered up by either volcanic ash, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes or materials washed in by violent floods. This prevented oxygen from reaching the wood and prevented decay. Silica dissolved in ground water got into the individual cells and chemically effected them taking on a variety of forms; agate, jasper, chalcedony or opal. The beautiful colors are caused by other minerals that are mixed with the silica. Iron Oxide stains the wood orange, rust, red or yellow. Maganese oxide produces blues, blacks or purple.
Wood must first be covered with such agents as volcanic ash, volcanic lava flow, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes and swamps or material washed in by violent floods - by any means which would exclude oxygen and thus prevent decay.
You need to have water of the right chemical composition moving through the wood. It tends to be silica is the best chemical for replacing the wood. It actually reacts with cellulose and leaves a cells structure and gets bound in. Over millions of years it gradually changes from this strange mixture of cellulose and silica into opal and into a more crystallised form of silica. If you just randomly bang fence posts into British soil then probably it would take thousands of years to petrify a piece of wood in anything like normal conditions. If you have a fence post and throw it into, for instance, some of the hot springs in Yellowstone National Park then, yes you might get a decent piece of petrified wood out the end of it. That?s very unusual.
And sooooooo on....
-
And yet we find dinosaur bones and petrified trees from that time frame. Funny, don't you think?
Did they petrify at the bottom of the ocean?
-
And yet we find dinosaur bones and petrified trees from that time frame. Funny, don't you think?
Did they petrify at the bottom of the ocean?
They petrified in mud and/or silt. Guess what's at the bottom of the ocean. Did you think that all fossils of marine dinosaurs are fresh water dinos? ???
-
Using multiple tools for different tasks is totally different to using multiple tools in the same task.
Probably so.
You said this:
crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.
I showed how wrong you were. Worming about with combinations of tools and tasks gets you nowhere. How embarrassing.
You've done no such thing, because you've provided no evidence of apes doing the same thing. Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
Yes. You could propose that dinosaurs were able to use sticks to get bugs out of holes. This is what I said earIier and you berated me for it. Now you're agreeing with me. Flip flop much?
But we have shown that birds can do far more than that! They can create tools and build floating structures.
As it stands you've pretended that you had some evidence. I said no. You kept saying you had without showing it. *shrugs* I can stamp my feet like a five year old too.
Sorry, but we've presented arguments complete with analysis of the fossil record in other threads, threads which you have linked to (and thus are aware of). You have said nothing in this thread which counters what we have said in previous threads.
No. I just need to explain even more slowly the requirements for making petrified wood.
Around 225 million years ago, during the Triassic Era, the wood was covered up by either volcanic ash, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes or materials washed in by violent floods. This prevented oxygen from reaching the wood and prevented decay. Silica dissolved in ground water got into the individual cells and chemically effected them taking on a variety of forms; agate, jasper, chalcedony or opal. The beautiful colors are caused by other minerals that are mixed with the silica. Iron Oxide stains the wood orange, rust, red or yellow. Maganese oxide produces blues, blacks or purple.
Wood must first be covered with such agents as volcanic ash, volcanic lava flow, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes and swamps or material washed in by violent floods - by any means which would exclude oxygen and thus prevent decay.
You need to have water of the right chemical composition moving through the wood. It tends to be silica is the best chemical for replacing the wood. It actually reacts with cellulose and leaves a cells structure and gets bound in. Over millions of years it gradually changes from this strange mixture of cellulose and silica into opal and into a more crystallised form of silica. If you just randomly bang fence posts into British soil then probably it would take thousands of years to petrify a piece of wood in anything like normal conditions. If you have a fence post and throw it into, for instance, some of the hot springs in Yellowstone National Park then, yes you might get a decent piece of petrified wood out the end of it. That?s very unusual.
And sooooooo on....
Very interesting. Why does any of this make it more likely that boats from the cretaceous period would be petrified than boats constructed by humans? After all, we've found a few human boats from thousands of years ago, and Austalias was settled by humans around 40,000 years ago. According to your sources, that's plenty of time for petrification. Yet, we haven't found any ancient Australian boats.
-
You've done no such thing, because you've provided no evidence of apes doing the same thing.
I cannot be held responsible for your failure to read the evidence provided.
Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.
But we have shown that birds can do far more than that! They can create tools and build floating structures.
No not really. See the links you provided for details.
A few birds can build a floating nest from reeds. They are often acnhored to the shoreline/marshes.
A floating nest does not a seafaring dinotopia create.
Sorry, but we've presented arguments complete with analysis of the fossil record in other threads,.
If there is fossil evidence then post it. I have seen no evidence here or in any other threads.
Very interesting. Why does any of this make it more likely that boats from the cretaceous period would be petrified than boats constructed by humans?
Because once a boat is removed from sources of decomposition the time for petrification can vary depending on the availability of silicate to complete the petrification.
There was plenty of silicate during the Cretaceous, as witnessed by the amounts of petrified wood from the Cretaceous period. Indeed there's plenty of petrified wood in Australia. Yet no dino boats. Anywhere.
-
The biggest problem with the whole theory is that the development of technology does not exist in a vacuum. It is an cumulative process, where one discovery leads to another. Boat or raft making requires a number of individual technologies to make it viable, not it the least rope making and stone tools at the least.
-
Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
LOL, is that the only thing you think apes ever made? Ever see a chimp fish for termites or ants?
-
The biggest problem with the whole theory is that the development of technology does not exist in a vacuum. It is an cumulative process, where one discovery leads to another. Boat or raft making requires a number of individual technologies to make it viable, not it the least rope making and stone tools at the least.
Furthermore, a civilization does not just create boats. If at all, it incrementally creates solutions for every aspect of its life, including food, shelter, safety, transportation, social structure, preservation of knowledge, just to mention a few.
We are not looking just for a 100 million old boat, we are looking for every other evidence of civilization as well. We have even found dinosaur excrement but we still have not found the first stone or metal artifact, the first dumping ground, the first 100 million year old bone with markings that are not made with teeth.
As a matter of cheap philosophy, we can argue that anything is possible. But as a matter of simple common sense, what will you expect to find from humanity, for example, after 65 million years of extinction: only fossilized bones, or mostly concrete and stone ruins, hundreds of square kilometers of altered terrain, huge deposits of metal oxides, maybe even a dumpster or two? And, sure, a few fossilized bones, of course. Every human being leaves behind several tons of assorted objects but just 30 kilograms of bone, which in most cases is decomposed before it gets fossilized. Every civilized dinosaur would be similar to this.
-
I didn't claim it was. You guys are the ones expecting there to be fossilised boats. I'm just pointing out that to do so is completely unrealistic.
Never would I expect there to be fossilized evidence of boats used by dinousaurs to ferry freight across the ocean. The claim was that the fossil record supported sea travel by dinosaurs, yet the claim is that there is no fossilized evidence of this sea travel.
-
You've done no such thing, because you've provided no evidence of apes doing the same thing.
I cannot be held responsible for your failure to read the evidence provided.
Right back atchya'.
That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.
No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.
But we have shown that birds can do far more than that! They can create tools and build floating structures.
No not really. See the links you provided for details.
A few birds can build a floating nest from reeds. They are often acnhored to the shoreline/marshes.
A floating nest does not a seafaring dinotopia create.[/quote]
The ability to build rafts would, however, and we have shown this to be possible.
If there is fossil evidence then post it. I have seen no evidence here or in any other threads.
Then you haven't even read the threads you claim to have read, though that's no surprise, as I've already demonstrated thay you misunderstood James' opinions on EQ. The evidence I'm talking about was posted by James in a thread you linked.
There was plenty of silicate during the Cretaceous, as witnessed by the amounts of petrified wood from the Cretaceous period. Indeed there's plenty of petrified wood in Australia. Yet no dino boats. Anywhere.
Please provide us with evidence that there is more petrified wood from that period than from, say, 40,000 years ago.
I didn't claim it was. You guys are the ones expecting there to be fossilised boats. I'm just pointing out that to do so is completely unrealistic.
Never would I expect there to be fossilized evidence of boats used by dinousaurs to ferry freight across the ocean. The claim was that the fossil record supported sea travel by dinosaurs, yet the claim is that there is no fossilized evidence of this sea travel.
There is no fossil evidence of the boats, and I never claimed there was. That would be a fairly contradictory position to hold. The evidence I am talking about has actually been linked to in this thread, but as usual none of you can be bothered to look. Here is one example:
Here are some images of the dromaeosaur races Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, and their common ancestor, Deinonychus:
Adasaurus, pictured gingerly cradling its young in its nimble clawed hands.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/adasauro.jpg)
Dromaeosaurus, a cousin of the Adasaurus, who would have existed during the same period as the Adasaurus (the late cretacious), but on different continents.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Avian_Dromaeosaurus_03_10.jpg)
Deinonychus, the ancestor of the Dromaeosauruses and the Adasauruses.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/walters_deinonychus.jpg)
The natural history of the dromaeosaurs is a good example of the kinds of developments which the dinosaurs as a whole would have undergone. Fossil evidence indicates that Deinonychus originated in North America during the early cretacious period.
Deinonychus are thought to have been highly social, organising themselves into complex communities in order to work together. During their development, Deinonychus evolved an iconic five-inch claw on the foot, which was highly dexterous, and could be retracted and moved back and forth. Initially, this would have served a purpose in hunting and combat, though it would later have been useful in the performance of complex motor skills such as puncturing fabrics, making written inscriptions and so on. The special success of this early dromaeosaur is partly explicable by its long tail, which acting as a counterbalance allowed the use of both the hands and feet in dexterous activity.
The distribution of Deinonychus' descendants, the Adasuruses and Dromaeosauruses, suggests that one or more colonial expeditions sailed from the West Coast of North America and colonised the far East, probably landing in Japan and China and then spreading across the eastern part of Eurasia.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/npo.jpg)
Above: The Pacific Ocean
Travel between the colonies during this period seems to have been very limited, because the two previously homogenous groups of dromaeosaur began to evolve minor racial adaptions which distinguished them from one another, though they retained all of the major characteristics of the dromaeosaur species. The fact that these groups proceeded to evolve on the micro scale along different lines despite their immediate proximity in the faulty "pangea" model is testament to the fact that ocean seperated them, much as it does today.
The colonist Deinonychuses who reached the far east adapted in a number of ways. Adasauruses, probably due to massively increased tool usage and the removal of the necessity to be involved in violence as their civilisation progressed, developed much smaller foot-claws than their ancestors. A smaller claw would have been much more suitable for precision tasks like inscription, manipulation of cloth and fine materials and so on, and marks the transition from its role as a mechanism of hunting and combat to its role as an additional dexterous digit. In the absence of the selection pressures brought on by the development of a civilisation, and the mastery of the surrounding wildlife and other hazards, Adasauruses' bodies became smaller than those of their Deinonychus ancestors, who had needed to be larger because their lifestyle was primarily one based around hunting and conflict. Fossil evidence suggests that the Saurolophus, a herbiverous, docile grazing dinosaur, originating in North America, also appeared in the far East at roughly the same time, making it likely that the first Deinonychian colonists brought specimens with them on the transcontinental voyage, and probably began to farm them for food (they would have previous been hunted by tribes of Deinonychus living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the American continent). The advent of an agrarian society based on the pasturing of Saurolophus would remove the necessity for the brutalities of hunting. In order to bring down a wild Saurolophus, tribal warriors would have needed considerable bulk and might as well as cunning, but their agrarian descendants needed no such unneccessary brawn, which explains their shrinking - the average Adasaurus living during the late cretacious was around 8 feet long, whereas a North American Deinonychus of the early cretacious period, who would have had to hunt the large wild Saurolophus and Tenontosaurus (probably hunted to extinction by early Deinonychian hunters, explaining why it was not exported to the far east along with Saurolophus) would have measured 11 feet long.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/pacific_ocean_image_t1677.jpg)
Above: The west coast of North America. Groups of pioneering Deinonychus, who would later microevolve into the Asasauruses, would have set sail from shores such as these.
The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines. The Dromaeosaurus, from which the species derives its name, were Deinonychus who remained in North America. Their adaption did not include such an acute reduction in claw size as the the Adasaurus, but their body size decreased significantly, to around 6 feet long. Again, this is attributable to the development of farming, primarily of the tamed Saurolophus. That the Dromaeosauruses did not develop the highly precise small-claw of the Adasauruses suggests that they may not have involved themselves so heavily in activities such as writing. Dromaeosauruses developed a coat of downy feathers, which might suggest that colder climates prevailed in North America at this time. Their smaller size than the Adasaurus could also be indicative of evolutionary adaption in order to conserve heat. If temperatures did drop for the Dromaeosaurs entering the Late Cretacious, perhaps their society was a more rugged one, and the harsh realities of surviving the cold winters precluded such an extensive focus on writing, hence the lack of precision small-foot-claw adaption shown in the Adasaurus. The evolution of their tails gave greater flexibility and may have been indicative of adaption in favour of some civilised activity, since the balancing capability of the tail enables enhanced use not only of the forelimbs but also the foot claw.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/saurolophusC.jpg)
Above: Saurolophus. These gentle giants were probably first hunted by the North American Deinonychus, and later herded and grazed by them when farming entered their culture just prior to the colonisation era, and splitting of Asasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, the two Deinonychus descendant races.
So, fossil remains suggest that as intelligent Deinonychus became highly successful hunter-gatherers during the Early Cretacious, conquering the entire North American continent with such rampant success that they drove one of their main prey animals, the Tenontosaurus, to extinction. It is likely that the advent of Saurolophus domestication roughly coincided with, or just preceded, the maritime renaissance and colonisation period. The tendency of agrarian societies to promote massive population growth is clear, and in this scenario, facing scarcity of land and dropping temperatures, some of the Deinonychus would have begun their colonisation of China and the far East, taking with them livestock as well as elements of the budding culture of North America. Fossil evidence suggests that the Adasaurus society was massively successful, placing some of their near relatives as far afield as Denmark. An empire the size of Alexander the Great's would no doubt have been underpinned by careful organisation and a culture steeped in the written word and refinements of erudition. Meanwhile, as the Late Cretacious brought colder climates in North America, the remaining American Deinonychus grew smaller, hairier and more rugged as they faced the elements as best they could, thought they still retained their agriculture and some vestements of civilisation.
-
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
-
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
-
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Yes, but all birds build are nests. Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
-
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Yes, but all birds build are nests. Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Nests are usually made out of wood. Wood has a density that will float.
-
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Not in a sophisticated way capable of carrying more information than "Im here" though.
-
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Yes, but all birds build are nests. Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Therefore what? Termites also build nests out of material that is capable of floating. Do they make boats?
Nests are usually made out of wood. Wood has a density that will float.
-
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Not in a sophisticated way capable of carrying more information than "Im here" though.
Birds fly together for thousands of miles and hunt together in packs. That seems pretty sophisticated to me.
-
Yes, but all birds build are nests. Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Nests are usually made out of wood. Wood has a density that will float.
Depending on the species of bird, nests can be made of grass, mud, twigs, string or just about anything else. However, most of these nests are built either on or above the ground. Only a very few bird species build nests on the water. Besides, why are we even discussing bird nests when dinosaur nests are more likely to resemble reptile nests than bird nests.
University of Colorado at Boulder and Emory University researchers have discovered scores of ancient reptile nests in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park, believed to be the oldest such nests ever found.
The fossil nests, dating to about 220 million years ago, are similar to modern-day crocodile and turtle nests, said Stephen Hasiotis, the CU-Boulder research associate who discovered them. Hasiotis and colleague Anthony Martin of Emory University in Atlanta believe the nests extend the fossil record of reptile nests by roughly 110 million years.
Can anyone provide any evidence of floating reptile nests?
-
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Not in a sophisticated way capable of carrying more information than "Im here" though.
Birds fly together for thousands of miles and hunt together in packs. That seems pretty sophisticated to me.
Of course is "seems sophisticated" to you, since you take a VERY simplistic view of how things function. It takes far less information exchange to fly in formation or to loosely coordinate (and I do mean loosely) a hunting behavior then it does to explain the creation of a tool to someone.
-
There is no fossil evidence of the boats, and I never claimed there was. That would be a fairly contradictory position to hold. The evidence I am talking about has actually been linked to in this thread, but as usual none of you can be bothered to look. Here is one example:
What you linked isn't evidence. Yes I found some of it, no I'm not going to endlessly search.
-
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
I can't believe you are as dense as this.
-
Yes, but all birds build are nests. Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Nests are usually made out of wood. Wood has a density that will float.
Depending on the species of bird, nests can be made of grass, mud, twigs, string or just about anything else. However, most of these nests are built either on or above the ground. Only a very few bird species build nests on the water. Besides, why are we even discussing bird nests when dinosaur nests are more likely to resemble reptile nests than bird nests.
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
-
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Not in a sophisticated way capable of carrying more information than "Im here" though.
Birds fly together for thousands of miles and hunt together in packs. That seems pretty sophisticated to me.
Of course is "seems sophisticated" to you, since you take a VERY simplistic view of how things function. It takes far less information exchange to fly in formation or to loosely coordinate (and I do mean loosely) a hunting behavior then it does to explain the creation of a tool to someone.
The birds that fly in the "V" formation have a system of switching position to maximize speed and endurance. That is not "loose". Birds certainly have the capacity to do advanced mental functions.
-
That is hardly an "advanced mental capacity", considering it is largely instinctual behavior.
-
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
I'm saying that modern birds may have descended from dinosaurs, but modern birds are not dinosaurs, so I don't see how you can apply bird behavior to dinosaur behavior. Modern birds are more than a steps up the evolutionary ladder than dinosaurs. Modern reptiles such as alligators are much closer to dinosaurs than modern birds are. Show me a modern reptile that builds floating nests and then I'll give the boat building dinosaur fantasy some more consideration. Otherwise, you're just grasping at straws.
-
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
I'm saying that modern birds may have descended from dinosaurs, but modern birds are not dinosaurs, so I don't see how you can apply bird behavior to dinosaur behavior. Modern birds are more than a steps up the evolutionary ladder than dinosaurs. Modern reptiles such as alligators are much closer to dinosaurs than modern birds are. Show me a modern reptile that builds floating nests and then I'll give the boat building dinosaur fantasy some more consideration. Otherwise, you're just grasping at straws.
Proof?
-
Modern birds are more than a steps up the evolutionary ladder than dinosaurs.
You're making the rather large assumption that they got smarter as they got smaller.
-
Modern birds are more than a steps up the evolutionary ladder than dinosaurs.
You're making the rather large assumption that they got smarter as they got smaller.
Modern birds and dinosaurs are completely different critters. You're the one making the rather large assumption that dinosaurs were all that smart to begin with.
-
Modern birds and dinosaurs are completely different critters. You're the one making the rather large assumption that dinosaurs were all that smart to begin with.
"To begin with"?
Would that be the several billion years it took for them to become dinosaurs?
-
Modern birds and dinosaurs are completely different critters. You're the one making the rather large assumption that dinosaurs were all that smart to begin with.
"To begin with"?
Would that be the several billion years it took for them to become dinosaurs?
*sigh* No Tom, that would be the 200 million years or so that they were dinosaurs but weren't birds yet.
FYI Tom, using underline and italic tags is redundant as underlining text is a signal to the printer to use italics for the text being underlined during typesetting.
-
Modern birds and dinosaurs are completely different critters. You're the one making the rather large assumption that dinosaurs were all that smart to begin with.
"To begin with"?
Would that be the several billion years it took for them to become dinosaurs?
*sigh* No Tom, that would be the 200 million years or so that they were dinosaurs but weren't birds yet.
FYI Tom, using underline and italic tags is redundant as underlining text is a signal to the printer to use italics for the text being underlined during typesetting.
Several billion years to become dinosaurs seems to be only a little longer than the 200 million years it took to become birds.
Obviously they had to lose all sorts of stuff in order to become birds.
Why not intelligence?
-
Besides, why are we even discussing bird nests when dinosaur nests are more likely to resemble reptile nests than bird nests.
Why do you say that? Most scientists now agree that dinosaurs much have more in common with birds than modern reptiles, and many believe they were warm blooded to boot.
-
Did you guys skip this on purpose?
Yes, but all birds build are nests. Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Nests are usually made out of wood. Wood has a density that will float.
Depending on the species of bird, nests can be made of grass, mud, twigs, string or just about anything else. However, most of these nests are built either on or above the ground. Only a very few bird species build nests on the water. Besides, why are we even discussing bird nests when dinosaur nests are more likely to resemble reptile nests than bird nests.
University of Colorado at Boulder and Emory University researchers have discovered scores of ancient reptile nests in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park, believed to be the oldest such nests ever found.
The fossil nests, dating to about 220 million years ago, are similar to modern-day crocodile and turtle nests, said Stephen Hasiotis, the CU-Boulder research associate who discovered them. Hasiotis and colleague Anthony Martin of Emory University in Atlanta believe the nests extend the fossil record of reptile nests by roughly 110 million years.
Can anyone provide any evidence of floating reptile nests?
-
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
This is why people like you are confused and eventually angered by science: you make such broad generalizations that they finally have no sense at all.
First, all dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. There are theories where some dinosaurs are related to birds.
Second, there is no clear path yet between some dinosaurs (like the T-Rex, for example) and modern birds. Maybe they had a common ancestor, maybe they branched off when some big dinosaurs already existed. Maybe they are so close that both had feathers, maybe not. Maybe some dinosaurs were warm blooded, maybe not.
You are intermixing theory with hypothesis, different geological eras, well, you are intermixing every aspect of archeology just to give this "dinosaur boats" idea a chance. Science does not work like that.
-
Besides, why are we even discussing bird nests when dinosaur nests are more likely to resemble reptile nests than bird nests.
Why do you say that? Most scientists now agree that dinosaurs much have more in common with birds than modern reptiles, and many believe they were warm blooded to boot.
You are trying to use a very old misconception to make your weak point: Dinosaurs never have had much to do with reptiles. The very first archeologists made that mistake and tried by all means to show dinosaurs creeping along with their tails lying on the ground. This has been rectified decades ago and now the name "dinosaur", which means "terrible lizard", is kept for historical reasons only.
On the other hand, birds and dinosaurs have a closer relationship but one that is still being investigated. This does not mean their nests were similar to birds nests, for a simple reason: weight.
Birds can nest in trees, dinosaurs could not. Birds can make nests that stand their own weight, but dinosaurs could not, except maybe for the lightest ones. Every species has to use the materials that work for their weight.
-
Right back atchya'.
::) You really are refusing to read the evidence I gave you? That's cool.
No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.
Nope. Not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."
The point is rather academic. It doesn't matter which is "more impressive". A twig bending crow does not a dinotopia make.
A floating nest does not a seafaring dinotopia create.
The ability to build rafts would, however, and we have shown this to be possible.
Once again, no you haven't.
Please provide us with evidence that there is more petrified wood from that period than from, say, 40,000 years ago.
Why would I need to do that?! ??? If you think it'll help your argument there's a wikipedia article. Check the dates on all the petrified wood sites.
There is no fossil evidence of the boats
Oh good. I'm glad we got that sorted.
The evidence I am talking about has actually been linked to in this thread, but as usual none of you can be bothered to look. Here is one example:
...snip...
The colonist Deinonychuses who reached the far east adapted in a number of ways. Adasauruses, probably due to massively increased tool usage and the removal of the necessity to be involved in violence as their civilisation progressed, developed much smaller foot-claws than their ancestors. A smaller claw would have been much more suitable for precision tasks like inscription, manipulation of cloth and fine materials and so on, and marks the transition from its role as a mechanism of hunting and combat to its role as an additional dexterous digit.
Hold. On. Are you telling me your "source" is James?
The "source" whose theory is under discussion?
Your evidence for James being right about colonial seafaring dinosaurs is that James posted some stuff about colonial seafaring dinosaurs?
-
I'm still waiting for a summary of communication methods used by dinofarmers. The question got hijacked by Kathleen Amin back there.
-
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
This is why people like you are confused and eventually angered by science: you make such broad generalizations that they finally have no sense at all.
First, all dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. There are theories where some dinosaurs are related to birds.
Second, there is no clear path yet between some dinosaurs (like the T-Rex, for example) and modern birds. Maybe they had a common ancestor, maybe they branched off when some big dinosaurs already existed. Maybe they are so close that both had feathers, maybe not. Maybe some dinosaurs were warm blooded, maybe not.
You are intermixing theory with hypothesis, different geological eras, well, you are intermixing every aspect of archeology just to give this "dinosaur boats" idea a chance. Science does not work like that.
I have personally seen the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
-
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
This is why people like you are confused and eventually angered by science: you make such broad generalizations that they finally have no sense at all.
First, all dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. There are theories where some dinosaurs are related to birds.
Second, there is no clear path yet between some dinosaurs (like the T-Rex, for example) and modern birds. Maybe they had a common ancestor, maybe they branched off when some big dinosaurs already existed. Maybe they are so close that both had feathers, maybe not. Maybe some dinosaurs were warm blooded, maybe not.
You are intermixing theory with hypothesis, different geological eras, well, you are intermixing every aspect of archeology just to give this "dinosaur boats" idea a chance. Science does not work like that.
I have personally seen the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
One of many species of dinosaurs is the Archaeopteryx. There is no evidence yet to link it to either other dinosaurs or birds and there is no evidence whatsoever that it used any tools. Again, you can only come up with gross generalizations.
-
I have personally seen the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
I rater doubt that, unless you're much older than you let on. I'm guessing that you've personally seen the fossilized remains of Archeopteryx.
Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
But where is it said that dinosaurs and birds must have the same behavioral patterns?
-
Modern birds are more than a steps up the evolutionary ladder than dinosaurs.
You're making the rather large assumption that they got smarter as they got smaller.
Says the person claiming seafaring merchant dinosaurs.
-
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
This is why people like you are confused and eventually angered by science: you make such broad generalizations that they finally have no sense at all.
First, all dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. There are theories where some dinosaurs are related to birds.
Second, there is no clear path yet between some dinosaurs (like the T-Rex, for example) and modern birds. Maybe they had a common ancestor, maybe they branched off when some big dinosaurs already existed. Maybe they are so close that both had feathers, maybe not. Maybe some dinosaurs were warm blooded, maybe not.
You are intermixing theory with hypothesis, different geological eras, well, you are intermixing every aspect of archeology just to give this "dinosaur boats" idea a chance. Science does not work like that.
I have personally seen the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
One of many species of dinosaurs is the Archaeopteryx. There is no evidence yet to link it to either other dinosaurs or birds and there is no evidence whatsoever that it used any tools. Again, you can only come up with gross generalizations.
Archeopteryx is a bird. Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances. The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs. It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests
-
Archeopteryx is a bird. Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances. The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs. It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests
Which bird travels large distances in nests?
-
Archeopteryx is a bird.
No, Archeopteryx is a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds. Some of both, but not quite one or the other.
Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances.
What does building nests have to do with traveling large distances?
The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs.
OK, sure.
It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests
No, it doesn't. For one thing, it hasn't been established that birds use their nests to travel large distances.
-
Archeopteryx is a bird. Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances. The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs. It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests
Can I add you to the growing list of Colonial Seafaring Dinosaurs Believers?
(not floating nest builders)
-
I have personally seen the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
There's not enough evidence to say that is "pretty damn clear". On the face of it, humans look like they descended from apes, and apes look like they descended from monkeys. But that's not the case - all three share a common ancestor but none is descended from the other. They are three seperate primate branches. It's possible that archaeopteryx and dinosaurs evolved seperately from a common ancestor in the same way, but since there must be thousands of species that we have no fossils of at all, it's extremely difficult to work out the exact relationship between dinosaurs, birds and archaeopteryx.
-
Right back atchya'.
::) You really are refusing to read the evidence I gave you? That's cool.
I have read them, but they can't change the fact that this is what leading thinkers in the field have to say on the subject:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows.html
"No other animal?not even a chimp?has ever spontaneously solved a problem like this, a fact that puts crows in a class with us as toolmakers," Savage writes in her book.
Nope. Not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."
See above.
The point is rather academic. It doesn't matter which is "more impressive". A twig bending crow does not a dinotopia make.
The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.
Once again, no you haven't.
Yes we have! We've shown they have the capacity, both physically and mentally, and the fossil record supports us.
Why would I need to do that?! ???
To back up your unsubstantiated claims?
There is no fossil evidence of the boats
Oh good. I'm glad we got that sorted.
Hold. On. Are you telling me your "source" is James?
Why are you quoting the word 'source'? I never referred to it as a source. I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.
www.rif.org
-
::) You really are refusing to read the evidence I gave you? That's cool.
I have read them, but they can't change the fact that this is what leading thinkers in the field have to say on the subject:
So that researcher puts the crow in the same bracket as humans for that single problem solving task.
But again that's old research and apes/chimps/bonobos have shown they are adept at tool making and problem solving. See links provided.
It doesn't really matter. Arguing that crows are smarter than chimps achieves nothing.
A twig bending crow does not a seafaring dinotopia make.
The fossil record supports us;
No the fossil records support what they show. Bones of dinosaurs. If there's bones then there were once living dinosaurs. Assuming one out of a range of possibilities is true without evidence is a broken argument.
Nope. Not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."
See above.
You gave an example of problem solving not tool creation.
The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.
This is not support by fossil records, it's support by conjecture. However there are many explanations. Most of which do not include fantasies about dinomariners. Suppressing options to force your preferred explanation to be the only explanation is a fallacy.
To back up your unsubstantiated claims?
I already did that.
Why are you quoting the word 'source'? I never referred to it as a source. I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.
Most people would recognise a source to be a source of evidence, and understand the intent of the post. However, I appologies. Let me write that out again.
Hold. On. Are you telling me your "evidence" is James?
-
The point is rather academic. It doesn't matter which is "more impressive". A twig bending crow does not a dinotopia make.
The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.
Umm... No. Continental Drift also explains the fossil record. Continental Drift also explains the geological similarities between coastal regions that dinosaur colonization can not.
-
The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.
What? That's the only thing capable of explaining it?
They could have flown. They could have been moved via alien technology. They could have built bridges. They could have developed teleportaion technology. They could have frozen the oceans and walked across. They could have silly philosophical argument #87'd to get there too.
Maybe Jesus rode them there......
Or, perhaps what markjo said could explain it.
-
A quick question. Wouldn't it be easier to hypothesize that there is actual tectonic movement in a FE scenario (attributed to UA or some other force), than to come up with seafaring intelligent dinosaur ranchers building colonies all around the world?
I think that a research on how the tectonic plates behave in FE would be far more convincing.... I believe that both continental drift and current seismological status of the earth can be explained in a FE scenario. At least, more easily than sentient t-rexes and nest-ships able to transport 100ton sauropods...
-
A quick question. Wouldn't it be easier to hypothesize that there is actual tectonic movement in a FE scenario (attributed to UA or some other force), than to come up with seafaring intelligent dinosaur ranchers building colonies all around the world?
Some do. It just so happens that James isn't one of them. For some odd reason, a few others support him (including Tom, who likes to support multiple, mutually exclusive models).
-
So that researcher puts the crow in the same bracket as humans for that single problem solving task.
But again that's old research and apes/chimps/bonobos have shown they are adept at tool making and problem solving. See links provided.
It doesn't really matter. Arguing that crows are smarter than chimps achieves nothing.
A twig bending crow does not a seafaring dinotopia make.
Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows and superiour physiology. Additionally, the fossil record supports our theory.
No the fossil records support what they show. Bones of dinosaurs. If there's bones then there were once living dinosaurs. Assuming one out of a range of possibilities is true without evidence is a broken argument.
The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.
You gave an example of problem solving not tool creation.
I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.
This is not support by fossil records, it's support by conjecture. However there are many explanations. Most of which do not include fantasies about dinomariners. Suppressing options to force your preferred explanation to be the only explanation is a fallacy.
"Suppressing options"? ???
To back up your unsubstantiated claims?
I already did that.
Sorry, but you claimed that the period in question had better conditions for the petrification of wood than exist currently. As yet, you haven't backed that up with any evidence.
Why are you quoting the word 'source'? I never referred to it as a source. I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.
Most people would recognise a source to be a source of evidence, and understand the intent of the post. However, I appologies. Let me write that out again.
Hold. On. Are you telling me your "evidence" is James?
How could my evidence "be" James? Honestly, I made it very clear:
I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.
The evidence is the fossil distribution. James presented that evidence. What's so difficult to understand? If you can't understand this basic concept regarding the presentation of evidence, then I suggest you visit this link (http://www.hop.com) and sort the problem out yourself.
-
Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows and superiour physiology. Additionally, the fossil record supports our theory.
What direct sensory evidence tells you that?
The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.
So why is a sea faring dinosaur civilization a better explanation that continental drift again?
I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.
Now if you can show us a study where crows used tools to build floating nests, then you might be onto something.
This is not support by fossil records, it's support by conjecture. However there are many explanations. Most of which do not include fantasies about dinomariners. Suppressing options to force your preferred explanation to be the only explanation is a fallacy.
"Suppressing options"? ???
Yes, like continental drift.
-
Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows...
Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.
Additionally, the fossil record supports our theory.
No it doesn't.
The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.
No it can't.
I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.
So you recognise that not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."? Cool.
"Suppressing options"? ???
Continental drift. For one.
Sorry, but you claimed that the period in question had better conditions for the petrification of wood than exist currently. As yet, you haven't backed that up with any evidence.
I already did that. I told you where to look.
How could my evidence "be" James?
You provided a link to James' post.
James didn't present any evidence. He presented a cool story about how dinosaurs were good at knitting. This is not evidence, it's romance.
-
Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.
Sorry, but you took EQ out of the equation when you decided that speculation without evidence was off-limits. Not my problem.
I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.
So you recognise that not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."? Cool.
Why do you insist on constantly butchering my quotes and taking them out of context? Is it because you know the only way you can possibly win this debate is through pathetic semantic tricks? Here is that quote verbatim:
Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
I never claimed my sources said anything of the sort. This isn't the first time you've taken my quotes out of context, and your pathetic straw man tactics show just how weak your position is.
"Suppressing options"? ???
Continental drift. For one.
In what way have I "suppressed" continental drift? ???
Sorry, but you claimed that the period in question had better conditions for the petrification of wood than exist currently. As yet, you haven't backed that up with any evidence.
I already did that. I told you where to look.
Sorry, but it's not my job to find evidence to back up your claims. You made the claim, so back it up or else withdraw it.
How could my evidence "be" James?
You provided a link to James' post.
James didn't present any evidence. He presented a cool story about how dinosaurs were good at knitting. This is not evidence, it's romance.
James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory. You can misrepresent his theory all you want, but the fact is you haven't tackled the substance of his argument once.
-
How exactly does one go from:
James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory.
to
The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record
James being incorrect is another that comes to mind quickly.
Also, which birds purposefully travel across large bodies of water in nests?
-
Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.
Sorry, but you took EQ out of the equation when you decided that speculation without evidence was off-limits. Not my problem.
??? Yes speculation without evidence is off limits. The EQ data is speculation with evidence.
I'm now confused as to whether you want to use EQ data or not. *shrugs*
But your statement is still incorrect.
I never claimed my sources said anything of the sort.
Yes you did. Allow me to once again "quote you out of context"...
Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.
No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.
Are you now acknowledging that this is not the case? Or do you want to continue insisting I'm quoting you out of context? Either is fine by me.
In what way have I "suppressed" continental drift? ???
By insisting that a seafaring dinotopia is the only explanation for the dispersal of fossil evidence.
I'm guessing you're playing for time now.
Sorry, but it's not my job to find evidence to back up your claims. You made the claim, so back it up or else withdraw it.
I gave you the evidence. Read the links. This is embarrassing now.
James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory. You can misrepresent his theory all you want, but the fact is you haven't tackled the substance of his argument once.
No he doesn't. If there's any specific thing in James post you wish to highlight then please do so now.
-
Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.
Sorry, but you took EQ out of the equation when you decided that speculation without evidence was off-limits. Not my problem.
??? Yes speculation without evidence is off limits. The EQ data is speculation with evidence.
I'm now confused as to whether you want to use EQ data or not. *shrugs*
But your statement is still incorrect.
First of all, like I said several pages ago, you need to make your mind up. You seem to be setting 'limits' according to what you consider valid evidence or not; in other words, whatever agrees with CD theory is ok, but anything else is somehow unacceptable.
I never claimed my sources said anything of the sort.
Yes you did. Allow me to once again "quote you out of context"...
Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.
No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.
Are you now acknowledging that this is not the case? Or do you want to continue insisting I'm quoting you out of context? Either is fine by me.
No Crustinator, unlike you I am willing to concede a point when I have made an error. You are right, in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces, meaning I've had to repeat myself to stop you warping my posts. And as you were once again cutting up my posts, I thought you were doing the same thing again. My point still stands; you're debating to try and score points, rather than actually argue the matter at hand.
However, to tackle the issue at hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.
Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task. Clearly that is more impressive than making general tools for general tasks, which is why the study was considered so impressive.
In what way have I "suppressed" continental drift? ???
By insisting that a seafaring dinotopia is the only explanation for the dispersal of fossil evidence.
I'm guessing you're playing for time now.
So by the same token, you're suppressing our theory. Seriously, since when is not agreeing with a theory eqivalent to "suppressing" it?
I gave you the evidence. Read the links. This is embarrassing now.
If I recall correctly, the only links you actually posted spoke about the triassic period. The triassic period is not the period in question.
Also, why all this "this is embarrassing" nonsense? Seriously, it's childish at best, pathetic at worst. I don't go round saying "how embarrassing" it is that you've confused the triassic and cretaceous periods despite being prompted several times.
James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory. You can misrepresent his theory all you want, but the fact is you haven't tackled the substance of his argument once.
No he doesn't. If there's any specific thing in James post you wish to highlight then please do so now.
All of it. We've presented the evidence, so the onus is on you to challenge it. Stop dodging.
-
First of all, like I said several pages ago, you need to make your mind up. You seem to be setting 'limits' according to what you consider valid evidence or not; in other words, whatever agrees with CD theory is ok, but anything else is somehow unacceptable.
No my mind was always made up.
EQ is evidence to indicate a dinosaurs intelligence.
It indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as some birds and animals of today.
This does not suggest dinosaurs were a seafaring nation who spread glorious civilisations across the world in gigantic fleets of ships.
I have always made this opinion clear. Please don't try an muddy the waters.
No Crustinator, unlike you I am willing to concede a point when I have made an error. You are right, in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces, meaning I've had to repeat myself to stop you warping my posts.
Not true. However if you genuinely feel slighted I'll be happy to discuss this off topic issue in another thread under "Suggestions and Concerns".
However, to tackle the issue at hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.
Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task.
No. The conditional in that sentence was "without an extended period of trial-and-error learning." That is, what is remarkable was that the crow was able to bend the wire on first attempt, as opposed to presumed efforts in other animals who go through a period of trial and error.
It's still a bold claim to say the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hittingthings that apes have devised, since But it's outrageous to suggest that leading scientists think the same.
However, to tackle the issue at hand:
So by the same token, you're suppressing our theory. Seriously, since when is not agreeing with a theory eqivalent to "suppressing" it?
When you insist that there are no other theories and so yours by default is the only plausible option.
However, to tackle the issue at hand:
If I recall correctly, the only links you actually posted spoke about the triassic period.
Quite likely they did.
Here's a piece from the Cretaceous. http://geology.about.com/library/bl/images/blfossilwood.htm
I'm not sure how this helps you but I hope you like it.
However, to tackle the issue at hand:
Also, why all this "this is embarrassing" nonsense? Seriously, it's childish at best, pathetic at worst. I don't go round saying "how embarrassing" it is that you've confused the triassic and cretaceous periods despite being prompted several times.
Nope I was never confused over the Triassic or Cretaceous. Are we wasting time again?
However, to tackle the issue at hand:
If there's any specific thing in James post you wish to highlight then please do so now.
All of it. We've presented the evidence, so the onus is on you to challenge it. Stop dodging.
No sorry it is not evidence, nor does it present evidence.
As a work of fiction it's wonderful. Example:
The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines.
There are many fiction writer forums on the internet. This is not one of them.
-
First of all, like I said several pages ago, you need to make your mind up. You seem to be setting 'limits' according to what you consider valid evidence or not; in other words, whatever agrees with CD theory is ok, but anything else is somehow unacceptable.
No my mind was always made up.
EQ is evidence to indicate a dinosaurs intelligence.
It indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as some birds and animals of today.
This does not suggest dinosaurs were a seafaring nation who spread glorious civilisations across the world in gigantic fleets of ships.
I have always made this opinion clear. Please don't try an muddy the waters.
So speculation is acceptable. Glad we cleared that up.
No Crustinator, unlike you I am willing to concede a point when I have made an error. You are right, in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces, meaning I've had to repeat myself to stop you warping my posts.
Not true. However if you genuinely feel slighted I'll be happy to discuss this off topic issue in another thread under "Suggestions and Concerns".
Why? There's no rule against poor debating tactics. People do it here all the time, so there's no need to highlight your case in particular. You're free to use such tactics as much as you want, but I'll call you out on it.
Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task.
No. The conditional in that sentence was "without an extended period of trial-and-error learning." That is, what is remarkable was that the crow was able to bend the wire on first attempt, as opposed to presumed efforts in other animals who go through a period of trial and error.
It's still a bold claim to say the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hittingthings that apes have devised, since But it's outrageous to suggest that leading scientists think the same.
So crows have created a specific tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning. Scientists consider this impressive. It was the specificity and improvised nature of the tool that impressed them. In this way, it was more impressive than the tools created by apes.
When you insist that there are no other theories and so yours by default is the only plausible option.
When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"? ???
Quite likely they did.
Here's a piece from the Cretaceous. http://geology.about.com/library/bl/images/blfossilwood.htm
I'm not sure how this helps you but I hope you like it.
Well, it would have helped if it supported your claim that conditions during the period in question were especially suited to the petrification of wood. The above link just shows a piece of pertrified wood from the cretaceous period, and in no way supports your earlier claims.
Nope I was never confused over the Triassic or Cretaceous. Are we wasting time again?
We were discussing the cretaceous period. You made the claim that conditions during this period were especially good for the petrification of wood, and then when I pressed you for sources to back up this claim, you said you had already posted links saying as much. However, these links referred to the triassic period, which is not the period in question. Now, you were obviously confused about something.
No sorry it is not evidence, nor does it present evidence.
As a work of fiction it's wonderful. Example:
The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines.
There are many fiction writer forums on the internet. This is not one of them.
It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.
-
When you insist that there are no other theories and so yours by default is the only plausible option.
When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"? ???
I would assume that he is referring to this:
The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.
-
It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.
You still seem confused about what a dinosaur is. We have found many species of dinosaurs in almost every continent, not just "bird-like" dinosaurs.
Even if your speculations happened to have anything right, the fossil record shows dinosaurs similar to the Allosaurus, Stegosaurus, four legged dinosaurs, two legged dinosaurs, carnivores and herbivores, flying and non-flying, reptilians and proto-mammalians, to name just a few, were found in every continent except Antarctica (yet). James' speculation could account for one dominant, intelligent species and a couple of its "farm animals" but it cannot account for such an intricate and complex mesh of species. That is, of course, when signs of a civilization capable of ship building appears in the Cretaceous layers.
You make a "theory" based on a wild speculation that some nests could have been used as boats (ignoring everything we know about Engineering) and that is a wild speculation. But you do not follow your line of thought to the logical conclusion of the idea: how does your speculation explain all of the fossil record found.
-
It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.
And a conclusion supported by gems like this:
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.
WHAT? Penguin fossils were discovered in Australia, South America, South Africa and Antarctica in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Sailors discovered penguins in the 15th century. Many expeditions were made to Antarctica prior to the 1900s and they all, no doubt, ran into penguins.
History of Penguins (http://www.eliasdesigns.com/penguins/history.htm)
Notes on a 1903 expedition to Antarctica, featuring PENGUINS. (http://www.nahste.ac.uk/cgi-bin/view_isad.pl?id=GB-0248-DC-404&view=basic)
A history of Antarctica, also mentioning penguins in 1903 (http://www.antarcticaonline.com/antarctica/history/history.htm)
Oh sure, "Sailors" discovered "penguins" in the "15th century". How can we possibly confirm this? The British Natural History Museum is run by the British government, and C.A. Larsen could easily be a made up figure designed to confirm the existence of penguins before 1960.
and
For all we know, dinosaurs could have had powertools and CAD/CAM. Whatever technology was required to build those boats, odd as it may seem to us, must have existed in order for dinosaurs to spread so far across the world.
"My theory is true, therefore anything I concoct to support it must also be true by definition!"
And my personal favorite:
Even if dinosaurs had been paraplegic, they could still have constructed formidable navies.
-
So speculation is acceptable. Glad we cleared that up.
Baseless speculation is unacceptable. Again this has always been made clear. You're in Tom Bishop mode now it seems.
There's no rule against poor debating tactics.
And it's a poor debating tactic to baw that someone has misquoted you when they haven't at all.
So crows have created a specific tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning. Scientists consider this impressive. It was the specificity and improvised nature of the tool that impressed them.
No it wasn't, it was the rapidity with which they produced the tool. Reread the quote. Misrepresenting your sources when everyone can read your sources makes you look bad.
But once again, a wire bending crow, even one that can do it in one turn, does not a seafaring dinotopia make.
When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"? ???
Why here...
dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record
and here...
The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.
Memory loss?
Well, it would have helped if it supported your claim that conditions during the period in question were especially suited to the petrification of wood. The above link just shows a piece of pertrified wood from the cretaceous period, and in no way supports your earlier claims.
I've no idea what you're talking about now. How does petrified wood from the Cretaceous wood not support my claims?
Wood falls to ground.
Decomposition and destructive elements removed.
Silicates added.
Lots of silicates = quick petrification. Few silicates = slow petrification.
Start a new thread called "petrified wood" as I feel you're having difficulty with this concept.
It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.
No. Claiming it's fiction challenges the "evidence" by indicating that it has no basis in fact.
-
Using unsubstantiated presupposition of a flat earth:
We can therefore conclude that Pangea didn't exist. And before you try and use fossil evidence to debunk this - the fact that dinosaur fossils are spread out in confusing ways reflects the fact that dinosaurs were actually much more highly advanced than we think they were - they had mastered the technology of intercontinental travel. Heck, they probably knew about the ice wall too, and who knows, their governments (if they had any) were probably surpressing it even back then.
Unsubstantiated:
Also, bear in mind that widespread killing of other dinosaurs may have been discouraged as murder if dinosaurs had a society. Meat-eaters would probably either have feasted on corpses (soylent green style) or eaten meat substitutes, so evidence of cooking may have been very limited.
From one side of the mouth:
They do not face evolutionary pressures which necessitate the evolution of sentience. By the same token, humans have evolved recently - how are they super smart? If humanity can evolve to a planet-dominating level of intelligence in such a geologically short space of time, why can't dinosaurs have done so (fossil evidence suggests that they did, in fact evolve to a planet-dominating level).
However, it's entirely plausible that many species of dinosaur became enlightened and would have used their skills to compliment one another's in building a fleet of intercontinental boats. Given the amount of time dinosaurs ruled the Earth compared with humans, it's quite likely that dinosaurs would have overcome the petty prejudices which still plague mankind today, and created a harmonious society in which several species had a legitimate role.
Then the other:
But I'm not disputing that time of existence and development of sentience lack strong positive correlation. Over incredibly large timescales, evolution of sentience becomes statistically more probable, but is never ensured for any particular species and has more to do with selection pressure than just number of millenia of survival.
From simple tools:
Birds are one of the modern species most closely related to dinosaurs. However, species of many different subclassifications have exhibited varying degrees of tool use - otters, for example, which are mammals, routinely use rocks as tools for breaking open shellfish.
Now advanced tools without presedence are possible
Perhaps, like native Americans, they used every part of the animal (skin for clothing - which WOULD HAVE DISINTEGRATED DURING FOSSILIZATION before you ask), guts for sinews (sailing related?) which would also be biodegradable, and bones to make more advanced tools. Bone tools have never been found because fossil remains only occur in extreme, rare conditions like lava flows and tar pits, and any dinosaur smart enough to make tools would know to steer clear of these.
Advanced tools of stone and wood would probably be sufficient to build a small fleet of crafts capable of intercontinental travel.
1: Why would the dinosaurs sail near to a dangerous place like a glacier or tar pit, knowing full well that it might sink their boat?
2: Given the number of dinosaur fossils found compared with dinosaur population, it's clear that hardly any stuff becomes fossil matter, relatively speaking. The ships could easily have disintegrated along with the millions of unfound dinosaur cadavers.
1) Insinuates a higher order of intelligence and reasoning beyond simple tool construction originally cited.
2) Is a simple counter to the claim that the species were exclusive to NA and Asia and that there just hasn't been a fossilized specimin dixcovered yet.
We actually have a modern example of this - the Galapagos Islands. Over a relatively short amount of time, areas of isolation in which species do not colonise or migrate exhibit radically different patterns of evolution. Fossil evidence supports the maritime dinosaur hypothesis.
Which could actually support a theory of continental drift, as since it is claimed, relatively short periods of isolation can result in radically different patterns of evolution.
Additionally nothing has been proven which supports how these dinosaurs could have taken water and food stores for a several month long journey on the open ocean to support themselves, their "livestock" and their plant life.
-
Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water? As for large stocks of food, they possibly needed to carry very little with them and simply used up their fat reserves. If they were cold-blooded, they wouldn't have needed these reserves to generate heat.
-
Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water? As for large stocks of food, they possibly needed to carry very little with them and simply used up their fat reserves. If they were cold-blooded, they wouldn't have needed these reserves to generate heat.
Possibly, probably, if, maybe is not the foundation for a sound theory.
What would suggest that they had no need for fresh water?
-
Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water?
All animals need fresh water. Dinosaurs are no different, whether on land or sea.
As for large stocks of food, they possibly needed to carry very little with them and simply used up their fat reserves. If they were cold-blooded, they wouldn't have needed these reserves to generate heat.
Wilmore wants them to be warm blooded.
Picking the best of both worlds?
-
I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys. They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.
-
I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys. They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.
If they were ocean dwellers perhaps. But the dinosaurs James is punting are land dwellers (hence the boats). So unlikely.
-
I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys. They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.
Could, maybe, perhaps. What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?
-
I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys. They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.
Could, maybe, perhaps. What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?
There isnt hes trying to salvage whats left of his arguement desperately. :-X
-
Could, maybe, perhaps. What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?
I don't think it happened suddenly; adaptation usually involves considerable time. Why would you think it happened suddenly?
-
Could, maybe, perhaps. What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?
I don't think it happened suddenly; adaptation usually involves considerable time. Why would you think it happened suddenly?
Because the claim is that some sudden environmental incident forced the dinosaurs to take to the sea in purpose built crafts upon which the occupant of the craft would need to obtain water from a source which it previously would have had no need to in order to hydrate itself, its livestock and its produce.
-
You're way ahead of me in the theory. I never thought of the colonization voyages being the result of a catastrophic event.
-
Could, maybe, perhaps. What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?
I don't think it happened suddenly; adaptation usually involves considerable time. Why would you think it happened suddenly?
There are insurmountable problems either way, so take your pick: no animal we have found has ever suddenly adapted to salt water, no animal has ever suddenly adapted back to living on land. Gradually, the few species that have done the transition have changed in many ways over hundreds of thousands, or even several millions of years, and the adaptation has involved several organs and bone structures. In this case, where are the fossils of the dinosaurs with these adaptations?
You cannot find any animals that suddenly changed from land based to sea based and back with no additional changes, you cannot find animals that made the evolution into good sea-faring animals (with fins and all) and then the evolution back to land-based, with no telltale signs.
-
Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water?
Because if they were able to thrive in salt water, they would not have needed to build boats to migrate across the oceans. They simply would have been able to swim across.
-
Because if they were able to thrive in salt water, they would not have needed to build boats to migrate across the oceans. They simply would have been able to swim across.
I think I agree with your scenario, Markjo. So we've decided that they built large vessels with adequate cargo capacity? Yes, it fits better. ;D
-
Because if they were able to thrive in salt water, they would not have needed to build boats to migrate across the oceans. They simply would have been able to swim across.
I think I agree with your scenario, Markjo. So we've decided that they built large vessels with adequate cargo capacity? Yes, it fits better. ;D
Good work contributing to the debate with your no content post.
-
Because if they were able to thrive in salt water, they would not have needed to build boats to migrate across the oceans. They simply would have been able to swim across.
I think I agree with your scenario, Markjo. So we've decided that they built large vessels with adequate cargo capacity? Yes, it fits better. ;D
Now you just need to prove that dinosaurs were both intellectually and physically capable of building such large vessels. Of course that means that you're suggesting a level of technology where metal tools (and possibly fasteners) would probably be necessary.
-
I disagree there. I don't think advanced metallurgy need be included.
-
I disagree there. I don't think advanced metallurgy need be included.
I'm not necessarily suggesting advanced metallurgy. Bronze age metallurgy should be more than sufficient to build sufficiently large wooden vessels. However, I'm not sure if they could be built with stone age or copper age tools (and no opposable thumbs).
-
in all fairness, reed vessels, (ie, kon-tiki) could be built without metal tools...
though this does raise one important question...
which species of dinosaur was intelligent enough to build boats capable of crossing oceans?
All of them? all the species were in fact intelligent, built boats and houses and little donsaurhenges, and were rather annoyed because the T-Rexes from over the other side of the river went and ate uncle Bob last week?
or just one species? which one?
Velociraptors? ok, so small, fast chicken-sized hunter-killers might've been able to float on a raft.... but they're only found in mongolia.
The dinosaurs which have been found on multiple continents are, strangely enough, late Jurassic period when, if you follow a round earth theory of continental drift, north america and europe were connected...
and they're things like Allosaurs. or Stegosaurs.... 2-5 tons of hulking great big reptiles... all these species were jumping on to boats for pleasure cruises? perhaps the allosaurs were herding stegosaurs as cattle for food?
sounds a little absurd, I'd have said.
what is notable is that once the continents split apart, in the cretacious period, the north american dinosaurs become... well, north american. and not found elsewhere. almost like the dinosaurs were... well, unable to cross oceans.
I wonder why? did they all forget to make boats then?
but, what I can say with certainty is that a viking era knarr can transport about 5 tonnes of cargo, and maybe half a dozen people. the scant archaeological remains in canada's l'anse aux meadows archaeological site are the oldest known transoceanic crossing, so the knarr is a good baseline of what's needed... its clinker-built construction is impossible without metal tools; incredibly difficult without iron tools, from augurs to bore holes, adzes to shape timbers, and two-man ripsaws and wedges to split and open logs to form planks, and axes to fell timber in the first place. its construction requires the abilty to create ropes, used both for rigging, and, soaked in pitch (and that's before you factor in the distillation and procesing of pine bark to form turpentine which in turn needs the pitch with resin to waterproof such a vessel, and the weaving and similar work required to produce sails...), to seal the keel to the clinker hull. such a ship takes hundreds of man-hours to construct... and, for something the size of a sauropod known to have been found on different continents, is akin to a duck-pond rowing boat.
the sheer logistical scale of a vessel needed to traverse an ocean by creatures of such size is spectacular. and yet, in the last two centuries of paleontology, not one single object has been found that suggests an advanced tool-using technology... no shells, drilled for beads, no flakes of stone napped to an edge, no bones with the marks of having been skinned by tool-users. nothing. and yet this is an intelligent, tool-using culture which must've created bloomerys for the production of metal tools, created axe-heads, bored holes in stones to make weights for looms to weave cord that became rope.....
and yet not one such artefact of even the simplest tribal intelligence has been found
-
I disagree there. I don't think advanced metallurgy need be included.
I'm not necessarily suggesting advanced metallurgy. Bronze age metallurgy should be more than sufficient to build sufficiently large wooden vessels. However, I'm not sure if they could be built with stone age or copper age tools (and no opposable thumbs).
I was just reminded of one additional aspect that James' speculation overlooks: There are fossils of sea animals everywhere in the continents. James does not only have to explain why the land animals of the Cretaceous found their way to every continent, except maybe Antarctica, but also why there are countless fossils of marine life hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away from current seas. In my personal experience, there is a place at least 200 kilometers away from the sea where these fossils are so abundant that the local children collect them and sell them to the tourists. I have one of those in my very own living room.
So, what would be the explanation of this: the sea shells of the Cretaceous just got mad with so many dinosaurs invading the seas, that they decided to walk 200 kilometers into the Andes and more than 6000 feet uphill, to die in peace?
-
So speculation is acceptable. Glad we cleared that up.
Baseless speculation is unacceptable. Again this has always been made clear. You're in Tom Bishop mode now it seems.[.quote]
As we have shown, EQ is a lousy measure of intelligence. Yet comparisons based around EQ are somehow not baseless, even though we know nothing about the actual makeup of dinosaur brains (which could put the EQ in a different light)... hmmmm...
There's no rule against poor debating tactics.
And it's a poor debating tactic to baw that someone has misquoted you when they haven't at all.
I have apologised for the incident where I was wrong. Furthermore, I never said you misquoted me. I said you misrepresented my position by taking my quotes out of context. There are loads and loads of examples of this throughout the thread. This is in fact a perfect example of you misrepresenting my position!
So crows have created a specific tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning. Scientists consider this impressive. It was the specificity and improvised nature of the tool that impressed them.
No it wasn't, it was the rapidity with which they produced the tool. Reread the quote. Misrepresenting your sources when everyone can read your sources makes you look bad.
How have I misrepresented my sources? I quoted the source almost verbatim! Here is the actual quote:
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.
and here's how I described it:
So crows have created a specific tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.
I then proceded to say that it was the specificty and improvised nature of the tool that impressed them. The quote implies that these were both important factors, because if they had made a general tool without a trial and error period (e.g. apes using a stone to break nut casings) it would not have been as impressive. The improvised nature of the tool is important, but the specificity of the tool is also important.
But once again, a wire bending crow, even one that can do it in one turn, does not a seafaring dinotopia make.
Once again, the potential for boat construction has been demonstrated.
When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"? ???
Why here...
dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record
and here...
The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.
Memory loss?
Uh, those quotes show that I think our theory is the correct theory, not that it is the only theory in existence. I believe that CD theory contains discrepancies, and that our thoery explains them. I am in no way "suppressing" CD theory or denying its existence just because I disagree with it. I am in no way "insist[ing] that there are no other theories".
I've no idea what you're talking about now. How does petrified wood from the Cretaceous wood not support my claims?
Wood falls to ground.
Decomposition and destructive elements removed.
Silicates added.
Lots of silicates = quick petrification. Few silicates = slow petrification.
Start a new thread called "petrified wood" as I feel you're having difficulty with this concept.
You claimed that:
Wood is preserved by denying bacteria, oxygen and disturbance. It is then petrified by silicates. If the silicates are in abundance as was the case millions of years ago, then the process can be quick. If not, then it'll take longer.
Strangely, the same conditions that would be preserving wood at the time of the dinosaurs would also be preserving boats. Hmm.
By this you imply that conditions during the period in question would have been especially good for the petrification of wood (i.e. dinosaur boats). You have yet to back this up. The period in question is the Cretaceous period. Hence, to support your claim, you need to provide evidence which shows that such conditions existed in the cretaceous period more than at other times in history.
It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.
No. Claiming it's fiction challenges the "evidence" by indicating that it has no basis in fact.
Indicating your opinion, but in no way proving it. You may as well say "it's wrong" and then claimed to have proven that it is wrong by claiming as much.
-
I disagree there. I don't think advanced metallurgy need be included.
Ever try to build a raft? It is tricky enough to build one capable of supporting a human for a modest distance, built just out of rope and lumber, much less going over an ocean. Also, anyone ever think about their caloric requirements? They would have to make their craft substantially bigger than what is being proposed just to haul their food.
-
No, I've never built a raft. Have you? What materials did you use?
I could be mistaken but I don't think Mr. McIntyre has decided if the colonizing dinosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded. If they were cold-blooded, the caloric requirement would be reduced.
-
No, I've never built a raft. Have you? What materials did you use?
I could be mistaken but I don't think Mr. McIntyre has decided if the colonizing dinosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded. If they were cold-blooded, the caloric requirement would be reduced.
Yes I have built a raft a few times. Its one of the fieldcraft skills you need to have when you want to get your demolition gear across a stream to an objective, and still have it useful on the other side. If you are going to scale things up to the size of dinosaurs, then what you are really talking about is boat building, not raft building. That requires a bit more tooling than simple raft building does, and seems unlikely since evidence of tools would have likely been preserved at least some of the time.
As for the food issue, that had occurred to me to, but it still takes a lot of energy to paddle a boat, and reptiles have fairly inefficient metabolisms either way.
-
There's always sails.
-
As for the food issue, that had occurred to me to, but it still takes a lot of energy to paddle a boat, and reptiles have fairly inefficient metabolisms either way.
In most cases, if not all, water would be the limiting factor. It took the kon-tiki 101 days to sail 4300 miles. I'm not sure by what factor this would increase by simply drifting. There would have to be a minimum of 100xy days worth of water stored for the trip with x being the time factor for drifting and y being the number of "passengers".
-
As we have shown, EQ is a lousy measure of intelligence. Yet comparisons based around EQ are somehow not baseless, even though we know nothing about the actual makeup of dinosaur brains (which could put the EQ in a different light)... hmmmm...
I can't understand if you're arguing for or against EQ data. You want to say its lousy and then you want to say its not baseless. Best of both worlds?
I can't help you anymore on this issue. Even using EQ comparisons (which you seem to want to...) they do not suggest that a dinosaur would have the intelligence to built an armada given that their nearest living relative the birds are not capable of such a feat. (Nests are not boats)
I have apologised for the incident where I was wrong. Furthermore, I never said you misquoted me.
Orly?
... in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces...
(you are aware that I and everyone else can go back and reread posts?)
Time to drop the victim act Wilmore. It's tiresome.
How have I misrepresented my sources? I quoted the source almost verbatim!
What you originally said was:
However, to tackle the issue at hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.
Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task.
This was misrepresenting your source by suggesting "this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task". Incorrect. What the source was stressing was the lack of an extended trial and error period.
You then wanted your incorrect conclusion to mean that scientists thought crows were better at tool making than apes. Again incorrect.
I corrected you on this matter the first time you posted it. Go back and reread.
Once again, the potential for boat construction has been demonstrated.
Once again. No it hasn't. A wire bending crow does not a dinosaur armada make.
I am in no way "insist[ing] that there are no other theories".
Your posts indicate otherwise. In the future I suggest you reword your posts a little like this:
"Dinosaur boats and continental drift are the only thing that can account for the fossil record"
or
"The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration or tectonic plate movement"
to support your claim, you need to provide evidence which shows that such conditions existed in the cretaceous period more than at other times in history.
I think you need to learn more about the Cretaceous period before you start thumping the desk. The high amount of volcanic activity at this time is a fact understood by most 9 year olds. As is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event).
Indicating your opinion, but in no way proving it. You may as well say "it's wrong" and then claimed to have proven that it is wrong by claiming as much.
There's nothing to prove and my opinion isn't the issue here. James has presented no evidence, just (wonderful) speculation. This fact remains regardless of the observer.
Or in other words; prove that Barbara Cartland is correct.
-
I have apologised for the incident where I was wrong. Furthermore, I never said you misquoted me.
Orly?
... in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces...
Like he said, he never said you misquoted him.
-
I think people are overlooking the significance of Trig's comment about marine fossils being found inland.
-
There's always sails.
I would love to see a proposal as to how dinosaurs could make sails without opposable thumbs. Even if they were to use animal hides instead of woven fabric, there would still be a fair amount of sewing involved to make and rig sails large enough to propel boats of the size required.
-
There's always sails.
I would love to see a proposal as to how dinosaurs could make sails without opposable thumbs. Even if they were to use animal hides instead of woven fabric, there would still be a fair amount of sewing involved to make and rig sails large enough to propel boats of the size required.
A friend of mine which go by TCOM is writing a dissertation on this very idea.. I believe he found evidence in the Dead sea scrolls which states that there were many genetic mutations performed by the Fallen Angels that are talked about in the Book of Enoch.. It is possible that around 3,000-4,000 years ago when Dinosaurs were roaming the Earth that some may have actually been transformed into roaming Godless beings devouring man, and were the ones that possibly build the pyramids.. If you think about the weight of each stone it makes no sense that man at the time using a pulley system could have performed this in such preciseness. I believe some smaller species of Dinosaurs such as Felociraptors could have been genetically mutated or simply just had magic spell cast on them by the Fallen Angels which made them walk on Two legs, wear robes, and command the big dinosaurs which existed in Enochs time to build the pyramids, boats, and etc.. TCOM, and myself are going to the Great Pyramids, and inside the foot of the Spynx lies hidden knowledge unknown to man now.. A different alternative history which proves God created the Flat Earth 6,000-8,000 years ago.. The Sleeping Prophet Edgar Cayce spoke of these things during a reading, and it was recorded..
-
I think people are overlooking the significance of Trig's comment about marine fossils being found inland.
I was actually waiting for a flat earth rebuttal.
-
Even if they were to use animal hides instead of woven fabric...
James thinks that they were quite adept at needlework.
A smaller claw would have been much more suitable for precision tasks like inscription, manipulation of cloth and fine materials and so on, and marks the transition from its role as a mechanism of hunting and combat to its role as an additional dexterous digit.
Deinonychus evolved an iconic five-inch claw... this would have served a purpose in hunting and combat, though it would later have been useful in the performance of complex motor skills such as puncturing fabrics, making written inscriptions and so on.
-
There's always sails.
I would love to see a proposal as to how dinosaurs could make sails without opposable thumbs. Even if they were to use animal hides instead of woven fabric, there would still be a fair amount of sewing involved to make and rig sails large enough to propel boats of the size required.
Are you equating opposable thumbs with sewing ability?
-
Are you equating opposable thumbs with sewing ability?
Yes. Among other things, such as thread making.
-
The Bambiraptor is thought to have had opposable thumbs. If one had them, others could have had them also.
-
The Giraffe is thought to have had a long neck. If one had them, others could have had them also.
???
-
The Bambiraptor is thought to have had opposable thumbs. If one had them, others could have had them also.
Thats like saying that because we have opposable thumbs that whales should have them.
-
I disagree. Whales have no thumbs.
-
The Bambiraptor is thought to have had opposable thumbs. If one had them, others could have had them also.
Bambiraptor wasn't around until well after Pangea broke up. You need to find a dinosaur with an opposable thumb more than 150 million years old.
I disagree. Whales have no thumbs.
Well, they do. Sorta.
Flippers of the sperm whale are oval in shape with a rounded tip and may
reach a maximum length of 6 feet (1.8 m.) and a width of 3 feet (91 cm.)
The number of finger bones, or phalanges, in the whale's "hand" has
increased over evolutionary time as front limbs became transformed
into more efficient flippers.
(http://www.whalesongs.org/cetacean/sperm_whales/sperm_finger.gif)
-
Well okay, if you want to call those thumbs, go right ahead. You can go on one of those whale tourist boats and say, "Look at that whale's thumbs!" :)
And we're discussing the static continent model, so I'll save your other statement for another day.
-
Can you point to a preponderance of evidence for multiple species of dinosaurs with opposable thumbs. Also, anyone ever find a trash pile associated with any dinos? Structured societies leave quite a bit of trash behind usually. Even ants and bees do.
-
Well okay, if you want to call those thumbs, go right ahead. You can go on one of those whale tourist boats and say, "Look at that whale's thumbs!" :)
That's why I said "sorta". Many mammals with flippers usually have some variation of 5 fingers (or 4 fingers + thumb). They've just taken a different evolutionary path is all.
-
Yes, I know. I didn't introduce whale thumbs into the equation after all. You should explain all this to your cohorts.
-
Yes, I know. I didn't introduce whale thumbs into the equation after all. You should explain all this to your cohorts.
Maybe not, but did you really have that much of a hard time understanding my analogy?
-
As we have shown, EQ is a lousy measure of intelligence. Yet comparisons based around EQ are somehow not baseless, even though we know nothing about the actual makeup of dinosaur brains (which could put the EQ in a different light)... hmmmm...
I can't understand if you're arguing for or against EQ data. You want to say its lousy and then you want to say its not baseless. Best of both worlds?
I can't help you anymore on this issue. Even using EQ comparisons (which you seem to want to...) they do not suggest that a dinosaur would have the intelligence to built an armada given that their nearest living relative the birds are not capable of such a feat. (Nests are not boats)
I don't think EQ is a useful basis for comparison, as I have said several times. You're the one who wants to use it, but not use other baseless forms of speculation.
I have apologised for the incident where I was wrong. Furthermore, I never said you misquoted me.
Orly?
... in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces...
(you are aware that I and everyone else can go back and reread posts?)
Time to drop the victim act Wilmore. It's tiresome.
Actually Crustinator, I'm not even sure that you can read posts first time round, never mind re-read them. I mean, seriously, I made the distinction clear in my last post:
Furthermore, I never said you misquoted me. I said you misrepresented my position by taking my quotes out of context.
And here's the quote you're trying to use against me:
... in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces...
Nowhere do I say you have misquoted me. You are aware there is a massive disntinction between misquoting someone, and quoting them out of context, right? One is misrepresentation through selective quotation, the other is claiming someone has said something they have not. So to reiterate, I never said you misquoted me.
How have I misrepresented my sources? I quoted the source almost verbatim!
What you originally said was:
However, to tackle the issue at hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.
Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task.
This was misrepresenting your source by suggesting "this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task". Incorrect. What the source was stressing was the lack of an extended trial and error period.
You then wanted your incorrect conclusion to mean that scientists thought crows were better at tool making than apes. Again incorrect.
I corrected you on this matter the first time you posted it. Go back and reread.
I don't need to re-read it. Scientists considered this a first-time event. In other words, apes had never been seen to do this. Therefore, it was more impressive than anything apes had yet done. You can keep dodging by suggesting that I have somehow misrepresented a source that I quoted verbatim, but the fact is that those scientists regarded this as a first for any animal.
Once again, the potential for boat construction has been demonstrated.
Once again. No it hasn't. A wire bending crow does not a dinosaur armada make.
For someone so against redundancy, you sure do repeat yourself a lot. You could really spice up this whole debate by actually presenting an argument every now and again, instead of flat denials.
I am in no way "insist[ing] that there are no other theories".
Your posts indicate otherwise. In the future I suggest you reword your posts a little like this:
"Dinosaur boats and continental drift are the only thing that can account for the fossil record"
or
"The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration or tectonic plate movement"
Look, if you can't read, it's not my problem. I don't think continental drift can account for the fossil record. That doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of continental drift theory. Your 'rewordings' would indicate that I thought CD was a valid theory, which I do not. However, I'm "suppressing" that theory or denying its existence. I'm just disagreeing.
to support your claim, you need to provide evidence which shows that such conditions existed in the cretaceous period more than at other times in history.
I think you need to learn more about the Cretaceous period before you start thumping the desk. The high amount of volcanic activity at this time is a fact understood by most 9 year olds. As is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event).
Let's have a read:
Scientists theorize that the K?T extinctions were caused by one or more catastrophic events, such as massive asteroid impacts (like the Chicxulub impact), or increased volcanic activity.
First of all, the 'impact event' theory is by far and away the most popular. Secondly, the volcanic activity which some postulate was partially (and I stress, partially) responsible for dinosaur extinction took place in a very specific region. Thirdly, the extinction event took place at the very end of the cretaceous period. The period we're discussing is the early cretaceous.
So basically, that link in no way supports your claims.
Indicating your opinion, but in no way proving it. You may as well say "it's wrong" and then claimed to have proven that it is wrong by claiming as much.
There's nothing to prove and my opinion isn't the issue here. James has presented no evidence, just (wonderful) speculation. This fact remains regardless of the observer.
The distribution of the fossil record is evidence. It just happens to be evidence you are unable to contradict.
-
I don't think EQ is a useful basis for comparison, as I have said several times. You're the one who wants to use it, but not use other baseless forms of speculation.
I'm happy for you. Perhaps you'll stop insisting that crows using twigs has any relevence to anything? *hopeful eyes*
Oh and I fixed your quote above, since this would more accurately represent my view. (Strange how you're not getting it. Oh well.)
Nowhere do I say you have misquoted me. You are aware there is a massive disntinction between misquoting someone, and quoting them out of context, right? One is misrepresentation through selective quotation, the other is claiming someone has said something they have not. So to reiterate, I never said you misquoted me.
The more you baww about being mistreated, the more I smile.
I don't need to re-read it. Scientists considered this a first-time event. In other words, apes had never been seen to do this. Therefore, it was more impressive than anything apes had yet done.
Says who?
For someone so against redundancy, you sure do repeat yourself a lot.
You're a special student.
You could really spice up this whole debate by actually presenting an argument every now and again, instead of flat denials.
Reread my posts.
I don't think continental drift can account for the fossil record. That doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of continental drift theory. Your 'rewordings' would indicate that I thought CD was a valid theory, which I do not. However, I'm "suppressing" that theory or denying its existence. I'm just disagreeing.
I'm not sure what side you're taking here. Either you claim that an armada of dinosaurs is the only explanation for the fossil evidence In which case you're suppressing evidence. Or you don't. In which case you recognise the plausibility of continental drift. Pick a case. Stick with it.
The period we're discussing is the early cretaceous.
Orly? Since when?! Please don't strain your back when you move those goalposts.
So basically, that link in no way supports your claims.
*sigh* yes it does. Cretaceous period = huge amount of volcanic activity + asteroid strike = large amounts of silicates in atmosphere = rapidity of petrification.
I understand now that this is hard for you to understand. I am well prepared to repeat these facts more slowly if it helps.
The distribution of the fossil record is evidence. It just happens to be evidence you are unable to contradict.
Fossil evidence is evidence of fossils.
James has the dinosaurs evolving sewing claws. There's nothing in the fossils to indicate this is the case. I love reading James' romantic tales, and I think they would make a fantastic novel, but they should not be taken literally.
-
Going back to Trig's argument, the presence of marine fossils in inland areas proves that some areas which are now land were once sea. Therefore, the argument that the land and sea were always in their current configuration has been shown to be baloney. Therefore there is no need for the dinosaurs to have developed sea travel to explain the fossil record. Can Wilmore and Crusty please now stop going all Levee with their rebuttals to each other as it's all now irrelevant?
-
I read someone imply that it would be more rational to conclude that there were no sea-faring dinosaur civilizations, but rather that the flat earth just has plate tectonics.
Well, look at what this forum is about. It's dedicated to the idea that the Earth is flat. I am willing to bet you could probably find way more people open minded to the idea of dinosaur civilizations (the "Dinotopia theory"?) than people who will consider the possibility that the Earth could be flat.
I mean, with smart dinosaurs, we're just talking evolution. That's way more easy to accept than the idea that the planet is a flat disc, with an ice wall, and the universe as we know it is one big lie, despite all the evidence out there.
-
I don't think EQ is a useful basis for comparison, as I have said several times. You're the one who wants to use it, but not use other baseless forms of speculation.
I'm happy for you. Perhaps you'll stop insisting that crows using twigs has any relevence to anything? *hopeful eyes*
Oh and I fixed your quote above, since this would more accurately represent my view. (Strange how you're not getting it. Oh well.)
What do crows using tools have to do with EQ? ???
Also, EQ is a useless form of speculation.
Nowhere do I say you have misquoted me. You are aware there is a massive disntinction between misquoting someone, and quoting them out of context, right? One is misrepresentation through selective quotation, the other is claiming someone has said something they have not. So to reiterate, I never said you misquoted me.
The more you baww about being mistreated, the more I smile.
I'm not bawwing. You just keep misrepresenting me. Like you just did. I'm glad you're not denying it anymore.
I don't need to re-read it. Scientists considered this a first-time event. In other words, apes had never been seen to do this. Therefore, it was more impressive than anything apes had yet done.
Says who?
I don't know, the Guiness book of records? Mankind in general? First-time events are usually considered pretty impressive. If I designed a cylinder tomorrow and proclaimed 'Lo, I have here designed this weel for the transportation of bodies and substances', I'm not sure it would attract much attention.
For someone so against redundancy, you sure do repeat yourself a lot.
You're a special student.
Nice to see you're making your usual contributive comments.
You could really spice up this whole debate by actually presenting an argument every now and again, instead of flat denials.
Reread my posts.
One flat denial is enough. I'm not going to go back and read the rest of them.
I don't think continental drift can account for the fossil record. That doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of continental drift theory. Your 'rewordings' would indicate that I thought CD was a valid theory, which I do not. However, I'm "suppressing" that theory or denying its existence. I'm just disagreeing.
I'm not sure what side you're taking here. Either you claim that an armada of dinosaurs is the only explanation for the fossil evidence In which case you're suppressing evidence. Or you don't. In which case you recognise the plausibility of continental drift. Pick a case. Stick with it.
I don't claim it's the only explanation. I claim it's the only valid explanation. I am in no way suppressing evidence. You are using some profundly retarded interpretation of that word. Disagreeing with a theory is not the same as suppressing it.
The period we're discussing is the early cretaceous.
Orly? Since when?! Please don't strain your back when you move those goalposts.
That was when deinonychus existed. We've been talking about deinonychus all along; no goal posts have moved.
So basically, that link in no way supports your claims.
*sigh* yes it does. Cretaceous period = huge amount of volcanic activity + asteroid strike = large amounts of silicates in atmosphere = rapidity of petrification.
I understand now that this is hard for you to understand. I am well prepared to repeat these facts more slowly if it helps.
The Cretaceous period did not have huge amounts of volcanic activity. One area, in modern India, had huge amounts of volcanic activity. The asteroid struck nowhere near this place. A simple way to prove or disprove your claim would be to show that we have more petrified wood from this period than from other periods, but you have yet to show this. Conclusion: no support for your claims.
Of course, even if you could prove this, it still wouldn't apply to the early cretaceous.
The distribution of the fossil record is evidence. It just happens to be evidence you are unable to contradict.
Fossil evidence is evidence of fossils.
Fossil distribution is evidence of where dinosaurs lived and died. Said distribution supports our theory. Seeing as you aren't raising any meaningful points, I'm just going to assume you can't.
-
Can you guys please stop this arguing? The static continent model has just been disproved and you didn't notice. Your argument has become irrelevant.
-
What do crows using tools have to do with EQ? ???
It wasn't that long ago. Let me help you.
Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows...
Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.
EQ was also part of James' original argument that you inherited without understanding.
Any 'educated guess' we might make based on brain size falls squarely in favour of the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, because the EQ of the average Deinonychus comes out at roughly 5.8, far, far higher than any living non-human animal today. The ratios for its smaller descendants, Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, are probably even better.
James had of course misunderstood how EQ works by comparing the EQ of dinosaurs to other animals, so he abandoned the EQ "evidence".
However, the shear desperation to somehow prove you're right despite all evidence to the contrary lingers like a bad smell.
I'm not bawwing. You just keep misrepresenting me.
No I didn't. You even apologised for claiming I did when I didn't. ::)
If there's anywhere else you think you've been misrepresented I beg you to create a new thread in "Suggestions and Concerns". Of course such claims will be entirely unfounded but at least it will stop you derailing this thread.
I don't know, the Guiness book of records? Mankind in general? First-time events are usually considered pretty impressive.
So no one said "it was more impressive than anything apes had yet done.".
Misrepresenting sources again Wimore? Whenever will you learn?
Nice to see you're making your usual contributive comments.
This whole post is geared towards your education. Please show some respect and try to learn something.
One flat denial is enough. I'm not going to go back and read the rest of them.
*sigh* You've been linked to enough stuff.
You claimed that you'd shown evidence for dinosaurs building boats. After much squealing you revealed that your evidence was "fossil evidence" and some Hunter S. Thompson-esque posts from James.
I've linked various articles showing how intelligence can be measured, how bonobos have built quite complex tools and how petrified wood is made.
If you're telling me you can't be bothered to read the stuff then I'm happy for you.
Disagreeing with a theory is not the same as suppressing it.
Then you can remove the words "only" from each of these posts then.
dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record
The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.
Since that was when
...?
The Cretaceous period did not have huge amounts of volcanic activity.
*sigh* Please stop failing so hard.
At the end of the Cretaceous, there were severe climate changes, lowered sea levels, and high volcanic activity .
Massive Early Cretaceous volcanic activity in the Nauru Basin related to emplacement of the Ontong Java Plateau
After the end of the Berriasian, however, temperatures increased again, and these conditions were almost constant until the end of the period.[8] This trend was due to intense volcanic activity which produced large quantities of carbon dioxide.
etc etc.
One area, in modern India, had huge amounts of volcanic activity. The asteroid struck nowhere near this place.
The asteroid strike was a global catastrophe. Please for the love of the baby Jesus learn some history.
A simple way to prove or disprove your claim would be to show that we have more petrified wood from this period than from other periods, but you have yet to show this.
I've already done this. Petrified wood comes largely from periods in time when there was large amounts of volcanic activity. I even drew it out simple for you to understand. You were given articles to read. Stop pretending you haven't been shown it.
Of course, even if you could prove this, it still wouldn't apply to the early cretaceous.
It probably would. But I don't think we were specifying early Cretaceous.
Anyway. here's some petrified wood from the early Cretaceous period.
http://www.safossils.com/petrifiedwoodfossils.html
Still no boats. :'(
Fossil distribution is evidence of where dinosaurs lived and died. Said distribution supports our theory.
No it doesn't. You theory is that dinosaurs built boats, sailed them across open seas with livestock (crocodiles) and took plants with them to colonise new worlds. Oh and they also shaved for some unknown reason.
This theory needs a whole lot more than just the fossilised bones.
Ie Irrelevant/unfounded/absurd conclusion.
-
some Hunter S. Thompson-esque posts from James
Must you sully the name of the father of gonzo journalism in such a fashion?
-
What do crows using tools have to do with EQ? ???
It wasn't that long ago. Let me help you.
Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows...
Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.
What? Honestly Crustinator, your use of labguage is baffling. Would recognising EQ comparisons make it correct? I'm pretty sure you'd disagree with that too, so what exactly are you trying to say?
I'm not bawwing. You just keep misrepresenting me.
No I didn't. You even apologised for claiming I did when I didn't. ::)
You were bawwing about how I said you misquoted me just a couple of posts ago. Of course, I never claimed you misquoted me, as I have shown. Thus, you misrepresented my position. Again.
If there's anywhere else you think you've been misrepresented I beg you to create a new thread in "Suggestions and Concerns". Of course such claims will be entirely unfounded but at least it will stop you derailing this thread.
I've warned you about memberating before, so please stop. Poor debating tactics are not against the rules, and thus not an issue for S&C. This board is called 'Flat Earth Debate', and thus debating tactics such as the misrepresentation of another persons argument are entirely relevant.
I don't know, the Guiness book of records? Mankind in general? First-time events are usually considered pretty impressive.
So no one said "it was more impressive than anything apes had yet done.".
Misrepresenting sources again Wimore? Whenever will you learn?
I never claimed anyone said exactly that. However, to draw any other conclusion from the article would be ludicrous.
One flat denial is enough. I'm not going to go back and read the rest of them.
*sigh* You've been linked to enough stuff.
You claimed that you'd shown evidence for dinosaurs building boats. After much squealing you revealed that your evidence was "fossil evidence" and some Hunter S. Thompson-esque posts from James.
I've linked various articles showing how intelligence can be measured, how bonobos have built quite complex tools and how petrified wood is made.
If you're telling me you can't be bothered to read the stuff then I'm happy for you.
Sorry, but nothing you've provided is relevant. For example, you've shown how petrified wood is made, and then claimed this was more likely to happen in the early cretaceous period than at any other time. To back this up, you provided sources referring to the triassic period. Not very convincing.
Disagreeing with a theory is not the same as suppressing it.
Then you can remove the words "only" from each of these posts then.
dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record
The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.
All of the above quotes represent my opinion. None of them deny the existence of CD theory. The key word there is 'can': I do not believe other theories can explain the fossil record. Of course they try to, but in my opinion, they do not succeed. This is not "suppression", it's disagreement.
Since that was when
...?
My internet packed up on me last night; see the edit. Basically, Deinonychus lived in the early cretaceous.
The Cretaceous period did not have huge amounts of volcanic activity.
*sigh* Please stop failing so hard.
At the end of the Cretaceous, there were severe climate changes, lowered sea levels, and high volcanic activity .
Massive Early Cretaceous volcanic activity in the Nauru Basin related to emplacement of the Ontong Java Plateau
After the end of the Berriasian, however, temperatures increased again, and these conditions were almost constant until the end of the period.[8] This trend was due to intense volcanic activity which produced large quantities of carbon dioxide.
etc etc.
Source 1 is so childish as to be laughable. Maybe this is the kind of site you frequent regularly, but it doesn't cut the mustard. Source 2 refers to a specific geographic location. Again. The third source refers to the Berriasian period, which occured some 15 million years before Deinoychus existed. So basically, all these sources are irrelevant.
One area, in modern India, had huge amounts of volcanic activity. The asteroid struck nowhere near this place.
The asteroid strike was a global catastrophe. Please for the love of the baby Jesus learn some history.
If the volcanic activity was geographically specific, then the asteroid would not have thrown volcanic dust into the atmosphere unless it struck such a region. This is not difficult to grasp.
I've already done this. Petrified wood comes largely from periods in time when there was large amounts of volcanic activity. I even drew it out simple for you to understand. You were given articles to read. Stop pretending you haven't been shown it.
Nothing you've shown refers to the period in question! All of your sources are out by tens (sometimes hundreds!) of millions of years! They are completely irrelevant! You have shown nothing, repeat nothing, to support your claims.
Of course, even if you could prove this, it still wouldn't apply to the early cretaceous.
It probably would. But I don't think we were specifying early Cretaceous.
Anyway. here's some petrified wood from the early Cretaceous period.
http://www.safossils.com/petrifiedwoodfossils.html
Still no boats. :'(
One example != proof of great conditions.
Fossil distribution is evidence of where dinosaurs lived and died. Said distribution supports our theory.
No it doesn't. You theory is that dinosaurs built boats, sailed them across open seas with livestock (crocodiles) and took plants with them to colonise new worlds. Oh and they also shaved for some unknown reason.
This theory needs a whole lot more than just the fossilised bones.
Ie Irrelevant/unfounded/absurd conclusion.
They could not have developed the way they did without the kind of geographic separation seen in our theory..
-
tl:dr
-
blah blah garbage in the forums.
I think that the dinosaurs not only made boats, but made blimps, too! They filled them with dino farts and flew around the flat disc world!
-
Can you guys please stop this arguing? The static continent model has just been disproved and you didn't notice. Your argument has become irrelevant.
I'm guessing that's going to be a no. It's easier to nitpick points than to realize that there is no point in arguing, though I'm sure Willie will come up with some dino farming/mining to explain the point made.
-
What? Honestly Crustinator, your use of labguage is baffling. Would recognising EQ comparisons make it correct? I'm pretty sure you'd disagree with that too, so what exactly are you trying to say?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some time earlier:
Even using EQ comparisons (which you seem to want to...) they do not suggest that a dinosaur would have the intelligence to built an armada given that their nearest living relative the birds are not capable of such a feat. (Nests are not boats)
You were bawwing about how I said you misquoted me just a couple of posts ago. Of course, I never claimed you misquoted me, as I have shown. Thus, you misrepresented my position. Again.
Another pity party invite? Take this pathetic fail somewhere else please.
I've warned you about memberating before, so please stop. Poor debating tactics are not against the rules, and thus not an issue for S&C. This board is called 'Flat Earth Debate', and thus debating tactics such as the misrepresentation of another persons argument are entirely relevant.
And I'm not interested in answering your bleating about being misrepresented when it's not the case. It's off topic. Create another thread for it.
I never claimed anyone said exactly that. However, to draw any other conclusion from the article would be ludicrous.
It would be wouldn't it? That's why I was so surprised to see you reach this conclusion:
Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.
No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.
Are you now acknowledging that this is not the case? Or do you want to continue insisting I'm quoting you out of context? Either is fine by me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.
Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task. Clearly that is more impressive than making general tools for general tasks, which is why the study was considered so impressive.
Stop crowbarring your own opinion into the mouths of other people.
Sorry, but nothing you've provided is relevant. For example, you've shown how petrified wood is made, and then claimed this was more likely to happen in the early cretaceous period than at any other time. To back this up, you provided sources referring to the triassic period. Not very convincing.
Yes you bawwwed so I gave you some more links to the cretaceous because apparently that was the period under scrutiny. And then you bawwed some more because you suddenly wanted references to early cretaceous. So I gave you them. And yet still you baww.
All of the above quotes represent my opinion. None of them deny the existence of CD theory. The key word there is 'can': I do not believe other theories can explain the fossil record. Of course they try to, but in my opinion, they do not succeed. This is not "suppression", it's disagreement.
No it's denial. Let me apply the same blundering logic:
"UFOs are the only thing that can account for crop circles."
"The evidence presented by www.answerbag.com shows that the increase in homosexuality in the USA can only be explained by the rise in consumption of mountain dew."
It doesn't work. You're not convincing me or anyone that reads this. Saying one thing and then back-pedalling and trying to pretend it says something else is pathetic.
My internet packed up on me last night; see the edit. Basically, Deinonychus lived in the early cretaceous.
I see. As did much of the petrified wood we find. Yet no boats. :'(
Source 1 is so childish as to be laughable. Maybe this is the kind of site you frequent regularly, but it doesn't cut the mustard.
Because something explains something simply it is to be struck out? I see we're heading towards "blanket denial" again.
Source 2 refers to a specific geographic location.
Volcanic debris spreads world wide. Learn volcanos.
The third source refers to the Berriasian period, which occured some 15 million years before Deinoychus existed.
Too pre-cretaceous for you was it? Watch you don't put your back out again with those goal posts. I see you've been moving them a lot lately.
And I gave you three sources. Trying to boot the other one without a reason? LOL
Here have some more:
Cretaceous was a time of elevated global temperatures and there were essentially no polar or high-altitude glaciers . This contributed to elevated sea levels as did the vast development of volcanic activity along Earth's mid-ocean ridges . Such volcanic activity and accompanying swelling of these undersea ridges displaced a considerable volume of seawater (strongly exacerbating sea-level rise).
The high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were due to volcanic activity and the break up of the huge Pangean land mass into different continents during the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous Period. New oceans were being created and all these oceans had volcanically active ocean ridges.
Evidence of this massive volcanic activity can be seen in the oceans of our world today.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UaD1WeZcDrwC&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=volcanic+activity+during+the+cretaceous&source=bl&ots=6nxYkQXLUx&sig=YlHGfP40FKYAVImX7gcnpnKbTEM&hl=en&ei=UfYPS6H-J8a14Qa6j9iNBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwADgK
etc etc etc. yawn.
If the volcanic activity was geographically specific, then the asteroid would not have thrown volcanic dust into the atmosphere unless it struck such a region. This is not difficult to grasp.
Does not compute.
Nothing you've shown refers to the period in question! All of your sources are out by tens (sometimes hundreds!) of millions of years! They are completely irrelevant! You have shown nothing, repeat nothing, to support your claims.
And off we go again with blanket denial. How dull.
You wanted evidence of petrified wood. I gave it to you.
You wanted evidence of Cretaceous petrified wood I gave it to you.
You wanted evidence of early Cretaceous period petrified wood I gave it to you.
One example != proof of great conditions.
*sigh* Don't put your back out as you jack up that burden of proof.
There are many, many more examples.
Here's another: http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/SOAngiosperms.htm
And another: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kwanten/evolution2.htm
(Protip: Everything we know about plants during the Cretaceous period comes from the fact that they were petrified)
They could not have developed the way they did without the kind of geographic separation seen in our theory..
Yes they could. Continental Drift. You recognise that dinotopia is not the only possible explanation, remember.
We've been round and around so many times I'm getting dizzy.
-
Both you and Wilmore are only reading each others posts, Crusty. I suggest you look at some of the others in this thread.
-
What? Honestly Crustinator, your use of labguage is baffling. Would recognising EQ comparisons make it correct? I'm pretty sure you'd disagree with that too, so what exactly are you trying to say?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some time earlier:
Even using EQ comparisons (which you seem to want to...) they do not suggest that a dinosaur would have the intelligence to built an armada given that their nearest living relative the birds are not capable of such a feat. (Nests are not boats)
But I don't care about EQ, as I've said, over and over. You're not making any sense, just one unrelated point after another.
You were bawwing about how I said you misquoted me just a couple of posts ago. Of course, I never claimed you misquoted me, as I have shown. Thus, you misrepresented my position. Again.
Another pity party invite? Take this pathetic fail somewhere else please.
I've warned you about memberating before, so please stop. Poor debating tactics are not against the rules, and thus not an issue for S&C. This board is called 'Flat Earth Debate', and thus debating tactics such as the misrepresentation of another persons argument are entirely relevant.
And I'm not interested in answering your bleating about being misrepresented when it's not the case. It's off topic. Create another thread for it.
How can your posts in this topic be off-topic? Anyway, this is the third time I've had to call you on memberating in this thread, so I'm not going to issue another warning, but a suspension. I've warned you about this in other threads as well, so whilst I've tried to be lenient in order to avoid any more of your 'he banned me because I won the argument' accusations, at this point you're really not leaving me any choice. See you in a bit.
I never claimed anyone said exactly that. However, to draw any other conclusion from the article would be ludicrous.
It would be wouldn't it? That's why I was so surprised to see you reach this conclusion:
Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.
No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.
Are you now acknowledging that this is not the case? Or do you want to continue insisting I'm quoting you out of context? Either is fine by me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.
Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task. Clearly that is more impressive than making general tools for general tasks, which is why the study was considered so impressive.
Stop crowbarring your own opinion into the mouths of other people.
I never claimed that they "said" it was more impressive (you attributed this to me). I simply claim they agree, which is obvious from the content of the articles. None of these quotes show me claiming that these scientists 'say' it's more impressive, and in fact at all times I make that distinction very clear.
Sorry, but nothing you've provided is relevant. For example, you've shown how petrified wood is made, and then claimed this was more likely to happen in the early cretaceous period than at any other time. To back this up, you provided sources referring to the triassic period. Not very convincing.
Yes you bawwwed so I gave you some more links to the cretaceous because apparently that was the period under scrutiny. And then you bawwed some more because you suddenly wanted references to early cretaceous. So I gave you them. And yet still you baww.
I didn't "suddenly" want anything. I hate to break it to you, but we were always talking about Deinonychus, and it always existed in the early cretaceous. The fact that you haven't read up on our theory properly is not my fault.
All of the above quotes represent my opinion. None of them deny the existence of CD theory. The key word there is 'can': I do not believe other theories can explain the fossil record. Of course they try to, but in my opinion, they do not succeed. This is not "suppression", it's disagreement.
No it's denial. Let me apply the same blundering logic:
"UFOs are the only thing that can account for crop circles."
"The evidence presented by www.answerbag.com shows that the increase in homosexuality in the USA can only be explained by the rise in consumption of mountain dew."
It doesn't work. You're not convincing me or anyone that reads this. Saying one thing and then back-pedalling and trying to pretend it says something else is pathetic.
My inability to convince you is not equal to "suppression".
My internet packed up on me last night; see the edit. Basically, Deinonychus lived in the early cretaceous.
I see. As did much of the petrified wood we find. Yet no boats. :'(
Yet still no evidence. That's all I'm asking for: evidence that backs up your claims.
Source 1 is so childish as to be laughable. Maybe this is the kind of site you frequent regularly, but it doesn't cut the mustard.
Because something explains something simply it is to be struck out? I see we're heading towards "blanket denial" again.
It's a totally babyish source without any scientific value. It has cute drawings of dinosaurs and uses childish language. It's aimed at children, and as far as I can see just makes lots of claims without backing them up.
Source 2 refers to a specific geographic location.
Volcanic debris spreads world wide. Learn volcanos.
We have volcanoes now. According to you, the debris would spread world wide. So we should have good conditions for petrified wood now, right? Or maybe you're just trying to get a square peg to go into a round hole.
The third source refers to the Berriasian period, which occured some 15 million years before Deinoychus existed.
Too pre-cretaceous for you was it? Watch you don't put your back out again with those goal posts. I see you've been moving them a lot lately.
Sorry, but Deinoychus never existed in the Berriasian period. This is just a simple fact; Ihaven't been moving any goal posts. We've always been talking about Deinoychus, so why you keep bringing up evidence that's totally unrelated to the period in which Deinoychus lived is beyond me.
And I gave you three sources. Trying to boot the other one without a reason? LOL
I just went through them one by one. What are you talking about?
Here have some more:
Cretaceous was a time of elevated global temperatures and there were essentially no polar or high-altitude glaciers . This contributed to elevated sea levels as did the vast development of volcanic activity along Earth's mid-ocean ridges . Such volcanic activity and accompanying swelling of these undersea ridges displaced a considerable volume of seawater (strongly exacerbating sea-level rise).
The high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were due to volcanic activity and the break up of the huge Pangean land mass into different continents during the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous Period. New oceans were being created and all these oceans had volcanically active ocean ridges.
Evidence of this massive volcanic activity can be seen in the oceans of our world today.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UaD1WeZcDrwC&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=volcanic+activity+during+the+cretaceous&source=bl&ots=6nxYkQXLUx&sig=YlHGfP40FKYAVImX7gcnpnKbTEM&hl=en&ei=UfYPS6H-J8a14Qa6j9iNBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwADgK
etc etc etc. yawn.
Closer examination of all these sources would reveal to you that none of them relate to the time Deinoychus existed. Thus, none of them support your claim that conditions were especially suited to the petrification of wood when Deinoychus was building boats.
Nothing you've shown refers to the period in question! All of your sources are out by tens (sometimes hundreds!) of millions of years! They are completely irrelevant! You have shown nothing, repeat nothing, to support your claims.
And off we go again with blanket denial. How dull.
You wanted evidence of petrified wood. I gave it to you.
You wanted evidence of Cretaceous petrified wood I gave it to you.
You wanted evidence of early Cretaceous period petrified wood I gave it to you.
One example != proof of great conditions.
*sigh* Don't put your back out as you jack up that burden of proof.
There are many, many more examples.
Here's another: http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/SOAngiosperms.htm
And another: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kwanten/evolution2.htm
(Protip: Everything we know about plants during the Cretaceous period comes from the fact that they were petrified)
None of your examples are relevant. It's not my fault that you can't be bothered to read about our theory. I shouldn't have to hold your hand and point out that you've been providing evidence which simply doesn't apply to the period in question. The cretaceous period is a massive period. It should be obvious that when talking about a particular species, you need to find evidence relating to when that species existed.
They could not have developed the way they did without the kind of geographic separation seen in our theory..
Yes they could. Continental Drift. You recognise that dinotopia is not the only possible explanation, remember.
We've been round and around so many times I'm getting dizzy.
CD has gaps and flaws, and the evolutionary pattern of dinosaurs outlined in the fossil record reveals this.
-
Both you and Wilmore are only reading each others posts, Crusty. I suggest you look at some of the others in this thread.
-
CD has gaps and flaws, and the evolutionary pattern of dinosaurs outlined in the fossil record reveals this.
Interesting. I would think that the fossil record, when studied along side the geological record, would lend far more support to CD than to the notion that dinosaurs could build ocean going vessels. Focusing on just the fossil record seems a bit myopic to me. You really do need to look at the bigger picture and consider all of the evidence, not just the evidence that suits your theory.
-
Additionally nothing has been proven which supports how these dinosaurs could have taken water and food stores for a several month long journey on the open ocean to support themselves, their "livestock" and their plant life.
Dear me, someone has failed to survey the relevant literature in a rather serious way. Here is an assessment of maritime food sources, ration transportation, etc., for our most studied test case, the late Cretacious North American/Asian dromaeosaur migrant:
Dogplatter, just out of curiosity, how big and sophisticated of boat are you suggesting would be required to carry several Deinonychus, plus their livestock, plus supplies? I'm guessing that a simple raft wouldn't quite be sufficient, especially if they were to run into rough weather.
We can reasonably assume that an adult Deinonychus would require approximately the same capacity as an adult human based on the weight comparison I've cited (the largest Deinonychus specimens would have weighed around 73kg).
The Mayflower, a human ship known to have made intercontinental voyages and built of wood, is estimated to have been just over 25 metres long, and had a cargo tonnage of 180 and a crew of around 25.
Now, let us assume Saurolophus as a test case for transportation (Deinonychus would likely have had other prey/farm animals as well, but Saurolophus would have been one of the largest), and we also assume that the transported Saurolophus would have been juveniles. A yearling might have weighed somewhere close to a ton (a fully grown bull weighs 1.9).
We've established that adult Deinonychus weighed at most 73kg.
There are 907 Kg in a short ton.
so, a livestock craft of this size could have carried the WEIGHT of around 180 juvenile Saurolophus (with a crew of 25 Deinonychus). However, each adult would have been 9.8 metres long, so nowhere near 180 individuals could fit on. If we consider that a yearling might have been half that length, (say 5M) and that the Mayflower was around 7.6 metres wide, the livestock could be "stacked" width-ways with bills and tails facing starboard and port. With each Saurolophus given 2 metres of the ship's length to accomodate their body width, 11 or 12 animals could be kept on a boat the size of the Mayflower, assuming a deck system existed for the crew to be accomodated. If we don't want to concede that the boat might have had a deck (which I am fine with doing, by the way), then removing 3 animals from that number would allow room for a crew on a single-deck raft. So, to summarise, a Mayflower-sized boat could carry between 9-12 Saurolophus.
A boat the size of the Mayflower [pictured below in a painting by William Halsall (1882)] could have held up to 12 young Saurolophus.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/MayflowerHarbor.jpg)
As for passenger crafts, with each Deinonychus at 73kg, and a ship of that size having a maximum capacity of 907kg * 180 (i.e., 163260kg), a ship without livestock could hypothetically carry the WEIGHT of 2000 Deinonychus - of course a ship 25m long would not fit that many individuals, especially if they had food and supplies with them. Thanks to the handy equivalence of human and Deinonychus weight, with adults of both species weighing almost exactly the same, we can get a much better real-world analysis based on the Mayflower itself. The Mayflower crossed the Atlantic with 102 Passengers and their supplies. However, the North Pacific is much less wide than the Atlantic, so far less supplies would be needed for the trip, which means that well over 100 Deinonychus could travel on a single passenger ship of that size.
A fleet of five of these ships, one for passengers, three for livestock and one for general supplies such as tools, clothing, etc., each with a crew of 25 would be more than enough to start a large, successful colony. I'm going for a conservative estimate of 100 passengers per passenger ship and 10 Saurolophus yearlings per livestock ship.
For crew, 25 * 5 = 125, plus 100 passengers = 225 able-bodied adult Deinonychus, 3 * 10 = 30 yearling Saurolophus, and 180 tonnes of additional supplies (salted meats for the journey, saurolophus feed, tools, clothes, etc) setting out on the voyage. That's far more resources than many of the first human Anglo-American colonies started with.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Plesiosaurus_3DB.jpg)
Above: Cretaceous oceans were filled with plesiosaurs, a possible source of food and materials for Deinonychus sailors
Though salted land-animal meat in a supply ship would probably be enough to sustain the crews and passengers of other ships, hunger on the journey would also have been potentially assuaged by fishing and "whaling". The oceans of the Cretaceous were teeming with sharks, rays, as well as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs. Some of the larger plesiosaurs would have been up to 20M in length, an incredible catch and having enough meat to sustain a large number of Deinonychus for weeks at sea. It is indicated by the Fossil record that Deinonychus would have known about the existence of plesiosaurs. Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Trinacromerum_BW.jpg)
Above: A specimen of Trinacromerum, a smaller plesiosaur, has been found in the inland United States, probably kept as a pet or traded for blubber.
I am greatly pleased that a body of zetetic scientists of healthy size has been so vociferously advocating the archaeological truth in this thread. I'm sorry I haven't contributed earlier, as I recognise that I am a prominent contributor to the ongoing debate drawn out by the stubborn globularist tectonicists, a number of my own proven theses having been advanced in the course of this contraversial battle between science and globularist fundamentalism.
I should clarify that the discussion regarding EQ ratings has been characterised by misunderstanding - broadly speaking, my overall argument in this regard is a species of proof by cases. If I recall correctly, it ran somewhat along the following lines:
|If the EQ system is a reliable means for assessing the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, it is likely that dromaeosaurs were very intelligent
|If the EQ system is a flawed means for assessing the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, it is likely that dromaeosaurs were very intelligent (by virtue of the other evidence I provided)
_____
|Therefore, it is likely that dromaeosaurs were very intelligent.
If there are any other burning issues, posters of any geomorphic conviction may feel free to formulate them succintly and direct them straight to me, from now on I shall endeavour to keep an eye on any developments in this thread.
-
So now they can build ocean going ships with sails and steering systems, places for food, livestock, cargo, livestock, food and water for the licestock and a crew to maintain it. What happened to the raft we started with?
We've now added the ability to know how to design and fabricate sails, create a system to steer the craft, to be able to accurately calculate the size and quantity of ships needed to hold the cargo. They also have figured out how to calculate rations, fabricate sterile water containers, salt meat for preservation and create tools to fish with on the open sea and then haul a 60 foot long catch on board.
We started at birds can make simple hook shaped tools, then added dinosaurs were likely smarter and arrived at the above story with zero corroborating evidence for any of these abilities.
You also forgot to address:
I was just reminded of one additional aspect that James' speculation overlooks: There are fossils of sea animals everywhere in the continents. James does not only have to explain why the land animals of the Cretaceous found their way to every continent, except maybe Antarctica, but also why there are countless fossils of marine life hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away from current seas. In my personal experience, there is a place at least 200 kilometers away from the sea where these fossils are so abundant that the local children collect them and sell them to the tourists. I have one of those in my very own living room.
So, what would be the explanation of this: the sea shells of the Cretaceous just got mad with so many dinosaurs invading the seas, that they decided to walk 200 kilometers into the Andes and more than 6000 feet uphill, to die in peace?
I'm sure we all look forward to the wonderous explanation in chapter 8 of Dino-sailors of the early Cretaceous.
-
So now they can build ocean going ships with sails and steering systems, places for food, livestock, cargo, livestock, food and water for the licestock and a crew to maintain it. What happened to the raft we started with?
We've now added the ability to know how to design and fabricate sails, create a system to steer the craft, to be able to accurately calculate the size and quantity of ships needed to hold the cargo. They also have figured out how to calculate rations, fabricate sterile water containers, salt meat for preservation and create tools to fish with on the open sea and then haul a 60 foot long catch on board.
We started at birds can make simple hook shaped tools, then added dinosaurs were likely smarter and arrived at the above story with zero corroborating evidence for any of these abilities.
There's no "now" or "added", the theory that dinosaurs built high-quality seafaring vessels has been advanced for almost four years now. It is not extrapolated from the capabilities of birds, it is derived from consideration of the fossil record, though considering the capability of birds to build things is useful in suggesting that avians/dinosaurs are capable of anything. It is a corollary, it is not the main explanatory force of the argument.
You also forgot to address:
I was just reminded of one additional aspect that James' speculation overlooks: There are fossils of sea animals everywhere in the continents. James does not only have to explain why the land animals of the Cretaceous found their way to every continent, except maybe Antarctica, but also why there are countless fossils of marine life hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away from current seas. In my personal experience, there is a place at least 200 kilometers away from the sea where these fossils are so abundant that the local children collect them and sell them to the tourists. I have one of those in my very own living room.
So, what would be the explanation of this: the sea shells of the Cretaceous just got mad with so many dinosaurs invading the seas, that they decided to walk 200 kilometers into the Andes and more than 6000 feet uphill, to die in peace?
I'm sure we all look forward to the wonderous explanation in chapter 8 of Dino-sailors of the early Cretaceous.
Instead of looking FORWARD, perhaps you ought to be looking BACK ". . . to the wonderous explanation in . . ." LITERALLY MY LATEST POST, the one immediately preceding yours:
. . .
Though salted land-animal meat in a supply ship would probably be enough to sustain the crews and passengers of other ships, hunger on the journey would also have been potentially assuaged by fishing and "whaling". The oceans of the Cretaceous were teeming with sharks, rays, as well as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs. Some of the larger plesiosaurs would have been up to 20M in length, an incredible catch and having enough meat to sustain a large number of Deinonychus for weeks at sea. It is indicated by the Fossil record that Deinonychus would have known about the existence of plesiosaurs. Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Trinacromerum_BW.jpg)
Above: A specimen of Trinacromerum, a smaller plesiosaur, has been found in the inland United States, probably kept as a pet or traded for blubber.
Furthermore, shellfish specifically have been dealt with in the forum thread "What About the Dinosuars" (2009) pp. 19-21. Here's the link:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.380
-
There's no "now" or "added", the theory that dinosaurs built high-quality seafaring vessels has been advanced for almost four years now. It is not extrapolated from the capabilities of birds, it is derived from consideration of the fossil record, though considering the capability of birds to build things is useful in suggesting that avians/dinosaurs are capable of anything. It is a corollary, it is not the main explanatory force of the argument.
Wow James, I didn't realize that the fossil record included fossilized boats from the period. Do you have any links with more information? By the way, how does the geologic record that supports continental drift fit into your theory?
Technological improvements after World War II supported many of Wegener's ideas about continental drift. New methods of dating and drilling for rock samples, especially from deep-sea drilling ships like the Glomar Challenger, have allowed more precise matching of Pangaea's rocks and fossils. Data from magnetometers (instruments that measure the magnetism of the iron in sea floor rocks) proved that the sea floors have spread since Pangaea's breakup.
-
Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.
sorry if this has already been asked, but do you have a source for this claim (that the plesiosaur skeletons have been found far from the ocean)?
-
Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.
sorry if this has already been asked, but do you have a source for this claim (that the plesiosaur skeletons have been found far from the ocean)?
or more accurately, what type of rock were the fossils found in?
as for the rest of this... I honestly cant find words to describe it.
should I put on my experimental archaeologoy hat, and write a long essay outlining exactly what is required in terms of infrastructure to build a ship the size of the Mayflower?
-
James, I looked up Trinacromerum, the small plesiosaur you say would have been a pet or a source of blubber. On the surface, you would appear to be right, as it lived in Kansas and that is where its fossils were found.
However, during the Cretaceous period, there was a "Western Interior Sea" going through the whole Midwest area of North America.
(http://www.oceansofkansas.com/images2/wis-map3.jpg)
The Western Interior Sea, sometimes called the Inland Sea, was probably less than 600 feet deep in most areas, and had a relatively flat and soft, mud bottom. It is considered to be an 'epi-continental sea'; that is, one which lies on top of a continental landmass, and not between continents. Near the middle of the sea where Kansas is now located, sediments were deposited at a rate which would ultimately produce about one inch of compacted chalk for every 700 years. The chalk also has more than a hundred thin layers of bentonite clay, most of which are rusty red in color, that are the result of the fall of ash from repeated eruptions of volcanoes to the west of Kansas in what is now Nevada and Utah. These ash deposits can be traced for miles across the chalk beds and have been used as marker units in describing the stratigraphy of the formation (See Hattin, 1982). In addition, several species of vertebrate and invertebrate marine life that lived and/or became extinct at certain times during the deposition of the chalk are useful in determining the age and biostratigraphy of widely separated exposures (See Stewart, 1990). Near the end of the Cretaceous, the Western Interior Sea began to close, becoming shallower and narrower as the Rocky Mountains were pushed up from the west, uplifting the sea bottom as they rose. Eventually, the center of North America rose above sea level and the sediments (limestones, sandstones, shales and chalk) deposited on the basement rocks of Kansas for nearly half a billion years began to erode away.
(from the "Oceans of Kansas" website)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Trinacromerum_BW.jpg)
Above: A specimen of Trinacromerum, a smaller plesiosaur, has been found in the inland United States, probably kept as a pet or traded for blubber.
I feel bad for this thing. It has a kindly face but it may have been stupid and not understood. Poor creature.
-
Instead of looking FORWARD, perhaps you ought to be looking BACK ". . . to the wonderous explanation in . . ." LITERALLY MY LATEST POST, the one immediately preceding yours:
Your bolded wonder had failed to address the sea shells, but thank you for pointing to your pretty pictures.
Your fantasy is based on no evidence and only serves to provide an explanation for a distribution of fossils. The same distribution could just as easily be explained by a race of plane flying dinosaurs, as they had clear evidence flight was possible, and could also be explained by teleportations from devices they built or by technology delivered by aliens. Each would have just as much supporting evidence. It's a wonderful philosophical arguement for a maybe-what-if story, but that is just about it.
-
Instead of looking FORWARD, perhaps you ought to be looking BACK ". . . to the wonderous explanation in . . ." LITERALLY MY LATEST POST, the one immediately preceding yours:
Your bolded wonder had failed to address the sea shells, but thank you for pointing to your pretty pictures.
Your fantasy is based on no evidence and only serves to provide an explanation for a distribution of fossils. The same distribution could just as easily be explained by a race of plane flying dinosaurs, as they had clear evidence flight was possible, and could also be explained by teleportations from devices they built or by technology delivered by aliens. Each would have just as much supporting evidence. It's a wonderful philosophical arguement for a maybe-what-if story, but that is just about it.
You are being too kind with James when you say this speculation provides an explanation for a distribution of fossils.
This speculation requires a lot of things that would appear on the fossil record, but do not:
- A civilization capable of making such sophisticated ships would have thousands of other technological achievements, and some of them should appear in the fossil record.
- The seafaring species could have taken a few different animals (if we accept the proposal for a second), but the fossil record is filled with species of every kind you can imagine, and some you can't. The fossil record is far too complex to admit this possibility.
- Not only land animals would have to have been moved, also an enormous amount of sea animals appear hundreds of kilometers inland, from small shells to huge Ictiosaurus, just to mention a few. The fossil record does not support the distribution of fossils this "theory" would produce.
- The fossil record and the geological strata support the creation and destruction of mountains in too many ways to show here, but this speculation implies no big movements of the land.
- The human brain is a very expensive tool in terms of the amount of energy it uses, and the possibility of gradually making bigger and bigger machines until a seafaring ship can be constructed means a large population of individuals had to be maintained while they worked on their inventions. This means a whole structure of production and distribution of goods had to be in place, so lots of telltale signs of this should appear, like the ruins of cities and infrastructure, for example.
On the other hand, continental drift is happening right now, it has been measured and an enormously rich geological record has been documented. Just multiplying the speed of the continental drift by the known age of Earth gives you overwhelming evidence that the continents were completely different during the early stages of the planet. No invisible cities, no sudden urges to build ships, no improbable geniuses are needed to explain the fossil and geological record.
-
- A civilization capable of making such sophisticated ships would have thousands of other technological achievements, and some of them should appear in the fossil record.
The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.
- The seafaring species could have taken a few different animals (if we accept the proposal for a second), but the fossil record is filled with species of every kind you can imagine, and some you can't. The fossil record is far too complex to admit this possibility.
Which ones can't you imagine? The two types of life form I can conceive of being transported are animals and plants, both of which form integral parts of the infrastructure of agrarian societies.
- Not only land animals would have to have been moved, also an enormous amount of sea animals appear hundreds of kilometers inland, from small shells to huge Ictiosaurus, just to mention a few. The fossil record does not support the distribution of fossils this "theory" would produce.
You seem to have missed the part where I suggested that cretaceous dromaeosaurs were capable whalers and fisher-saurs(?). The fossil record suggests a mercantile society with seafaring capabilities.
- The fossil record and the geological strata support the creation and destruction of mountains in too many ways to show here, but this speculation implies no big movements of the land.
I dispute neither the creation nor destruction of mountains, nor have I ever done so.
- The human brain is a very expensive tool in terms of the amount of energy it uses, and the possibility of gradually making bigger and bigger machines until a seafaring ship can be constructed means a large population of individuals had to be maintained while they worked on their inventions. This means a whole structure of production and distribution of goods had to be in place, so lots of telltale signs of this should appear, like the ruins of cities and infrastructure, for example.
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
E: Fixed Formatting
-
- A civilization capable of making such sophisticated ships would have thousands of other technological achievements, and some of them should appear in the fossil record.
The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.
- The seafaring species could have taken a few different animals (if we accept the proposal for a second), but the fossil record is filled with species of every kind you can imagine, and some you can't. The fossil record is far too complex to admit this possibility.
Which ones can't you imagine? The two types of life form I can conceive of being transported are animals and plants, both of which form integral parts of the infrastructure of agrarian societies.
- Not only land animals would have to have been moved, also an enormous amount of sea animals appear hundreds of kilometers inland, from small shells to huge Ictiosaurus, just to mention a few. The fossil record does not support the distribution of fossils this "theory" would produce.
You seem to have missed the part where I suggested that cretaceous dromaeosaurs were capable whalers and fisher-saurs(?). The fossil record suggests a mercantile society with seafaring capabilities.
- The fossil record and the geological strata support the creation and destruction of mountains in too many ways to show here, but this speculation implies no big movements of the land.
I dispute neither the creation nor destruction of mountains, nor have I ever done so.
- The human brain is a very expensive tool in terms of the amount of energy it uses, and the possibility of gradually making bigger and bigger machines until a seafaring ship can be constructed means a large population of individuals had to be maintained while they worked on their inventions. This means a whole structure of production and distribution of goods had to be in place, so lots of telltale signs of this should appear, like the ruins of cities and infrastructure, for example.
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
All very good points. Look at isolated finds we have like the Antikythera mechanism. It has no real explanation, is the only device of its kind, and we found it barely out of luck. There are several other finds like this in our own culture. Add a few million years to the mix and...
-
All very good points. Look at isolated finds we have like the Antikythera mechanism. It has no real explanation, is the only device of its kind, and we found it barely out of luck. There are several other finds like this in our own culture. Add a few million years to the mix and...
....we can speculate on what could be proven by the evidence that doesn't exist.
We still have:
distribution of fossils = seafaring dino traders that know how to construct sailing ships, preserve meat, calculate loading limits of ships and are able to transport livestock and plants.
-
this thread makes me lol
The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.
that doesn't mean you can pretend that such boats existed.
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
wood or stone structures.
-
The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.
Were the boats from 65000000 wooden? Because if you've been reading links, you'd know that's when A LOT of wood is thought to have been petrified. So I'd imagine we'd find quite a bit.
-
The wood Crustinator was referring to did not come from the period in question. Moreover, the petrified wood we have now almost all comes in big geographic lumps where an entire forest was petrified.
-
The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.
Australian aborigines did not create transoceanic boats capable of transporting hundreds or thousands of huge dinosaurs like the Diplodocus, for example. Your debating strategy is as simple as it is thinly veiled: all or nothing; if a small piece of our civilization does not leave marks in the fossil and geological record, then it is possible that a whole civilization existed and left no sign of it existence at all.
Humanity created cities of more than a million people before being able to construct transoceanic boats. Where are the cities of your intelligent dinosaurs?
Which ones can't you imagine? The two types of life form I can conceive of being transported are animals and plants, both of which form integral parts of the infrastructure of agrarian societies.
Even the Spanish explorers, when they carried some farm animals and crop seeds, chose to take a few well selected individuals because they did not have space to carry thousands of species. If your dinosaurs carried livestock (and we are being very credulous here) they certainly did not carry thousands of couples of each kind of animal, as if they were old Noah emulators.
You seem to have missed the part where I suggested that cretaceous dromaeosaurs were capable whalers and fisher-saurs(?). The fossil record suggests a mercantile society with seafaring capabilities.
How can I forget that hilarious remark? Was it for real?
So you are even considering the possibility that your intelligent dinosaurs carried all those sea animals to places that are now far inland and deposited them on the floor without eating them, just so we can find them many millions of years afterwards? Exactly how does the fossil record suggest intelligent dinosaurs that make museums of sea life on land just so we can study them now?
I dispute neither the creation nor destruction of mountains, nor have I ever done so.
Then you do not dispute the fact that geological strata give us information on how those mountains were created and destructed. You want to fish for a few pieces of geological investigation that serve your speculation and throw the rest.
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
And how many of those young societies have created seafaring boats? Humanity has had a history of at least three million years, leaving telltale signs of its existence, until finally a few of its individuals ventured into the Atlantic Ocean. When someone looks for traces of our existence in another 80 million years or so they will most certainly not find Erik the Red's boat or Columbus' boats, but they will certainly find ruins of some of the cities we have constructed.
It is one thing to say that most of the marks left by the dinosaurs have been destroyed forever. It is a very different thing to say every single trace of every kind of tool, housing, infrastructure, in short, everything that every single intelligent dinosaur created ever has been destroyed. After all, you only leave some 20 kilograms of bone when you die, but leave behind at least ten tons of rock, asphalt, tools, pieces of your house (both wooden and stone and metal), and much more.
-
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
if they left no evidence how do we know they existed?
(also: fisher-saur I choose you!)
-
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
if they left no evidence how do we know they existed?
(also: fisher-saur I choose you!)
The quote you show is not mine, it is from James, the apparent creator of this speculation.
When you know at least a bit about archeology and geology you can see that you do not have to find every single bit of information to get an idea of how things were in some point of the past. Paleontology is not only about finding bones, it is about finding the story told by ancient remains. A society like the one proposed by James would have left some traces, even if they worked mostly with wood, including tools much harder than wood (maybe stone, maybe brass) and signs of huge settlements, which include the massive alteration of large spaces to construct their cities. There is no such thing as a society of millions of individuals that leave absolutely no evidence of their existence and there is no reason whatsoever to think that a society would do such a great effort to cross an ocean with an incredibly complicated cargo in their ships and do no other technological feat of any kind.
-
The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.
Australian aborigines did not create transoceanic boats capable of transporting hundreds or thousands of huge dinosaurs like the Diplodocus, for example. Your debating strategy is as simple as it is thinly veiled: all or nothing; if a small piece of our civilization does not leave marks in the fossil and geological record, then it is possible that a whole civilization existed and left no sign of it existence at all.
Our test case was the Cretaceous North American Deinonychus, a 70kg dromaeosaur; and its most ubiquitous livestock, the Saurolophus, which we suggested would have been transported as yearlings to conserve space (the weight problem not being an issue with a well-engineered ship the size of the Mayflower, as we have discussed). Diplodocus was extinct by the end of the Late Jurassic, so I am not suggesting that any would have been transported by dromaeosaurs as food. In fact, I do not think I have suggested anywhere that a Diplodocus might have ever set foot on a boat. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I am not aware of any Diplodocus remains outside of the continental United States, suggesting they lived there, although Diplodocus was large enough that it would not surprise me if isolated samples had swum to outlying islands around the USA, such as the Aleutians or the Bahamas (I'm just covering my back here, I don't know of Diplodocus fossils ever having been found there).
Humanity created cities of more than a million people before being able to construct transoceanic boats. Where are the cities of your intelligent dinosaurs?
Straightforwardly false I'm afraid. Not even disputed by mainstream globularist science.
Which ones can't you imagine? The two types of life form I can conceive of being transported are animals and plants, both of which form integral parts of the infrastructure of agrarian societies.
Even the Spanish explorers, when they carried some farm animals and crop seeds, chose to take a few well selected individuals because they did not have space to carry thousands of species. If your dinosaurs carried livestock (and we are being very credulous here) they certainly did not carry thousands of couples of each kind of animal, as if they were old Noah emulators.
If you could direct me to the place where I claimed anything of the sort, I will glady and immediately recant (hint: I have never suggested anything remotely along those lines).
You seem to have missed the part where I suggested that cretaceous dromaeosaurs were capable whalers and fisher-saurs(?). The fossil record suggests a mercantile society with seafaring capabilities.
How can I forget that hilarious remark? Was it for real?
So you are even considering the possibility that your intelligent dinosaurs carried all those sea animals to places that are now far inland and deposited them on the floor without eating them, just so we can find them many millions of years afterwards? Exactly how does the fossil record suggest intelligent dinosaurs that make museums of sea life on land just so we can study them now?
I don't wish to patronise you here, but what we've found inland are the bones and shells of the aforementioned sea creatures. Which part of this discovery suggests that their flesh wasn't eaten, exactly?
I dispute neither the creation nor destruction of mountains, nor have I ever done so.
Then you do not dispute the fact that geological strata give us information on how those mountains were created and destructed. You want to fish for a few pieces of geological investigation that serve your speculation and throw the rest.
Let me be quite clear on exactly what it is that I do or do not dispute, so that there may be no doubt as to the propositional content of my claims. I specifically dispute that the continents were once a single giant landmass, or that they have to any large degree changed their position relative to one another in the course of natural history (sea-level changes notwithstanding). I do not dispute the creation or destruction of mountains. I do not dispute that geological investigation enlightens us as to the past creation or destruction of these mountains, in fact, it is my sole basis for believing that they were created or destroyed.
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
And how many of those young societies have created seafaring boats? Humanity has had a history of at least three million years, leaving telltale signs of its existence, until finally a few of its individuals ventured into the Atlantic Ocean. When someone looks for traces of our existence in another 80 million years or so they will most certainly not find Erik the Red's boat or Columbus' boats, but they will certainly find ruins of some of the cities we have constructed.
Again, I'm afraid this is false. The most accessible counterexample is Australian pre-Aboriginal society, which necessarily constructed seaworthy boats and had the infrastructures necessary to build those boats. This deductive fact, which is (rightly) upheld by the mainstream anthropological community, is presented as the conclusion of an argument which is structurally similar to my own, with regard to cretaceous dromaeosaurs, and certain other prehistoric species.
It is one thing to say that most of the marks left by the dinosaurs have been destroyed forever. It is a very different thing to say every single trace of every kind of tool, housing, infrastructure, in short, everything that every single intelligent dinosaur created ever has been destroyed. After all, you only leave some 20 kilograms of bone when you die, but leave behind at least ten tons of rock, asphalt, tools, pieces of your house (both wooden and stone and metal), and much more.
I have not expounded the view that any dinosaur ever smelted metal, in fact, I believe I have argued the opposite on a number of occasions. The fact that the ancestors of Australian aborigines possessed a society of sufficient complexity to build intercontinental watercraft, yet left no trace of their civilization (a pair of plain facts which I would be surprised if you were to dispute) discredits the charge you have made here.
-
When you know at least a bit about archeology and geology you can see that you do not have to find every single bit of information to get an idea of how things were in some point of the past. Paleontology is not only about finding bones, it is about finding the story told by ancient remains.
I am glad you understand what it is to conduct paleontological investigation, but I am dismayed at your disapproval when I or my colleagues are the persons conducting it.
A society like the one proposed by James would have left some traces, even if they worked mostly with wood, including tools much harder than wood (maybe stone, maybe brass)
I believe, by the way, that the likelyhood of discovering and correctly identifying the stone tools of dromaeosaurs is roughly commensurate with the likelyhood of discovering those of the proto-Aboriginal societies which first colonised Australia, once we have adjusted for an additional 64960000 years of decay. For reference, the current number of proto-Aboriginal artifacts we have discovered and positively identified as such is 0.
and signs of huge settlements, which include the massive alteration of large spaces to construct their cities. There is no such thing as a society of millions of individuals that leave absolutely no evidence of their existence and there is no reason whatsoever to think that a society would do such a great effort to cross an ocean with an incredibly complicated cargo in their ships and do no other technological feat of any kind.
Nor is there any reason to suspect that dromaeosaurs ever lived in cities millions strong. That is why I have not suggested it.
-
Our test case was the Cretaceous North American Deinonychus, a 70kg dromaeosaur; and its most ubiquitous livestock, the Saurolophus, which we suggested would have been transported as yearlings to conserve space (the weight problem not being an issue with a well-engineered ship the size of the Mayflower, as we have discussed). Diplodocus was extinct by the end of the Late Jurassic, so I am not suggesting that any would have been transported by dromaeosaurs as food. In fact, I do not think I have suggested anywhere that a Diplodocus might have ever set foot on a boat. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I am not aware of any Diplodocus remains outside of the continental United States, suggesting they lived there, although Diplodocus was large enough that it would not surprise me if isolated samples had swum to outlying islands around the USA, such as the Aleutians or the Bahamas (I'm just covering my back here, I don't know of Diplodocus fossils ever having been found there).
The fossil record shows dinosaurs on every continent, including Diplodocus and many other enormous species. You can "explain" a minuscule part of the fossil record but if you do not have a way to explain most of the record you are just playing with words. By the way, if you want to propose your intelligent dinosaurs as an alternative to Continental Drift you are in the wrong geological era. Your "theory" cannot explain why there is a continuous presence of dinosaurs on all continents starting in the Triassic, continuing into the Jurassic and finally in the Cretaceous. Did your intelligent dinosaurs populate the whole world with dinosaurs, or did they just carry an insignificant population of herd animals to the other continents?
Straightforwardly false I'm afraid. Not even disputed by mainstream globularist science.
Please remind me, when did the Romans grow the first great city to a million inhabitants? Was it by chance around the first century CE? And how many cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants were there before Columbus' voyages?
Again, I'm afraid this is false. The most accessible counterexample is Australian pre-Aboriginal society, which necessarily constructed seaworthy boats and had the infrastructures necessary to build those boats. This deductive fact, which is (rightly) upheld by the mainstream anthropological community, is presented as the conclusion of an argument which is structurally similar to my own, with regard to cretaceous dromaeosaurs, and certain other prehistoric species.
This is such a carefully written remark that you can just miss the shift in objectives. "Seaworthy" is not the same as "transatlantic". And "seaworthy" does not mean their navigators were able to direct them through thousands of miles with no island in between, or with enough capacity to take livestock with them. You are trying to inflate the accomplishments of your Australian aboriginals with every new sentence, but the fact remains, they were hardly as technologically advanced as the Europeans when they finally were able and interested in transatlantic voyages.
I have not expounded the view that any dinosaur ever smelted metal, in fact, I believe I have argued the opposite on a number of occasions. The fact that the ancestors of Australian aborigines possessed a society of sufficient complexity to build intercontinental watercraft, yet left no trace of their civilization (a pair of plain facts which I would be surprised if you were to dispute) discredits the charge you have made here.
Now, as soon as you think others will not see it, your aborigenes are again building intercontinental boats. Can you show us, by chance, a photograph of one of these intercontinental boats? Would you be surprised if they are not much more than big rafts? Remember, you are supposed to be proposing the worldwide distribution of the dinosaurs we know, not the island skipping done by the Australian aborigines. There is a big difference between a raft for two day voyages with a few rowing aborigines (which van be done completely in wood) and transoceanic vessels like the ones in your pictures, which require metals both as tools to carve the wood and as nails to give the boat some strength.
So, please either stop talking about aborigines and their rafts or stop talking about sixteenth century transoceanic boats. They are not similar and require vastly different technologies to build and use.
-
Our test case was the Cretaceous North American Deinonychus, a 70kg dromaeosaur; and its most ubiquitous livestock, the Saurolophus, which we suggested would have been transported as yearlings to conserve space (the weight problem not being an issue with a well-engineered ship the size of the Mayflower, as we have discussed).
Which the class is still waiting for any actual evidence to be brought forth for, other than a story which has as much supporting evidence as "aliens did it".
-
Our test case was the Cretaceous North American Deinonychus, a 70kg dromaeosaur; and its most ubiquitous livestock, the Saurolophus, which we suggested would have been transported as yearlings to conserve space (the weight problem not being an issue with a well-engineered ship the size of the Mayflower, as we have discussed).
Which the class is still waiting for any actual evidence to be brought forth for, other than a story which has as much supporting evidence as "aliens did it".
Now that you say it, the "aliens did it" baseless speculation is less bad than the "intelligent dinosaurs did it" baseless speculation. At least you can say the aliens beamed all sorts and sizes of dinosaurs, other animals and plants from one continent to another, on an ongoing basis during all the triassic, jurassic and cretaceous in just the right times and places to make all of the fossil record possible.
James' speculation does not even explain why there are dinosaur fossils from all the Mesozoic era (triassic, jurassic and cretaceous) on all the continents, except maybe Antarctica.
I am really offended by the claims of James that the fossil record supports his speculation. As if you and others had not given enough examples of brain-dead speculations that are better than James', here goes my own: "I did it!" I found a time machine in my basement and decided to test it with my neighbor's parrots, and sent some to each continent. They arrived at the beginning of the triassic, horribly mutated, and evolved into what we call dinosaurs. And the best part is, the fossil record supports my theory, better than James'!
-
So you have no proof for a flat earth and no proof for intelligent dinosaurs, are you gonna make another ignorant theory that has no supporting evidence, cause im all ears.
( but please make sure it is a little less absurd then the last to theories. )
-
Again, I'm afraid this is false. The most accessible counterexample is Australian pre-Aboriginal society, which necessarily constructed seaworthy boats and had the infrastructures necessary to build those boats. This deductive fact, which is (rightly) upheld by the mainstream anthropological community, is presented as the conclusion of an argument which is structurally similar to my own, with regard to cretaceous dromaeosaurs, and certain other prehistoric species.
This is such a carefully written remark that you can just miss the shift in objectives. "Seaworthy" is not the same as "transatlantic". And "seaworthy" does not mean their navigators were able to direct them through thousands of miles with no island in between, or with enough capacity to take livestock with them. You are trying to inflate the accomplishments of your Australian aboriginals with every new sentence, but the fact remains, they were hardly as technologically advanced as the Europeans when they finally were able and interested in transatlantic voyages.
Just picking up on this specific point: how do you explain the settlement of Hawaii?
-
So you have no proof for a flat earth and no proof for intelligent dinosaurs, are you gonna make another ignorant theory that has no supporting evidence, cause im all ears.
( but please make sure it is a little less absurd then the last to theories. )
The point is, anyone can create a crackpot theory that fits a small part of our scientific evidence on a subject. Whether we are talking dinosaur nests surviving a transoceanic voyage, or dinosaurs making transoceanic trips and navigating their ships, or flying dinosaurs hopping between continents, or aliens moving dinosaurs to other continents, or time travelling parrots, or whatever you want invent, you can find a tiny part of the fossil record or the geological record that support it.
That is why scientist urge you to look at the preponderance of evidence, not at a single piece of it.
-
Again, I'm afraid this is false. The most accessible counterexample is Australian pre-Aboriginal society, which necessarily constructed seaworthy boats and had the infrastructures necessary to build those boats. This deductive fact, which is (rightly) upheld by the mainstream anthropological community, is presented as the conclusion of an argument which is structurally similar to my own, with regard to cretaceous dromaeosaurs, and certain other prehistoric species.
This is such a carefully written remark that you can just miss the shift in objectives. "Seaworthy" is not the same as "transatlantic". And "seaworthy" does not mean their navigators were able to direct them through thousands of miles with no island in between, or with enough capacity to take livestock with them. You are trying to inflate the accomplishments of your Australian aboriginals with every new sentence, but the fact remains, they were hardly as technologically advanced as the Europeans when they finally were able and interested in transatlantic voyages.
Just picking up on this specific point: how do you explain the settlement of Hawaii?
I am not an expert in Hawaii. I am pretty sure there are reasonable hypothesis for every species that has arrived at those islands, and you would do us all a favor if you illustrated us with the findings of modern science about them.
-
There's no need for any detailed research. From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Pre-European_contact_.E2.80.94_Ancient_Hawaii_.28800-1778.29
The earliest habitation supported by archaeological evidence dates to as early as 300 BCE, probably by Polynesian settlers from the Marquesas, followed by a second wave of migration from Raiatea and Bora Bora in the 11th century. The first recorded European contact with the islands was in 1778 by British explorer James Cook.
Polynesians from the Marquesas and possibly the Society Islands may have first populated the Hawaiian Islands between 300 and 500 CE. There is a great deal of debate regarding these dates.[21]
So as you can see, given the geographic isolation of Hawaii, there is no reason to suppose that you need the kind of ocean-going boats Europeans used to acheive trans-oceanic voyages. Even in 1778 when Cook arrived, the boats used by Hawaiians were very simplistic.
-
There's no need for any detailed research. From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Pre-European_contact_.E2.80.94_Ancient_Hawaii_.28800-1778.29
The earliest habitation supported by archaeological evidence dates to as early as 300 BCE, probably by Polynesian settlers from the Marquesas, followed by a second wave of migration from Raiatea and Bora Bora in the 11th century. The first recorded European contact with the islands was in 1778 by British explorer James Cook.
Polynesians from the Marquesas and possibly the Society Islands may have first populated the Hawaiian Islands between 300 and 500 CE. There is a great deal of debate regarding these dates.[21]
So as you can see, given the geographic isolation of Hawaii, there is no reason to suppose that you need the kind of ocean-going boats Europeans used to acheive trans-oceanic voyages. Even in 1778 when Cook arrived, the boats used by Hawaiians were very simplistic.
In that zone you have countless islands created by the busiest volcanic activity in the world, so the fishermen did not have to have enormous boats or great technological advancements to spread through those islands. Also, they were not carrying large animals to use as livestock, or large supplies of food and water.
What James is proposing is totally different: sailboats with capacity for tens of intelligent dinosaurs, with livestock, food, capacity to fish enormous sea animals, and good navigational skills to cross the oceans of the world.
Remember, James has to explain the propagation of hundreds or thousands of species of animals and plants during the Triassic, that is when the "other theory" explains this propagation with the existence of Pangea. And that is a little bit difficult when his intelligent dinosaurs existed during the Cretaceous, some 150 million years later after the Triassic. His boats have to carry food, water, tools, and, oh, yes, a time machine.
-
In that zone you have countless islands created by the busiest volcanic activity in the world, so the fishermen did not have to have enormous boats or great technological advancements to spread through those islands.
Do you know how far away the Marquesas islands (origin point of the Polynesian settlers) are from Hawaii? Spreading through the Hawaiian island chain itself may have been relatively easy, but the Marquesas are about 2,000 miles away, with no land in between. We're not talking about leapfrog here, but genuine oceanic travel.
Also, they were not carrying large animals to use as livestock, or large supplies of food and water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hawaii#Settlement
The colonists brought along with them clothing, plants and livestock and established settlements along the coasts and larger valleys. Upon their arrival, the settlers grew kalo (taro), maiʻa (banana), niu (coconut), ulu (breadfruit), and raised pua'a (pork), moa (chicken), and 'ilio (dog), although these meats were eaten less often than fruits, vegetables, and seafood. Popular condiments included pa'akai (salt), ground kukui nut, limu (seaweed), and ko (sugarcane) which was used as both a sweet and a medicine.[3] In addition to the foods they brought, the settlers also acquired 'uala (sweet potato), which has yet to be adequately explained, as the plant originates in South America. A few researchers have argued that the presence of the sweet potato in the ancient Hawaiian diet is evidence of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact with the Americas.
-
So as you can see, given the geographic isolation of Hawaii, there is no reason to suppose that you need the kind of ocean-going boats Europeans used to acheive trans-oceanic voyages. Even in 1778 when Cook arrived, the boats used by Hawaiians were very simplistic.
For the dinosaurs, yes there is a necessary reason:
So now they can build ocean going ships with sails and steering systems, places for food, livestock, cargo, livestock, food and water for the licestock and a crew to maintain it. What happened to the raft we started with?
We've now added the ability to know how to design and fabricate sails, create a system to steer the craft, to be able to accurately calculate the size and quantity of ships needed to hold the cargo. They also have figured out how to calculate rations, fabricate sterile water containers, salt meat for preservation and create tools to fish with on the open sea and then haul a 60 foot long catch on board.
We started at birds can make simple hook shaped tools, then added dinosaurs were likely smarter and arrived at the above story with zero corroborating evidence for any of these abilities.
There's no "now" or "added", the theory that dinosaurs built high-quality seafaring vessels has been advanced for almost four years now. It is not extrapolated from the capabilities of birds, it is derived from consideration of the fossil record, though considering the capability of birds to build things is useful in suggesting that avians/dinosaurs are capable of anything. It is a corollary, it is not the main explanatory force of the argument.
The Mayflower, a human ship known to have made intercontinental voyages and built of wood, is estimated to have been just over 25 metres long, and had a cargo tonnage of 180 and a crew of around 25.
Now, let us assume Saurolophus as a test case for transportation (Deinonychus would likely have had other prey/farm animals as well, but Saurolophus would have been one of the largest), and we also assume that the transported Saurolophus would have been juveniles. A yearling might have weighed somewhere close to a ton (a fully grown bull weighs 1.9).
We've established that adult Deinonychus weighed at most 73kg.
There are 907 Kg in a short ton.
so, a livestock craft of this size could have carried the WEIGHT of around 180 juvenile Saurolophus (with a crew of 25 Deinonychus). However, each adult would have been 9.8 metres long, so nowhere near 180 individuals could fit on. If we consider that a yearling might have been half that length, (say 5M) and that the Mayflower was around 7.6 metres wide, the livestock could be "stacked" width-ways with bills and tails facing starboard and port. With each Saurolophus given 2 metres of the ship's length to accomodate their body width, 11 or 12 animals could be kept on a boat the size of the Mayflower, assuming a deck system existed for the crew to be accomodated. If we don't want to concede that the boat might have had a deck (which I am fine with doing, by the way), then removing 3 animals from that number would allow room for a crew on a single-deck raft. So, to summarise, a Mayflower-sized boat could carry between 9-12 Saurolophus.
A boat the size of the Mayflower [pictured below in a painting by William Halsall (1882)] could have held up to 12 young Saurolophus.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/MayflowerHarbor.jpg)
-
Do you know how far away the Marquesas islands (origin point of the Polynesian settlers) are from Hawaii? Spreading through the Hawaiian island chain itself may have been relatively easy, but the Marquesas are about 2,000 miles away, with no land in between. We're not talking about leapfrog here, but genuine oceanic travel.
Just to mention a few, there are: Jarvis Islands, Kiribati, the Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef and the Johnston Atoll. But apart from the big islands with known names, the whole area is near a huge fault that created (and continues to create) a great string of underwater mountains, some of which rise above sea level and constitute the aforementioned islands. Hawaii is also the result of the volcanic activity of the area and is surrounded by big and tiny islands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hawaii#Settlement
And the biggest livestock they carried was pigs. You do not need a great infrastructure to go from island to island, creating colonies in every intermediate step, and in that way requiring relatively simple boats and minimal supplies to cover large final distances. It is completely different than traveling long distances with no intermediate steps. In fact, the distance from Marquesas Islands to Hawaii is similar to the distance from Hawaii to mainland USA. but no Polynesians ever made that trip. Wonder why?
But the final point is that this speculation about intelligent dinosaurs doing transoceanic voyages has no evidence whatsoever that cannot be explained by the modern theories of Paleontology and has tons of evidence against it. The mere fact that James's intelligent dinosaurs, if they existed, lived about 70 millions of years ago and that the propagation of dinosaurs to all the continents occurred about 200 million years ago is enough evidence to throw away this speculation for good.
-
I do not see the problem with accepting migration of dinosaurs. We have evidence of their fossils on all continents. This is not disputed. I suppose the dispute relates to how they migrated. Ultimately all organisms and matter take the path of least resistance. It is reasonable to expect a condition present that pressured dinosaurs to move, be it predatory, lack of food, etc. It is common knowledge and widely accepted that dinosaurs were intellectually superior to other species. They also had many advantages that we do not. For example, some of the species could fly, possibly scouting potential migratory locations. I do not limit their capability to just building a floating device. I suspect they could swim like the elephant does for miles, as they do now. As for storing food for the trip, we see squirrels storing food for the winter yet this fact is not denied. Did they communicate? Of course they did as do most species today. A simple look at the behavior of ants during a flood demonstrates the ability of animals to create crafts that float, even out of their own bodies. This "clumping" together of bodies would also explain the high ratio of dinosaur fossils discovered in oceanic regions.
-
I do not see the problem with accepting migration of dinosaurs. We have evidence of their fossils on all continents. This is not disputed. I suppose the dispute relates to how they migrated. Ultimately all organisms and matter take the path of least resistance. It is reasonable to expect a condition present that pressured dinosaurs to move, be it predatory, lack of food, etc. It is common knowledge and widely accepted that dinosaurs were intellectually superior to other species. They also had many advantages that we do not. For example, some of the species could fly, possibly scouting potential migratory locations. I do not limit their capability to just building a floating device. I suspect they could swim like the elephant does for miles, as they do now. As for storing food for the trip, we see squirrels storing food for the winter yet this fact is not denied. Did they communicate? Of course they did as do most species today. A simple look at the behavior of ants during a flood demonstrates the ability of animals to create crafts that float, even out of their own bodies. This "clumping" together of bodies would also explain the high ratio of dinosaur fossils discovered in oceanic regions.
Now that you have a lot of "could have" propositions, it is time to do a little scientific investigation. We are not talking about extraterrestrials in Antares, we are talking about animals that left a fossil record immersed inside a geological record that lasted some 150 million years and is visible in every continent, except maybe Antarctica. Your speculations have to integrate acceptably with the available information, but do not.
Having separate pieces of a puzzle (flying animals, intellectually superior animals, animals that build things, animals that swim, animals that store food) is useless if the pieces are not fitted together. For example, how many birds have you seen talking to land animals?
You also require some evidence, not just speculation. What part of the available evidence is explained better by your speculations than by modern science's theories?
-
I'm baffled as to how the oceanic voyages of Polynesians or Australian aborigines proves anything about dinosaurs. Native Hawaiians are human, so it is not surprising that their ancestors built adequate boats.
There is not really any evidence from the "fossil record" to support the idea of sea-faring dinosaur civilizations. There's the jaguar, which is part of the Panthera genus (along with the lion and the tiger) yet the jaguar is only found in the Americas and is the only member of that genus in the Americas. Did some tiger or leopard cross the oceans with magnificent boats? Of course not. The ancestor of the jaguar crossed the Bering land bridge.
James is assuming a lot about how Earth was geographically. I already proved him to be wrong on the small plesiosaur (Trinacromerum) he tried to pass off as a "pet" or traded as a source of blubber, by showing that the areas where Trinacromerum lived were covered by water at the time, by a huge inland sea.
So what are the chances, assuming Deinonychus is found in both hemispheres, or however the "evidence" goes, that there was a land bridge. I say very likely.
-
"Now that you have a lot of "could have" propositions, it is time to do a little scientific investigation."
I think it is widely accepted that squirrels store food for the winter, elephants swim for miles and ants use their bodies for flotation devices.
"For example, how many birds have you seen talking to land animals?"
Have you ever seen a mocking bird communicating to other land animals near its nest? I have witnessed this as have many others. I dare say it is you that lacks the evidence.
"You also require some evidence, not just speculation."
I am sure that I could provide you with some evidence of squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices if you so require. This is not speculation.
-
I am sure that I could provide you with some evidence of squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices if you so require. This is not speculation.
That would be totally cool but totally irrelevant. Even if you produce a squirrel/elephant/ant hybrid (Squelephant?) with thumbs and brains that builds boats, sails them across the oceans with livestock and other materials it won't make dinosaurs start doing the same.
-
That would be totally cool but totally irrelevant. Even if you produce a squirrel/elephant/ant hybrid (Squelephant?) with thumbs and brains that builds boats, sails them across the oceans with livestock and other materials it won't make dinosaurs start doing the same.
[/quote]
If a less evolved organism (an elephant, and, bird, squirrel, etc.) can perform these tasks, it is only logical that their physical and mental superior (the dinosaur) do the same. I think the evidence speaks for itself.
-
Do you know how far away the Marquesas islands (origin point of the Polynesian settlers) are from Hawaii? Spreading through the Hawaiian island chain itself may have been relatively easy, but the Marquesas are about 2,000 miles away, with no land in between. We're not talking about leapfrog here, but genuine oceanic travel.
Just to mention a few, there are: Jarvis Islands, Kiribati, the Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef and the Johnston Atoll. But apart from the big islands with known names, the whole area is near a huge fault that created (and continues to create) a great string of underwater mountains, some of which rise above sea level and constitute the aforementioned islands. Hawaii is also the result of the volcanic activity of the area and is surrounded by big and tiny islands.
Sorry, I was trying to respond to this yesterday when my internet went kaput. Anyway, all of the islands you mention do not lie between Hawaii and the Marquesas. The colonists would have had to take a longer, more circuitous route through islands that were already inhabited, which seems very unlikely. Everything I've read on the subject suggests that it was a direct, point to point migration. There are no other islands between Hawaii and the Marquesas.
Besides, even if we assume they did island-hop (contrary to what experts believe), Hawaii is still a considerable distance from any point in the Kiribati island cluster, so I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Get out a map and look at the distance between the Marquesas and Hawaii. The colonists covered that distance in simple, rudimentary boats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hawaii#Settlement
And the biggest livestock they carried was pigs. You do not need a great infrastructure to go from island to island, creating colonies in every intermediate step, and in that way requiring relatively simple boats and minimal supplies to cover large final distances. It is completely different than traveling long distances with no intermediate steps.
Look, you need to stop trying to pass this off as island hopping. The Polynesians were able navigators, and the fact that they made trans-oceanic voyages is an accepted fact. From the opening paragraph of the article on Polynesian navigation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation
Polynesian navigation was a system of navigation used by Polynesians to make long voyages across thousands of miles of open ocean.
In fact, the distance from Marquesas Islands to Hawaii is similar to the distance from Hawaii to mainland USA. but no Polynesians ever made that trip. Wonder why?
Here's some reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation#Pre-Columbian_contact_with_the_Americas
I'm not saying its a proven theory, just that it is generally considered a legitimate contention that demonstrates how capable the Polynesians were at trans-oceanic travel.
-
Whatever the Polynesians did or didn't do, nor where they did or didn't go in no way makes dinosaurs sail the seas.
-
Besides, even if we assume they did island-hop (contrary to what experts believe),...
Wait a minute, do you know what experts believe? Then how is it that your only source is Wikipedia? And don't you think that your only expert, cited in Wikipedia, Thor Heyerdahl, did not even try to explain how the Polynesians calculated the route between their islands and America because they did not have the means for such a feat?
The travels you suggest require lots of things, not just capacity to carry food, water, livestock and maybe means to fish additional food. It requires the capacity to navigate with enough precision to find other landmasses. Otherwise you are just inviting almost certain death. Exactly what means did the Polynesians have to make a 2000 mile trip from one island to another island, and not get off course by a few degrees, getting lost forever in the sea? And what means did your intelligent dinosaurs have?
Anyhow, even if you ever get to convince anyone that Polynesians were able to do any transoceanic travel, you still have not even tried to explain how your intelligent dinosaurs from the Cretaceous managed to propagate hundreds or thousands of species of dinosaurs, other animals and plants to all the other continents on an ongoing basis, starting in the Triassic. Were they so intelligent that they created time machines?
-
If a less evolved organism (an elephant, and, bird, squirrel, etc.) can perform these tasks, it is only logical that their physical and mental superior (the dinosaur) do the same. I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Umm. Elephants, birds and squirrels are all more evolved than dinosaurs.
lrn2evolution.
Whatever the Polynesians did or didn't do, nor where they did or didn't go in no way makes dinosaurs sail the seas.
QFT. But Wilmore will never get it.
-
Besides, even if we assume they did island-hop (contrary to what experts believe),...
Wait a minute, do you know what experts believe? Then how is it that your only source is Wikipedia? And don't you think that your only expert, cited in Wikipedia, Thor Heyerdahl, did not even try to explain how the Polynesians calculated the route between their islands and America because they did not have the means for such a feat?
Do you know how to use Wikipedia? Their are loads of other sources linked at the bottom of the page. Just look at the notes section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation#Notes
Wikipedia minus other sources = a poor source. A wiki article that can direct you to numerous other, credible sources is another matter.
-
Do you know how to use Wikipedia? Their are loads of other sources linked at the bottom of the page. Just look at the notes section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation#Notes
Wikipedia minus other sources = a poor source. A wiki article that can direct you to numerous other, credible sources is another matter.
Like This? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php)
-
If a less evolved organism (an elephant, and, bird, squirrel, etc.) can perform these tasks, it is only logical that their physical and mental superior (the dinosaur) do the same. I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Umm. Elephants, birds and squirrels are all more evolved than dinosaurs.
Forgive my ignorance, perhaps it is a translation issue. I did not know we were playing a semantics game. Let us say elephants, birds and squirrels are less capable than dinosaurs, as evidenced by their mental capacity and fossil record.
-
Let us say elephants, birds and squirrels are less capable than dinosaurs, as evidenced by their mental capacity and fossil record.
But you have no evidence for judging the mental capacity of dinosaurs. You have no fossil evidence of dinosaur boats.
You cherry pick parts from a few mammals that might support your conclusion and then try and paste them all onto a dinosaur. It fails in so many ways I can't count them.
-
Let us say elephants, birds and squirrels are less capable than dinosaurs, as evidenced by their mental capacity and fossil record.
But you have no evidence for judging the mental capacity of dinosaurs. You have no fossil evidence of dinosaur boats.
You cherry pick parts from a few mammals that might support your conclusion and then try and paste them all onto a dinosaur. It fails in so many ways I can't count them.
Your logic is so befuddling. We cannot observe the action so it did not happen. Yet you accept "gravity" as a law even though there is no explanation or observation a magical attraction between objects. Unlike fairy tale land we have observed these actions in species. I think it is only logical to assign them to a superior species. The fossil record illustrates the migratory pattern of dinosaurs. How do you propose they migrated?
-
Your logic is so befuddling. We cannot observe the action so it did not happen.
It would be better put as "We cannot observe the action so we cannot say it happened."
Yet you accept "gravity" as a law even though there is no explanation or observation a magical attraction between objects.
The effect of gravity is observed. Gravity has nothing to do with dinosaurs. Don't derail the thread.
Unlike fairy tale land we have observed these actions in species.
You may have observed squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices but you have not observed, either directly or indirectly, dinosaurs sailing the oceans in galleons.
I think it is only logical to assign them to a superior species.
Dinosaurs are not superior species. The concept makes no sense.
The fossil record illustrates the migratory pattern of dinosaurs. How do you propose they migrated?
Continental drift. It's been posted here about a gazillion times I'm surprised its new to you.
-
Your logic is so befuddling. We cannot observe the action so it did not happen.
It would be better put as "We cannot observe the action so we cannot say it happened."
Yet you accept "gravity" as a law even though there is no explanation or observation a magical attraction between objects.
The effect of gravity is observed. Gravity has nothing to do with dinosaurs. Don't derail the thread.
Unlike fairy tale land we have observed these actions in species.
You may have observed squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices but you have not observed, either directly or indirectly, dinosaurs sailing the oceans in galleons.
I think it is only logical to assign them to a superior species.
Dinosaurs are not superior species. The concept makes no sense.
The fossil record illustrates the migratory pattern of dinosaurs. How do you propose they migrated?
Continental drift. It's been posted here about a gazillion times I'm surprised its new to you.
Many conclusions in science have been reached based on logical assumptions based on historical or fossil records. For example, evolution - no one has found an intermediary species. Gravity - just because something falls you assume a magical force pulls it down.
What you say is the observed effect of gravity can be explained without some magical attraction between inanimate objects.
While I have not personally observed dinosaurs crossing the oceans in flotation devices I have seen the fossil record. The record shows us the same species are all over the earth. Since continental drift is a myth the only other explanation is that the dinosaurs crossed the oceans. I doubt dinosaurs were capable of creating something as extravagant as a galleon. I suspect the craft was made of nesting materials or other dinosaur bodies, much like modern day ants create. Look at the evidence.
Further, dinosaurs were the superior species at the time. Their status as the dominant class of their day along with their ability to use logic and tools proves their intellectual superiority over other species. I thought this part of the debate had concluded.
Continental drift is a nice theory but it has never been observed. Certainly it is obvious that the Earth shifts from time to time but this amounts to no more than settling, similar to the concrete foundation of a home settling. While my home settles it will never gradually move to my neighbors yard, that would be ridiculous. I find it amusing that you subscribe to this logic since you have not observed it, as is your argument against dinosaur migration.
-
To "Lice Farm"
I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:
In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.
I find this to work quite well for me and my family.
-
To "Lice Farm"
I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:
In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.
I find this to work quite well for me and my family.
This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere ::)
Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?
-
To "Lice Farm"
I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:
In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.
I find this to work quite well for me and my family.
This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere ::)
Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?
Perhaps it did not contribute much to you in your extravagance but it may have changed "Lice Farm"'s life. To "Lice Farm" - I wish you success.
I am familiar with the theory of continental drift so your "evidence" is not necessary unless it is something other than the "we measured the drift" discussion. What you are measuring is a small point in time of the Earth shifting back and forth instead of millions of years of this activity. Perhaps you only measured the "forth" time frame. Had you a larger time frame then it would be valid and we could arrive at the truth together. However, I think your continental drift theories detract from the thread regarding the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.
-
To "Lice Farm"
I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:
In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.
I find this to work quite well for me and my family.
This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere ::)
Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?
Perhaps it did not contribute much to you in your extravagance but it may have changed "Lice Farm"'s life. To "Lice Farm" - I wish you success.
I am familiar with the theory of continental drift so your "evidence" is not necessary unless it is something other than the "we measured the drift" discussion. What you are measuring is a small point in time of the Earth shifting back and forth instead of millions of years of this activity. Perhaps you only measured the "forth" time frame. Had you a larger time frame then it would be valid and we could arrive at the truth together. However, I think your continental drift theories detract from the thread regarding the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.
How about that you get seams of rock that fit perfectly, like a jigsaw, with ones on the land across oceans? Like a band of one type of rock sandwiched between several other types, with exactly the same combination aligned the same way on the opposing shore? Also, explain how we can clearly witness sea floor being created and destroyed? Any you have metallic rock spreading out from a divergence zone that has aligned itself to the earth's magnetic field as it cools, and as the earths magnetic field inverts polarity so does whichever portion of the metallic rock is cooling at the time. So from the divergence zone you get patterns of:
|||----||||||------||--|||||-----|||| O ||||-----|||||--||------||||||----|||
Where |'s are where the earth's north magnetic pole is where the geological south pole is, and - is the opposite.
Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.
-
Fail.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html
NASA
Sorry, but none of them will listen because it has that damned phrase in it. But yes, there is plenty of proof that even FE'ers must be able to accept, which doesn't even involve NASA!
-
Many conclusions in science have been reached based on logical assumptions based on historical or fossil records. For example, evolution - no one has found an intermediary species. Gravity - just because something falls you assume a magical force pulls it down.
Both incorrect statements.
Since continental drift is a myth...
There's your problem in a nutshell, you'd rather believe an anonymous internet nutter with some watercolour pictures of dino sailors than all decades of research and study for geophysics.
Their status as the dominant class of their day along with their ability to use logic and tools proves their intellectual superiority over other species. I thought this part of the debate had concluded.
I must have missed the posts where you posted evidence of "logic" and tool use.
Continental drift is a nice theory but it has never been observed.
Fail.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html
Oh, well since you say the statements are incorrect then it must be so. (Sarcasm again). It amuses me that you criticize me for presenting a lack of evidence even though this website is full of facts and evidence yet you provide none yourself.
I assure you that any conclusions I have reached are based on facts in evidence and not based on the musings of a few individuals. As I understand it, your response is "No it isn't". Well put Lice Farm, well put indeed.
-
Many conclusions in science have been reached based on logical assumptions based on historical or fossil records. For example, evolution - no one has found an intermediary species. Gravity - just because something falls you assume a magical force pulls it down.
Both incorrect statements.
Since continental drift is a myth...
There's your problem in a nutshell, you'd rather believe an anonymous internet nutter with some watercolour pictures of dino sailors than all decades of research and study for geophysics.
Their status as the dominant class of their day along with their ability to use logic and tools proves their intellectual superiority over other species. I thought this part of the debate had concluded.
I must have missed the posts where you posted evidence of "logic" and tool use.
Continental drift is a nice theory but it has never been observed.
Fail.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html
Oh, well since you say the statements are incorrect then it must be so. (Sarcasm again). It amuses me that you criticize me for presenting a lack of evidence even though this website is full of facts and evidence yet you provide none yourself.
I assure you that any conclusions I have reached are based on facts in evidence and not based on the musings of a few individuals. As I understand it, your response is "No it isn't". Well put Lice Farm, well put indeed.
Someone is in denial ::)
You are defeating the point of a debate by simply ignoring the evidence and arguing over something that you have absolutely no hope in disproving, just to not admit defeat. Every post you make arguing against CD, you lose respect and whatever impression of intelligence remains.
-
To "Lice Farm"
I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:
In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.
I find this to work quite well for me and my family.
This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere ::)
Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?
Perhaps it did not contribute much to you in your extravagance but it may have changed "Lice Farm"'s life. To "Lice Farm" - I wish you success.
I am familiar with the theory of continental drift so your "evidence" is not necessary unless it is something other than the "we measured the drift" discussion. What you are measuring is a small point in time of the Earth shifting back and forth instead of millions of years of this activity. Perhaps you only measured the "forth" time frame. Had you a larger time frame then it would be valid and we could arrive at the truth together. However, I think your continental drift theories detract from the thread regarding the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.
How about that you get seams of rock that fit perfectly, like a jigsaw, with ones on the land across oceans? Like a band of one type of rock sandwiched between several other types, with exactly the same combination aligned the same way on the opposing shore? Also, explain how we can clearly witness sea floor being created and destroyed? Any you have metallic rock spreading out from a divergence zone that has aligned itself to the earth's magnetic field as it cools, and as the earths magnetic field inverts polarity so does whichever portion of the metallic rock is cooling at the time. So from the divergence zone you get patterns of:
|||----||||||------||--|||||-----|||| O ||||-----|||||--||------||||||----|||
Where |'s are where the earth's north magnetic pole is where the geological south pole is, and - is the opposite.
Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.
You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs. However, I will address your "evidence".
Has anyone ever put the continents together to see if they matched? I do not see a perfect match. This is about as ridiculous as your "magic gravity" theory. Could you entertain me and provide the source of the polarity measurements. I suspect I know their origins and have an issue with the validity of that data. I will give you specifics when you provide the source.
Sea floor activity is the result of sub-oceanic volcanic activity. Your blind acceptance of plate tectonics and continental drift is amusing. You accuse me of not providing evidence yet you yourself state that "Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact" without providing any evidence. I have provided evidence to this effect and you have dismissed it. In your mind the spherical shape of the Earth is an established fact. Your preconceptions have blinded you from the truth.
If you are so convinced that the Earth is round then why are you here? You must consider me a "nut" and therefore incapable of providing you with facts and evidence. The ironic thing is that all of the evidence you require is on this site yet you blind yourself with theories you accept as fact. The "theory" of gravity, the "theory" of evolution. None of these have been proven.
Continue please...
-
Someone is in denial ::)
You are defeating the point of a debate by simply ignoring the evidence and arguing over something that you have absolutely no hope in disproving, just to not admit defeat. Every post you make arguing against CD, you lose respect and whatever impression of intelligence remains.
Forgive my translation, English is my fourth language and I still have problems communicating my point. I must retire for the evening but I am beginning to get wise to your tactics. Simply stating that I ignore evidence does not make it so. Why is the burden of proof laid upon my shoulders. I have repeatedly laid evidence at your feet yet you continue to do as you accuse me, ignore it. If you believe I am incorrect please show me evidence where I am wrong. My desire is the truth. I invite you to tell me where I am wrong. Goodnight.
-
Has anyone ever put the continents together to see if they matched? I do not see a perfect match.
Yes, they have compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. Even just looking at the shape of them you can see they would tesselate together quite well, but studies of the rocks in these areas reveal them to be consistent with those parts of the world having been joined together at one time.
Your blind acceptance of plate tectonics and continental drift is amusing. You accuse me of not providing evidence yet you yourself state that "Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact" without providing any evidence.
Well actually the distance between continents on either side of the atlantic has been measured, and they're slowly getting further apart. I'd say that's evidence for continental drift. The fact that earthquakes and vulcanism happen along known fault lines is also good evidence of plate tectonics.
You clearly know next to nothing about geology.
-
While I have not personally observed dinosaurs crossing the oceans in flotation devices I have seen the fossil record. The record shows us the same species are all over the earth.
You have chosen to declare that the fossil record supports your speculation many, many times and yet you cannot explain more than a tiny bit of it with your speculation.
The fossil record shows, almost as you say, very similar species of dinosaurs, other animals and plants all over the Earth. But the record does not show a rather localized (in time and space) migration of a few species, as the one that your intelligent dinosaurs supposedly carried out. It shows several species migrating in very different times, from some time in the Paleozoic until the Cretaceous (some 600 million years or so).
Even if we were to accept your speculation, it would only explain a handful of migrating species during a period of at most some thousands of years.
So, what part of your speculation will change to accommodate the full 650 million years of fossil record? Or are you going to denounce most of it as part of the conspiracy?
-
Yeah, the fossil record does show that. He's right you know.
-
Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.
You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.
Tectonic plates and continental drift is precisely what we are discussing here, since the reason for the migrating patterns seen in the fossil record is the availability of migration routes at several different times between all the continents.
The whole reason for James to come up with intelligent dinosaurs was, specifically, to have an alternative to continental drift, and you also said the same.
So, go and find a reason for the migrations of all the flora and fauna seen in the fossil record, during all the 650 million years since the Paleozoic began, and I will listen to you. If you can only argue about a few species carried by some intelligent dinosaurs some 65 or 70 million years ago, your speculation is just not ready for discussion.
-
Has anyone ever put the continents together to see if they matched? I do not see a perfect match.
Yes, they have compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. Even just looking at the shape of them you can see they would tesselate together quite well, but studies of the rocks in these areas reveal them to be consistent with those parts of the world having been joined together at one time.
Your blind acceptance of plate tectonics and continental drift is amusing. You accuse me of not providing evidence yet you yourself state that "Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact" without providing any evidence.
Well actually the distance between continents on either side of the atlantic has been measured, and they're slowly getting further apart. I'd say that's evidence for continental drift. The fact that earthquakes and vulcanism happen along known fault lines is also good evidence of plate tectonics.
You clearly know next to nothing about geology.
"
I see your newest tactic is to resort to denigration. On your next post could you insult my personal hygiene? I have tried to be patient with you. My assistant says I should be friendly in my response.
So... they compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. For all of your cries for evidence, this is your response? "They" compared the west coast of Africa and the East coast of South America? Wow! Groundbreaking. I am losing my patience with your ignorant ramblings about some guy that found two continents that might tesselate together. Then you baffle me with the news that rocks are consistent. Really? There are consistencies between rocks? There are documented cases of the similarities in rocks in Iceland and Australia. I think this bursts your false hopes of Neverland, or Pangea as you know it.
So there is measured evidence that continents are moving further apart? I have already addressed this. But redundancy seems to be necessary for you to comprehend. Have you ever asked yourself 1) who performs those measurements? 2) what time period the measurements encompass? I have also previously addressed this. If the measurements are accurate then you are seeing a small representation of movement and applying it to eternity. You witness 80 years of data and apply it to the beginning of time. I suspect your knowledge of geology is a bit biased. Wouldn't you agree?
-
Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.
You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.
Tectonic plates and continental drift is precisely what we are discussing here, since the reason for the migrating patterns seen in the fossil record is the availability of migration routes at several different times between all the continents.
The whole reason for James to come up with intelligent dinosaurs was, specifically, to have an alternative to continental drift, and you also said the same.
So, go and find a reason for the migrations of all the flora and fauna seen in the fossil record, during all the 650 million years since the Paleozoic began, and I will listen to you. If you can only argue about a few species carried by some intelligent dinosaurs some 65 or 70 million years ago, your speculation is just not ready for discussion.
Do you not think that your hypothesis is a bit ridiculous? You are intimating that dinosaurs spread across "Pangea". I suppose they never came to a large river or crevasse? How did they cross this obstacles? Did they leap across the Grand Canyon? Did they fight the mighty current of vast rivers? I think not. It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try.
Also, do not think your attempt to get me off topic went unnoticed. Now we are discussing flaura and fauna? Nice try. I see your new game is bait and switch.
-
Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.
You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.
Tectonic plates and continental drift is precisely what we are discussing here, since the reason for the migrating patterns seen in the fossil record is the availability of migration routes at several different times between all the continents.
The whole reason for James to come up with intelligent dinosaurs was, specifically, to have an alternative to continental drift, and you also said the same.
So, go and find a reason for the migrations of all the flora and fauna seen in the fossil record, during all the 650 million years since the Paleozoic began, and I will listen to you. If you can only argue about a few species carried by some intelligent dinosaurs some 65 or 70 million years ago, your speculation is just not ready for discussion.
Do you not think that your hypothesis is a bit ridiculous? You are intimating that dinosaurs spread across "Pangea". I suppose they never came to a large river or crevasse? How did they cross this obstacles? Did they leap across the Grand Canyon? Did they fight the mighty current of vast rivers? I think not. It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try.
Also, do not think your attempt to get me off topic went unnoticed. Now we are discussing flaura and fauna? Nice try. I see your new game is bait and switch.
Actually the point of discussion was not migratory patterns of dinosaurs, but rather the claim that they had the ability to master complex tools, create sailing crafts, calculate loading capacity of said crafts, preserve meat, store water, organize labor, and transport flora and fauna to their new found land. This is the supposed alternate to continental drift, so I see no bait and switch.
Wildabeest (http://www.ultimateafrica.com/travel/Wildebeest_migration.html) cross rivers on their migration route in Kenya, so for a dinosaur "of superior intellect" to do it shouldn't strike you as being out of the question. Why would they have to leap across a canyon when they could go around it? You cry for evidence, yet you provide none to declare why a nest or egg floating across an ocean is more likely in light of storms generating rough seas, the fact that a nest floating on the open sea would attract predators as a life-raft attracts sharks, and the thundering surf it would have to survive to get ashore.
As far as the "back and forth" movement of plates, where is your evidence that they are osculating? With respect to your comment of looking at a small window, that may be the case, but there is evidence that the extrapolation of movement is valid, as evidenced in the elevation of the Himalayas and the fossil record and rock layering indicate.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html
The observed similarity between African and South American coastlines was only the trigger for exploration into the theory Thermal Detonator is referring to the lithological between the east coast of SA and the west coast of Africa.
South America-Africa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XNB-4HK0S59-2&_user=8245491&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1127204056&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000073889&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8245491&md5=6667c2e6701a4b0bf2c980e41caec3ee)
-
Actually the point of discussion was not migratory patterns of dinosaurs, but rather the claim that they had the ability to master complex tools, create sailing crafts, calculate loading capacity of said crafts, preserve meat, store water, organize labor, and transport flora and fauna to their new found land. This is the supposed alternate to continental drift, so I see no bait and switch.
Wildabeest (http://www.ultimateafrica.com/travel/Wildebeest_migration.html) cross rivers on their migration route in Kenya, so for a dinosaur "of superior intellect" to do it shouldn't strike you as being out of the question. Why would they have to leap across a canyon when they could go around it? You cry for evidence, yet you provide none to declare why a nest or egg floating across an ocean is more likely in light of storms generating rough seas, the fact that a nest floating on the open sea would attract predators as a life-raft attracts sharks, and the thundering surf it would have to survive to get ashore.
As far as the "back and forth" movement of plates, where is your evidence that they are osculating? With respect to your comment of looking at a small window, that may be the case, but there is evidence that the extrapolation of movement is valid, as evidenced in the elevation of the Himalayas and the fossil record and rock layering indicate.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html
The observed similarity between African and South American coastlines was only the trigger for exploration into the theory Thermal Detonator is referring to the lithological between the east coast of SA and the west coast of Africa.
South America-Africa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XNB-4HK0S59-2&_user=8245491&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1127204056&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000073889&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8245491&md5=6667c2e6701a4b0bf2c980e41caec3ee)
Thank you for the ultimate Africa video of wildebeests crossing a creek. I was thinking more of raging rivers, mountains, canyons. It seems a little easier for a dinosaur to cross an ocean than these obstacles, wouldn't you agree?
The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel. They would not have to bring food as they would devour their fallen comrades during the voyage. I think this is more logical and supported than your theories of canyon leaping dinosaurs. Nice logic. How would you respond if I stated they would just "go around" the ocean?
"The extrapolation of movement is valid." So if a plane were to disembark, you would look at the first few ascending minutes of the flight and conclude it would be in space in a matter of hours? Your logic is fundamentally flawed. You demand I provide evidence but I think your theory is the one that requires evidence. My theory is a little more plausible than your illusions of moving land masses.
-
I see your newest tactic is to resort to denigration. On your next post could you insult my personal hygiene? I have tried to be patient with you. My assistant says I should be friendly in my response.
So... they compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. For all of your cries for evidence, this is your response? "They" compared the west coast of Africa and the East coast of South America? Wow! Groundbreaking. I am losing my patience with your ignorant ramblings about some guy that found two continents that might tesselate together. Then you baffle me with the news that rocks are consistent. Really? There are consistencies between rocks? There are documented cases of the similarities in rocks in Iceland and Australia. I think this bursts your false hopes of Neverland, or Pangea as you know it.
So there is measured evidence that continents are moving further apart? I have already addressed this. But redundancy seems to be necessary for you to comprehend. Have you ever asked yourself 1) who performs those measurements? 2) what time period the measurements encompass? I have also previously addressed this. If the measurements are accurate then you are seeing a small representation of movement and applying it to eternity. You witness 80 years of data and apply it to the beginning of time. I suspect your knowledge of geology is a bit biased. Wouldn't you agree?
1. The only denigration that could be construed from my post is "you know next to nothing about geology". That is not an insult, merely a statement of truth. If you wish to dispute it, please present a summary of all you know about geology.
2. How can you be "losing patience with my ignorant ramblings" when this is my only response to you in this thread?
3. You want to know who performs these tests and measurements? Geologists. Again, proof you know next to nothing about geology, which is the study of the earth's substance and rocks, and is performed by geologists.
4. Look at this picture:
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/Bugdozer/world_map_.jpg)
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
-
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.
-
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.
Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.
-
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.
Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.
"But did YOU measure it? No? Well that's proof that it isn't growing at all!"
-
Thank you for the ultimate Africa video of wildebeests crossing a creek. I was thinking more of raging rivers, mountains, canyons. It seems a little easier for a dinosaur to cross an ocean than these obstacles, wouldn't you agree?
I would not agree that it would be easier for a terrestial animal to cross thousands of miles of open water, than for terrestrial endeavors like crossing a river, following a canyon for a narrowing or a mountain range for reduction in height or finding an available mountain pass.
The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel. They would not have to bring food as they would devour their fallen comrades during the voyage. (Objection! Speculation!) I think this is more logical and supported than your theories of canyon leaping dinosaurs. Nice logic. How would you respond if I stated they would just "go around" the ocean? Since a canyon and a river have narrow/shallow points I would point out how you are drawing a false corollary between my example and yours whereby you provide a term, which by it's bounds does not provide a path around.
Had you been paying attention the claim is that the dinosaurs in question, did in fact bring both food and water, as well as "livestock" (herbiverous livestock), which would need it's own unique food source.
"The extrapolation of movement is valid." So if a plane were to disembark, you would look at the first few ascending minutes of the flight and conclude it would be in space in a matter of hours? Your logic is fundamentally flawed. You demand I provide evidence but I think your theory is the one that requires evidence. My theory is a little more plausible than your illusions of moving land masses.
1)Usually when one does not copy a complete quote and takes it out of context one is to start and/or end said quote with (...) indicating to the reader that the quote is in fact lacking its entirety.
2)The full quote was As far as the "back and forth" movement of plates, where is your evidence that they are osculating? With respect to your comment of looking at a small window, that may be the case, but there is evidence that the extrapolation of movement is valid, as evidenced in the elevation of the Himalayas and the fossil record and rock layering indicate.
3)Since we have a good deal of knowledge on the path of flights and the predefined components thereof (take-off, ascent, cruise, descent, landing) there would be no such reason to make any such prediction, again you are drawing a false corollary. However, if you were to ask if, for a life raft adrift at sea, if it would make sense to chart its course over time based on initial readings of trajectory, and knowledge of the currents directing it, then yes it would be valid.
4)It is not your theory, you are merely parroting the words prior in this post and dreamt by James, while failing to contribute anything substantial to the argument and have in no way provided any supporting data to further the credibility of the author of the idea that is being discussed. For your distaste for blindly accepting what has been said, you sure are blindly parroting what has been said.
-
The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel.
You just fucked up big time. The reason why there is a "disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory" can easily explained by something even you will find hard to deny - it is much, much easier for an organism to fossilize on the sea floor than on land.
Sediment from higher up in the water falls down on the striped carcass, eventually forming a tight pack around the skeleton. As more pressure is applied over thousands of years, the organic material that is left is replaced by inorganic rock. This is what we know of as a fossil.
Out of water, the carcass is open to be completely disintegrated by scavengers and erosion. Also, sediments don't fall from above to encase it.
Of course fossils can also occur in tar pits and frozen in glaciers, but not very many at all due to how perfect the conditions must be.
-
I see your newest tactic is to resort to denigration. On your next post could you insult my personal hygiene? I have tried to be patient with you. My assistant says I should be friendly in my response.
So... they compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. For all of your cries for evidence, this is your response? "They" compared the west coast of Africa and the East coast of South America? Wow! Groundbreaking. I am losing my patience with your ignorant ramblings about some guy that found two continents that might tesselate together. Then you baffle me with the news that rocks are consistent. Really? There are consistencies between rocks? There are documented cases of the similarities in rocks in Iceland and Australia. I think this bursts your false hopes of Neverland, or Pangea as you know it.
So there is measured evidence that continents are moving further apart? I have already addressed this. But redundancy seems to be necessary for you to comprehend. Have you ever asked yourself 1) who performs those measurements? 2) what time period the measurements encompass? I have also previously addressed this. If the measurements are accurate then you are seeing a small representation of movement and applying it to eternity. You witness 80 years of data and apply it to the beginning of time. I suspect your knowledge of geology is a bit biased. Wouldn't you agree?
1. The only denigration that could be construed from my post is "you know next to nothing about geology". That is not an insult, merely a statement of truth. If you wish to dispute it, please present a summary of all you know about geology.
2. How can you be "losing patience with my ignorant ramblings" when this is my only response to you in this thread?
3. You want to know who performs these tests and measurements? Geologists. Again, proof you know next to nothing about geology, which is the study of the earth's substance and rocks, and is performed by geologists.
4. Look at this picture:
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/Bugdozer/world_map_.jpg)
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
1. I will let my various publications, accolades and credentials in the professional community speak for my knowledge.
2. My staff tells me that this is an interpretation issue. Try this - I have tried to be patient with the participants in this thread. If my point is not coming across correctly please be patient with my English.
3. I am well aware of the "research" performed by persons in these fields. Some promises to be quite adequate. Instead of blindly following a "theory" I choose a scientific, critical approach. I choose to examine all evidence prior to concluding on something so critical as continental shifting.
4. your "proof" is a picture where South America is obviously tilted and twisted. If I turn it upside down and put large floppy ears on it, it is a bunny rabbit [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]. If you are allowed to perform continental gymnastics on one area of the world then you are the one living in "Pangea". Are you seriously presenting this obviously bastardized [interpreters note - does not translate well, perhaps manipulated to fit a specific purpose] picture as "proof" of continental drifting? And you question my intelligence? All I can say is WOW!
My point is that your proof consists of the following:
A) a picture that has obviously been manipulated and does not fit in whole, even in that case.
B) extrapolated measurements of a process that has occurred over a time period of less than 100 years and applying it to billions of years.
I ask you, is this scientific? If you think so then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
-
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.
I will not even dignify with a response. Ridiculous.
-
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.
Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.
"But did YOU measure it? No? Well that's proof that it isn't growing at all!"
Thank you Robert, your post posits an interesting question. I fully rely on independently verifiable data from uninfluenced sources. I am aware that mountains "grow" although I see no correlation between the rising of a mountain and proof that continents dance to other sides of the world and, according to Thermal Detonator, twist and shout [interpreters note - he is referencing the song twist and shout while doing the dance].
-
The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel.
You just fucked up big time. The reason why there is a "disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory" can easily explained by something even you will find hard to deny - it is much, much easier for an organism to fossilize on the sea floor than on land.
Sediment from higher up in the water falls down on the striped carcass, eventually forming a tight pack around the skeleton. As more pressure is applied over thousands of years, the organic material that is left is replaced by inorganic rock. This is what we know of as a fossil.
Out of water, the carcass is open to be completely disintegrated by scavengers and erosion. Also, sediments don't fall from above to encase it.
Of course fossils can also occur in tar pits and frozen in glaciers, but not very many at all due to how perfect the conditions must be.
Robert, I was beginning to have great respect for you until you resorted to the use of obscenities.
Your position on the preservation of fossils is highly speculative and many contradicting pieces of evidence exists.
-
2. My staff tells me that this is an interpretation issue. Try this - I have tried to be patient with the participants in this thread. If my point is not coming across correctly please be patient with my English.
No problem with your English at all. Out of curiosity, what is your field and what country/area of the world?
-
I would not agree that it would be easier for a terrestial animal to cross thousands of miles of open water, than for terrestrial endeavors like crossing a river, following a canyon for a narrowing or a mountain range for reduction in height or finding an available mountain pass.
we may have to agree to disagree on this point then. I think the evidence and logic speak for itself. By the way, it's "terrestrial".
(Objection! Speculation!)
Much unlike the speculation of your "land migration" theory or the theory of "continental drift"? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]
Since a canyon and a river have narrow/shallow points I would point out how you are drawing a false corollary between my example and yours whereby you provide a term, which by it's bounds does not provide a path around.
Had you been paying attention the claim is that the dinosaurs in question, did in fact bring both food and water, as well as "livestock" (herbiverous livestock), which would need it's own unique food source.
Redundant - see previous responses.
4)It is not your theory, you are merely parroting the words prior in this post and dreamt by James, while failing to contribute anything substantial to the argument and have in no way provided any supporting data to further the credibility of the author of the idea that is being discussed. For your distaste for blindly accepting what has been said, you sure are blindly parroting what has been said.[/b]
I assure you that my conclusions are based on facts in evidence. Yours are based on speculative theory. I challenge you to find an area where I have "parroted" James. Yours is a science of consensus. Mine is a science of evaluation of data.
-
2. My staff tells me that this is an interpretation issue. Try this - I have tried to be patient with the participants in this thread. If my point is not coming across correctly please be patient with my English.
No problem with your English at all. Out of curiosity, what is your field and what country/area of the world?
Thank you for the compliment. I have dedicated many years to the study of linguistics. I work in the field of evolutionary studies in an Argentinian city. My family is originally from Deutschland, or Germany as you may call it. We were forced to move here later in the World War II.
-
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.
Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.
"But did YOU measure it? No? Well that's proof that it isn't growing at all!"
Thank you Robert, your post posits an interesting question. I fully rely on independently verifiable data from uninfluenced sources. I am aware that mountains "grow" although I see no correlation between the rising of a mountain and proof that continents dance to other sides of the world and, according to Thermal Detonator, twist and shout [interpreters note - he is referencing the song twist and shout while doing the dance].
Ever heard of the word sarcasm, Robert was pointing out how that's what allot of flat earth believers respond to facts like that in a sarcastic manor.
It is well established that the Himalayas grow.
Now I shall enlighten you as to why moving continents are related to rising mountains.
By looking at where earthquakes appear most frequently on a map you can see they form distinct lines, these are the boundaries of tectonic plates and earthquakes are caused by the friction and movement between them, mountains at boundaries are where the rock crushes together and forces upwards due to the pressure. By studying the movement of continents with lasers ect we can work out at which boundaries continents are moving towards each other and which apart, this correlates with mountain patterns, where continents move together there is always large mountain chains formed.
-
Ever heard of the word sarcasm, Robert was pointing out how that's what allot of flat earth believers respond to facts like that in a sarcastic manor.
It is well established that the Himalayas grow.
Now I shall enlighten you as to why moving continents are related to rising mountains.
By looking at where earthquakes appear most frequently on a map you can see they form distinct lines, these are the boundaries of tectonic plates and earthquakes are caused by the friction and movement between them, mountains at boundaries are where the rock crushes together and forces upwards due to the pressure. By studying the movement of continents with lasers ect we can work out at which boundaries continents are moving towards each other and which apart, this correlates with mountain patterns, where continents move together there is always large mountain chains formed.
Now that I know you speak for Robert I will consider this in the future. It amuses me that you think you are enlightening me. I have already been through this discussion. It is your interpretation of the data that is at fault. Consensus does not equal fact. Just ask Albert Gore. I am aware of your perceived correlation between rising mountains and continental shifting. Just because the earth is flat does not defeat gases, magma, etc. from rising through areas of least resistance. I have already commented on the fallacy of measuring continental settling over a period of less than 100 years and extrapolating it to a time period exceeding 3 billion years. Please read my previous posts before regurgitating your arguments of consensus.
-
The problem is that is is scientifically accepted fact that the moving continents cause mountain chains, ask any top scientist and they will agree and no they are not being paid off by the government to keep it a secret.
-
I would not agree that it would be easier for a terrestial animal to cross thousands of miles of open water, than for terrestrial endeavors like crossing a river, following a canyon for a narrowing or a mountain range for reduction in height or finding an available mountain pass.
we may have to agree to disagree on this point then. I think the evidence and logic speak for itself. By the way, it's "terrestrial".
(Objection! Speculation!)
Much unlike the speculation of your "land migration" theory or the theory of "continental drift"? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]
Since a canyon and a river have narrow/shallow points I would point out how you are drawing a false corollary between my example and yours whereby you provide a term, which by it's bounds does not provide a path around.
Had you been paying attention the claim is that the dinosaurs in question, did in fact bring both food and water, as well as "livestock" (herbiverous livestock), which would need it's own unique food source.
Redundant - see previous responses.
4)It is not your theory, you are merely parroting the words prior in this post and dreamt by James, while failing to contribute anything substantial to the argument and have in no way provided any supporting data to further the credibility of the author of the idea that is being discussed. For your distaste for blindly accepting what has been said, you sure are blindly parroting what has been said.[/b]
I assure you that my conclusions are based on facts in evidence. Yours are based on speculative theory. I challenge you to find an area where I have "parroted" James. Yours is a science of consensus. Mine is a science of evaluation of data.
Ooof, a little better on the quote dissection please.
Yes, I am aware that it is "terrestrial". It's called a typo
1) The objection, speculation was in reference to your baseless speculation on the dinosaurs "devouring their fallen comrades", whilst your attempt at the same is to discredit a theory which has supporting evidence. I sincerely hope you are not trying to equate the two.
2) I don't understand your comment of "redundant-see previous responses". What exactly is redundant about my objection? There is clearly no evidence to prove a mercantile, ship-building, high seas sailing, farmer society of dinosaurs.
...It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try...
is a combination of James, Wilmore and John Davis.
-
The problem is that is is scientifically accepted fact that the moving continents cause mountain chains, ask any top scientist and they will agree and no they are not being paid off by the government to keep it a secret.
I find it amusing that you insistently state these "top scientists" are not being paid off by the government. Check all of my posts, I have never made such an assertion. Is there something you need to tell us? Why would you suggest this?
In the 1400's it was a scientifically accepted fact that the Earth was flat. Top scientists of the day agreed.
By your logic consensus = conclusive evidence.
-
The top scientists of 1400 agreed, fair enough today's top scientists proved them wrong, fair enough but the evidence of today is far more reliable using modern technology, future scientists may prove today's wrong but they wont say the earth is flat as that's already been proven wrong, and they wont disagree with tectonic plates as we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates, take the example of the boxing day tsunami they went underwater and found where the plates had jolted.
-
future scientists may prove today's wrong
I think we finally agree on something.
I also think it arrogant to state we have dis-proven top scientists of the 1400's. Perhaps it is they who have found the truth. Until there is unbiased, independently verifiable evidence it is a theory. You probably also believe in a "magical" force that causes us all to be pulled towards the core of the Earth. Now who is naive?
they wont disagree with tectonic plates as we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates
I find it very arrogant to think they would agree with your consensus.
Also, it is "physically".
Finally, you have physically seen the movements of tectonic plates? This is groundbreaking. Surely you recorded an event this important. This could change my outlook on the entire matter. I have never heard of any such discovery. Would you please post the video? I would be [interpreters note - very excited (does not translate well)] to see this video. Please post your video and Thank You very much. This is ground breaking. Thank you.
-
I apologise for introducing "Tim Priest" the forums, I'll try to educate him more about your theories before he posts again.
-
http://media.photobucket.com/image/moved%20tectonic%20plates%20underwater%20boxing%20day/anandtech/sonar-photo-sea-bed.jpg
hope that's enough with a little light googleing much more evidence can be found.
Gravity is no magical force it has been explained very well, please don't try and say it hasn't I study Physics the FE's believe in Einsteins E=MC^2, energy and mass are interchangeable, energy travels in straight lines yet it poses wave quality's, this is as it distorts space around it in a wave like manor. Mass also poses this property it distorts space around it and other mass mass therefore is drawn towards it, think of it as two balls on a table cloth held up loosely at all 4 corners moving together, except space is in 3D.
Thus since all mass attracts other mass it clumps together in spherical shapes, the earth is simply a clump of mass.
-
http://media.photobucket.com/image/moved%20tectonic%20plates%20underwater%20boxing%20day/anandtech/sonar-photo-sea-bed.jpg
hope that's enough with a little light googleing much more evidence can be found.
Gravity is no magical force it has been explained very well, please don't try and say it hasn't I study Physics the FE's believe in Einsteins E=MC^2, energy and mass are interchangeable, energy travels in straight lines yet it poses wave quality's, this is as it distorts space around it in a wave like manor. Mass also poses this property it distorts space around it and other mass mass therefore is drawn towards it, think of it as two balls on a table cloth held up loosely at all 4 corners moving together, except space is in 3D.
Thus since all mass attracts other mass it clumps together in spherical shapes, the earth is simply a clump of mass.
[Interpreters note - He is very unhappy, upset. You should not have lied about the video.]
Forgive me, I understood that you had a video of tectonic plates moving. What you linked to was hardly that. If this is your level of "evidence" then I invite you to leave. I am aware of the theory of plate tectonics and all of its fallacies. You added one more to that list. I will no longer respond to you. You should be ashamed of yourself.
As for gravity, please do not deviate from the thread. Also, look at the evidence on this website which proves "gravity" is, once again, a misinterpretation of your "data". Goodbye to you.
-
Unfortunately gravity is another one of those scientifically accepted facts, unless you are planning on calling Einstein, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century wrong, I believe you are the one that aught to be ashamed.
I don't have a video of plate moving but however it is obvious that's what caused the wave as freak waves don't come from nowhere, there has been activity in that area before and at the time of the disaster there was an earthquake there, coincidence and a magical wave from nowhere? I think not.
The area had been studied before the earthquake and there was no distortion in the ground, after there is several huge cliff faces where the plates moved.
-
"I don't have a video of plate moving" current post.
[interpreters note - he will not respond but has instructed me to provide the following]
From your previous post "we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates"
[interpreters note - he also said you misspelled physically. You have lost all credibility with him. You should not have lied about the video.]
-
"I don't have a video of plate moving" current post.
[interpreters note - he will not respond but has instructed me to provide the following]
From your previous post "we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates"
[interpreters note - he also said you misspelled physically. You have lost all credibility with him. You should not have lied about the video.]
I understand that he may not have worded his argument perfectly, but he never said there was a video.
I also understand that we cannot prove to you that tectonic plates move unless we somehow strap you to a chair at a fault line with a couple of markers either side and some sort of way to show their distance, and leave you there for a year until you can see the difference (probably around 1-5 cm). I know you would probably never agree to this ;D
So no, we can't prove it to you, with your irrationally high standards of evidence which seem to be "It does not happen if I don't see it directly before me".
-
1. I will let my various publications, accolades and credentials in the professional community speak for my knowledge.
None of which you list here. Following your logic and those of the zetetics, if I can't see them, they don't exist. Next:
4. your "proof" is a picture where South America is obviously tilted and twisted. If I turn it upside down and put large floppy ears on it, it is a bunny rabbit [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]. If you are allowed to perform continental gymnastics on one area of the world then you are the one living in "Pangea". Are you seriously presenting this obviously bastardized [interpreters note - does not translate well, perhaps manipulated to fit a specific purpose] picture as "proof" of continental drifting? And you question my intelligence? All I can say is WOW!
Well yes, of course it's tilted and twisted - that's continental drift - it moves continents. They all shift about. How am I supposed to show you an approximation of what the continents would have looked like before drifting without manipulating the picture? I never questioned your intelligence before, merely your absence of geology knowledge, but if you can't see why I had to manipulate a picture to make that image, you are lacking in intelligence. I notice you don't refute the astonishingly close fit of the coastlines.
-
So no, we can't prove it to you, with your irrationally high standards of evidence which seem to be "It does not happen if I don't see it directly before me".
That is, after all, the true zetetic way ;)
-
"I don't have a video of plate moving" current post.
[interpreters note - he will not respond but has instructed me to provide the following]
From your previous post "we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates"
[interpreters note - he also said you misspelled physically. You have lost all credibility with him. You should not have lied about the video.]
I understand that he may not have worded his argument perfectly, but he never said there was a video.
I also understand that we cannot prove to you that tectonic plates move unless we somehow strap you to a chair at a fault line with a couple of markers either side and some sort of way to show their distance, and leave you there for a year until you can see the difference (probably around 1-5 cm). I know you would probably never agree to this ;D
So no, we can't prove it to you, with your irrationally high standards of evidence which seem to be "It does not happen if I don't see it directly before me".
I wish to clarify something. I do believe tectonic plates move. I just do not believe they walk across the Earth, twisting and turning. I believe the Earth "settles" much like the concrete foundation of a house.
Let me ask you this. You have data that measures movement of continental plates. This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years? Is it possible that you are only seeing one aspect of the Earth settling? You cannot know this with the data currently available. I think the standard of evidence I have set is quite reasonable. Perhaps your standard is too low.
-
1) The objection, speculation was in reference to your baseless speculation on the dinosaurs "devouring their fallen comrades", whilst your attempt at the same is to discredit a theory which has supporting evidence. I sincerely hope you are not trying to equate the two.
We have discussed this before. Redundant.
2) I don't understand your comment of "redundant-see previous responses". What exactly is redundant about my objection? There is clearly no evidence to prove a mercantile, ship-building, high seas sailing, farmer society of dinosaurs.
See above comment. Some bird species build vessels that float yet you do not assign them a market place, tool using, sailing, agrarian society. Why do you propose this is true for dinosaurs?
...It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try...
is a combination of James, Wilmore and John Davis.
[/quote]
So says you... My ideas are rooted in facts and evidence, not the opinions of others. I noticed you said they were a combination of ..... but you failed to quote any of them. You cannot argue with facts.
-
This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years?
That's a reasonable point, actually. But continental drift is our only rational way of explaining how certain parts of the evolutionary tree split at certain points in history, with some animals being isolated from their ancestors in Australia for example. Its also our only way to explain the extremely similar geology of coasts which would have been connected if our backward extrapolation of continental drift is correct.
I'm happy to believe in this theory until a better one arises. As far as I am concerned, continental drift is fact. Maybe my standards are too low, but then if most of the geological community has standards this low it doesn't affect me much.
-
Well yes, of course it's tilted and twisted - that's continental drift - it moves continents. They all shift about. How am I supposed to show you an approximation of what the continents would have looked like before drifting without manipulating the picture? I never questioned your intelligence before, merely your absence of geology knowledge, but if you can't see why I had to manipulate a picture to make that image, you are lacking in intelligence. I notice you don't refute the astonishingly close fit of the coastlines.
So it is acceptable for you to manipulate a picture and call it evidence. Interesting science. I will use this as an object lesson.
To all:
Be it known that RE'rs favor the manipulation of evidence to support their theory.
How can anyone take you seriously from this point forward. You have failed as a scientist.
-
This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years?
But continental drift is our only rational way of explaining how certain parts of the evolutionary tree split at certain points in history
To all:
It has been stated here that RE'rs have accepted the theory of "continental drift" because it supports their assumption of evolution.
This does not appear to be science, it appears to be a religion.
-
Well yes, of course it's tilted and twisted - that's continental drift - it moves continents. They all shift about. How am I supposed to show you an approximation of what the continents would have looked like before drifting without manipulating the picture? I never questioned your intelligence before, merely your absence of geology knowledge, but if you can't see why I had to manipulate a picture to make that image, you are lacking in intelligence. I notice you don't refute the astonishingly close fit of the coastlines.
So it is acceptable for you to manipulate a picture and call it evidence. Interesting science. I will use this as an object lesson.
To all:
Be it known that RE'rs favor the manipulation of evidence to support their theory.
How can anyone take you seriously from this point forward. You have failed as a scientist.
Now hold on, that is a little bit unreasonable. This should be a fair discussion, why are you putting words in his mouth and insulting him for trying to illustrate a point to you? All he was doing was showing that the coasts of south america and africa tessellate well, with just rotation and translation. He did not edit the coastline at all.
To me, (and probably to many who read your posts) it just looks like you are clutching at straws, nitpicking at whatever you can just to try and gain some ground in the debate. It isn't working.
-
This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years?
But continental drift is our only rational way of explaining how certain parts of the evolutionary tree split at certain points in history
To all:
It has been stated here that RE'rs have accepted the theory of "continental drift" because it supports their assumption of evolution.
This does not appear to be science, it appears to be a religion.
To Robert64 and Thermal Detonator: checkmate to your "theories" I will be visiting another thread now. I consider this matter closed.
-
This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years?
But continental drift is our only rational way of explaining how certain parts of the evolutionary tree split at certain points in history
To all:
It has been stated here that RE'rs have accepted the theory of "continental drift" because it supports their assumption of evolution.
This does not appear to be science, it appears to be a religion.
Are you not aware of what science is? Trying to create accurate models of the way the universe works based on evidence and experimentation. I'm not sure where "religion" came from. And shall we argue about evolution now?
-
This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years?
But continental drift is our only rational way of explaining how certain parts of the evolutionary tree split at certain points in history
To all:
It has been stated here that RE'rs have accepted the theory of "continental drift" because it supports their assumption of evolution.
This does not appear to be science, it appears to be a religion.
To Robert64 and Thermal Detonator: checkmate to your "theories" I will be visiting another thread now. I consider this matter closed.
Thank you for admitting that you have exhausted your arguments, and admit defeat. Unless you want to continue the discussion.. Then yes, the matter is closed.
-
Well yes, of course it's tilted and twisted - that's continental drift - it moves continents. They all shift about. How am I supposed to show you an approximation of what the continents would have looked like before drifting without manipulating the picture? I never questioned your intelligence before, merely your absence of geology knowledge, but if you can't see why I had to manipulate a picture to make that image, you are lacking in intelligence. I notice you don't refute the astonishingly close fit of the coastlines.
So it is acceptable for you to manipulate a picture and call it evidence. Interesting science. I will use this as an object lesson.
To all:
Be it known that RE'rs favor the manipulation of evidence to support their theory.
How can anyone take you seriously from this point forward. You have failed as a scientist.
I can't believe he's so stupid. Dummkopf.
Don't let his ignorance affect you, he is just trying to defend his "reputation". Although what really does bother me is no one realises that if they just admit they are wrong, they gain a darn sight more respect than they do from being childish and saying things like "I am done arguing with you incompetent fools etc etc".
Just rise above it.
-
Well yes, of course it's tilted and twisted - that's continental drift - it moves continents. They all shift about. How am I supposed to show you an approximation of what the continents would have looked like before drifting without manipulating the picture? I never questioned your intelligence before, merely your absence of geology knowledge, but if you can't see why I had to manipulate a picture to make that image, you are lacking in intelligence. I notice you don't refute the astonishingly close fit of the coastlines.
So it is acceptable for you to manipulate a picture and call it evidence. Interesting science. I will use this as an object lesson.
To all:
Be it known that RE'rs favor the manipulation of evidence to support their theory.
How can anyone take you seriously from this point forward. You have failed as a scientist.
I can't believe he's so stupid. Dummkopf.
Don't let his ignorance affect you, he is just trying to defend his "reputation". Although what really does bother me is no one realises that if they just admit they are wrong, they gain a darn sight more respect than they do from being childish and saying things like "I am done arguing with you incompetent fools etc etc".
Just rise above it.
Gentlemen or ladies,
You both admitted to manipulating evidence to support your theories and I am the bad person? Then you resort to name calling? I think any objective person reading this thread would see that I am the only FE'r here taking your abuse. Your attempts to "gang-up" on me and ridicule me is far from science.
I will remain but please refrain from your abuse and hatred. It does nothing to support your views.
-
You state that the world is flat as fact. It is not. You claim to be good at evaluating data. EVALUATE THIS, BITCH:
1. Go outside.
2. Look at the horizon.
3. On a clear day, the only thing your sight is limited by is the horizon.
4. There are two possible explanations;
- The world stops at that point, thus meaning there is nothing beyond the horizon. You yourself said your family originates from Germany, that would not be possible if the world just "stopped" at the horizon.
- The earth is round, and 100% of all sane people are correct. I'm not stating you are insane here (although it is highly likely) but merely that the amount of delinquents on this forum in comparison to the rest of the world is not worth noting.
Now this is scientific.
"Evaluate this BITCH" my interpreter tells me this is an obscenity. How very professional of you. He tells me it refers to a female dog. Really? How does my data evaluation techniques relate to a female dog. I will dismiss this as ignorance on your part.
In your own words - "100% of all sane people are correct." Really? Then why are there disagreements? Who decides who is insane? You? This is a ridiculous statement which only embarrasses you.
"There are two possible explanations"
I would like to invite you to consider a third explanation:
- the world extends beyond your line of sight but it is flat.
"You yourself said your family originates from Germany, that would not be possible if the world just "stopped" at the horizon." - It would be possible if the world were flat and extended beyond your sight. Obviously you have never heard of preparing for a discussion. There are many resources on this web site to assist you in doing so.
"I'm not stating you are insane here (although it is highly likely) but merely that the amount of delinquents on this forum in comparison to the rest of the world is not worth noting."
I have presented my arguments based on facts rooted in evidence. Your response was simply - "You are stupid." Well put Tim Priest, well put indeed. If this is your method of rebuttal then I suggest you return to the ladies study area.
Now I see where Robert64's anger comes from. Birds of a feather flock together, is that how you say it Robert64?
-
Overall you have come across as rather obnoxious adolf, and your manner of speaking irritated me, I must admit. I realize it may have just been because english is not your first language, in which case I apologise (I praise your ability to speak so fluently - I am only fluent in english and english alone).
But the main thing that I take exception to is you calling us unscientific, by imagining that just by trying to illustrate a point we are manipulating evidence.
This is exactly analogous to your claim: I have two jigsaw puzzles separated from eachother on a surface. I make the supposition "These two pieces will fit together", so I pick one up, rotate it slightly and slot it cleanly onto the tooth of the other piece. At this point you cry, "Cheat! You rotated that jigsaw piece, just to make it fit! I could get any old piece, cut off the corners, add on bits of card and make it fit anywhere."
Do you see my problem?
-
You both admitted to manipulating evidence to support your theories and I am the bad person?
No one admitted such a thing. You just pretended it happened.
Now read this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift#Evidence_basis_for_continental_drift
Then you resort to name calling?
You resorted to name calling long ago. Don't think it went unnoticed.
You cannot provide one instance where I resorted to name-calling. This is absolutely false.
Their admission of manipulation of data is in their writing so I will let the readers decide who is correct.
I have read your articles and surprise [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic], they stated what your scientific community has always said. [interpreters note - he is becoming increasingly angered by repeating this] We can measure the movement of continents. I will repeat again, I never said the continents did not move. I refer you to my previous posts.
Also, see my remarks on the extrapolation of the measurement data.
-
Overall you have come across as rather obnoxious adolf, and your manner of speaking irritated me, I must admit. I realize it may have just been because english is not your first language, in which case I apologise (I praise your ability to speak so fluently - I am only fluent in english and english alone).
But the main thing that I take exception to is you calling us unscientific, by imagining that just by trying to illustrate a point we are manipulating evidence.
This is exactly analogous to your claim: I have two jigsaw puzzles separated from eachother on a surface. I make the supposition "These two pieces will fit together", so I pick one up, rotate it slightly and slot it cleanly onto the tooth of the other piece. At this point you cry, "Cheat! You rotated that jigsaw piece, just to make it fit! I could get any old piece, cut off the corners, add on bits of card and make it fit anywhere."
Do you see my problem?
Robert64, I have had a brief discussion with my interpreter and we are trying to come up with a better way to express our thoughts. In no way do I wish to convey a spirit of irritability. I will state that I believe it is not scientific to assume an action to support a theory. Your example of the jigsaw puzzle is relevant to a point. However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together. [interpreters note - Dr. Einholm is an arrogant, pompous ass. Please do not include this in your responses].
-
You cannot provide one instance where I resorted to name-calling. This is absolutely false.
Orly?
To "Lice Farm"...
I will repeat again, I never said the continents did not move.
So it's possible dinosaurs fossils got where they are by continental drift and not by dino galleons?
Cool.
/thread.
-
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
-
1) The objection, speculation was in reference to your baseless speculation on the dinosaurs "devouring their fallen comrades", whilst your attempt at the same is to discredit a theory which has supporting evidence. I sincerely hope you are not trying to equate the two.
We have discussed this before. Redundant.
2) I don't understand your comment of "redundant-see previous responses". What exactly is redundant about my objection? There is clearly no evidence to prove a mercantile, ship-building, high seas sailing, farmer society of dinosaurs.
See above comment. Some bird species build vessels that float yet you do not assign them a market place, tool using, sailing, agrarian society. Why do you propose this is true for dinosaurs?
...It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try...
is a combination of James, Wilmore and John Davis.
So says you... My ideas are rooted in facts and evidence, not the opinions of others. I noticed you said they were a combination of ..... but you failed to quote any of them. You cannot argue with facts.
[/quote]
1)You provide something without backing as support for your view and you deem my criticism redundant somehow?
2)Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the proposal under consideration, that you somehow missed.
Secondly, how many of those birds use the nests for oceanic travel?
3)I refuse to search the senseless dribble.
You keep stating your ideas are rooted in fact, though you have yet to provide them, nor your various publications, accolades and credentials in the professional community. Keep beefing up your stance like that and Tom Bishop may let you into his college.
Stop accusing TD of "manipulating data", he was illustrating the alignment of Africa and SA, which would be difficult to do without moving them from their current position.
On the plus side you have the zetetic method nailed perfectly.
-
Thankyou for your support, IAS. If Adolf is too dimwitted to understand that the only way to show how Africa and South America would fit together is to cut and paste them next to each other, that tells me all I need to know about him, however hard he tries to hide behind his language excuse. I don't give a ha'penny jizz what he thinks.
Also Adolf - why are you still here? I thought you were done with this thread. Shoo.
-
I also think it arrogant to state we have dis-proven top scientists of the 1400's. Perhaps it is they who have found the truth. Until there is unbiased, independently verifiable evidence it is a theory.
This is either hilarious or incredibly sad: an evolutionary scientist who has published his works and has assistants does not know the Scientific Method that is taught to children like my 8 year old second grader.
For your information, the truth and proofs are the realm of philosophers and mathematicians, not scientists. The end product of modern science is the theory and that is why Einstein's models are called theories, not laws. The phrase "it is just a theory" only comes from non-scientists that never cared to learn what "theory" means in science.
Every scientific theory is only right within a given range of conditions and a given margin of error. We can find that theories and hypothesis are wrong, but in most cases we just find overwhelming evidence that another theory is better. But we can find hypothesis that are simply wrong, like the one that attributed cholera and typhus to bad smells, and fifteenth century scientists had a lot of hypothesis that were completely wrong.
If you really are a scientist, do yourself a favor and learn the scientific method.
And if you really are an Evolutionary scientist, you must have a lot of bibliography that supports your views, not just Wikipedia. For a man that does not even quote the bibliography mentioned in Wikipedia (just the Wikipedia articles), you sure make a lot of claims about your scientific credentials.
You probably also believe in a "magical" force that causes us all to be pulled towards the core of the Earth. Now who is naive?
As if you hadn't shown your illiteracy in science already, you give us another example of your poor understanding of the subject. Whether "magical" or not, every force of nature is a force exerted from a distance, towards or away from the center of something. Science is not concerned with your interpretation of "magical", it is concerned with models and theories. Do you have a theory supported by a model and the corresponding evidence, about dinosaurs, gravitation or any other subject, or are you just mad at scientists in general?
-
Thankyou for your support, IAS. If Adolf is too dimwitted to understand that the only way to show how Africa and South America would fit together is to cut and paste them next to each other, that tells me all I need to know about him, however hard he tries to hide behind his language excuse. I don't give a ha'penny jizz what he thinks.
Also Adolf - why are you still here? I thought you were done with this thread. Shoo.
I've always thought east Asia and western Europe would slot together quite nicely, and that Australia would slot sideways into the west coast of America or upside down into the bottom of Africa without too much fuss. Greenland would probably fit into the west coast of America too.
Conclusion: playing jigsaw with the Earth proves nothing.
-
Thankyou for your support, IAS. If Adolf is too dimwitted to understand that the only way to show how Africa and South America would fit together is to cut and paste them next to each other, that tells me all I need to know about him, however hard he tries to hide behind his language excuse. I don't give a ha'penny jizz what he thinks.
Also Adolf - why are you still here? I thought you were done with this thread. Shoo.
I've always thought east Asia and western Europe would slot together quite nicely, and that Australia would slot sideways into the west coast of America or upside down into the bottom of Africa without too much fuss. Greenland would probably fit into the west coast of America too.
Conclusion: playing jigsaw with the Earth proves nothing.
Conclusion: portraying one piece of of a larger body of evidence as the entirety of the evidence by mistakenly trying to show its fallacy in instances where it would be the sole piece of evidence proves nothing.
-
Thankyou for your support, IAS. If Adolf is too dimwitted to understand that the only way to show how Africa and South America would fit together is to cut and paste them next to each other, that tells me all I need to know about him, however hard he tries to hide behind his language excuse. I don't give a ha'penny jizz what he thinks.
Also Adolf - why are you still here? I thought you were done with this thread. Shoo.
I've always thought east Asia and western Europe would slot together quite nicely, and that Australia would slot sideways into the west coast of America or upside down into the bottom of Africa without too much fuss. Greenland would probably fit into the west coast of America too.
Conclusion: playing jigsaw with the Earth proves nothing.
One piece of evidence, by itself, does not mean much. But the added evidence from these 40 or so years since the idea of continental drift appeared has to be seen in concert, and the scientific consensus on the existence of continental drift and the displacement of continents through thousands of kilometers is overwhelming.
You can also interpret the appearance of one species of dinosaur on two continents as evidence of an intelligent migrating being and its livestock, whether that intelligent being is a dinosaur, Atlantian, extraterrestrial, time traveler or whatever your imagination can come up with.
But the accumulated evidence of fossils and geological strata, seen as a whole, supports the theory of continental drift and the evolution of dinosaurs and other animals in every continent as scientists claim.
A small and incomplete list of the evidence found follows:
- The borders of the tectonic plates are where the CD theory predicts, and the seismic, volcanic and mountain creation places confirm it.
- The geological strata found near the Atlantic Rift confirms that the continental drift has occurred for many millions of years.
- The coincidences in rocks found in different continents is not just a coincidence of individual rocks, but of whole sections of geological strata. While a few rocks could be coincidentally created with the same composition in two far away locations, the whole strata cannot.
- The fossil record shows how populations of many species are separated by new geographic barriers and evolve in different ways, eventually becoming separate species. This is an ongoing process that has been extensively documented and explains how similar, but almost always different species of dinosaurs are found in every continent.
- Analysis of the size of the brains of different animals has been, in general, a very good predictor of the intelligence of different living animals, so it is very reasonable to use it for dinosaurs, and according to this there have been no dinosaurs of an intelligence comparable to ours. More important, there have been no dinosaurs that lived through all the Mesozoic and were intelligent enough to make boats and carry livestock. Maybe one species that has been found had the potential to eventually become the intelligent dinosaur of James' speculation, but it only lived at the very end of the Cretaceous, not all through the Mesozoic. And it had the potential, not the demonstrated ability, to someday become James' creature.
- There has not been one single finding of any objects made by intelligent beings apart from human beings in the whole history of paleontology. Not even one stone carved to be used as a tool, or to be used as housing, or anything else. Even dinosaur excrement has been found but no intelligently made things. If you are going to attribute the migration of all the dinosaurs, flora and fauna to them, you could reasonably expect them to have done some tools, at least.
- The only alternate "theory" is yours, and you yourself (the four or so in this forum) start from the idea that continental drift is a myth, so the scientific validity of your speculation is nipped at the bud already.
-
You cannot provide one instance where I resorted to name-calling. This is absolutely false.
Orly?
To "Lice Farm"...
I will repeat again, I never said the continents did not move.
So it's possible dinosaurs fossils got where they are by continental drift and not by dino galleons?
Cool.
/thread.
You failed to finish reading my post.
-
Thankyou for your support, IAS. If Adolf is too dimwitted to understand that the only way to show how Africa and South America would fit together is to cut and paste them next to each other, that tells me all I need to know about him, however hard he tries to hide behind his language excuse. I don't give a ha'penny jizz what he thinks.
Also Adolf - why are you still here? I thought you were done with this thread. Shoo.
Do you all find it amusing to gang up on the FE'rs? Does this further validate your "science"
-
If you really are a scientist, do yourself a favor and learn the scientific method.
The scientific method is based on observation and repeatable results. Your "science" takes measurements of less than 100 years and extrapolates it to a period exceeding three billion years. Is this science?
-
A small and incomplete list of the evidence found follows:
1) - The borders of the tectonic plates are where the CD theory predicts, and the seismic, volcanic and mountain creation places confirm it.
2) - The geological strata found near the Atlantic Rift confirms that the continental drift has occurred for many millions of years.
3) - The coincidences in rocks found in different continents is not just a coincidence of individual rocks, but of whole sections of geological strata. While a few rocks could be coincidentally created with the same composition in two far away locations, the whole strata cannot.
4) - The fossil record shows how populations of many species are separated by new geographic barriers and evolve in different ways, eventually becoming separate species. This is an ongoing process that has been extensively documented and explains how similar, but almost always different species of dinosaurs are found in every continent.
5) - Analysis of the size of the brains of different animals has been, in general, a very good predictor of the intelligence of different living animals, so it is very reasonable to use it for dinosaurs, and according to this there have been no dinosaurs of an intelligence comparable to ours. More important, there have been no dinosaurs that lived through all the Mesozoic and were intelligent enough to make boats and carry livestock. Maybe one species that has been found had the potential to eventually become the intelligent dinosaur of James' speculation, but it only lived at the very end of the Cretaceous, not all through the Mesozoic. And it had the potential, not the demonstrated ability, to someday become James' creature.
6) - There has not been one single finding of any objects made by intelligent beings apart from human beings in the whole history of paleontology. Not even one stone carved to be used as a tool, or to be used as housing, or anything else. Even dinosaur excrement has been found but no intelligently made things. If you are going to attribute the migration of all the dinosaurs, flora and fauna to them, you could reasonably expect them to have done some tools, at least.
7) - The only alternate "theory" is yours, and you yourself (the four or so in this forum) start from the idea that continental drift is a myth, so the scientific validity of your speculation is nipped at the bud already.
1) Activity along the plates does not confirm drifting.
2) Says who?
3) The evidence suggests otherwise. What about the strata in Iceland being almost identical to strata located in Australia?
4) I assume you observed this? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic] There are many other theories that use the same evidence you use but reach different conclusions.
5) It is not the size that matters, but how you use it.
6) Why would you expect this?
7) The myth of continental drift is widely discredited by objective scientists around the world. Just because you cannot see them does not mean they do not exist. If you think there are only four of us, you are sadly mistaken.
I am noticing a pattern here.
1) gang up on the FE'rs
2) present one or two pieces of "evidence"
3) evidence is either based on a false conclusion, preconception or manipulation (admittedly)
4) resort to name-calling
5) repeat beginning at step 2.
Perhaps calling me names will further your "science"
-
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
-
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.
-
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.
The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
-
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.
The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.
-
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.
The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.
Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?
-
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.
The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.
Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.
-
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.
The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.
Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?
Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?
-
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.
The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.
Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.
You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.
-
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.
The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.
Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?
Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
-
I've always thought east Asia and western Europe would slot together quite nicely, and that Australia would slot sideways into the west coast of America or upside down into the bottom of Africa without too much fuss. Greenland would probably fit into the west coast of America too.
Conclusion: playing jigsaw with the Earth proves nothing.
Come on then Wilmore, lets see some pictures of this and see if they fit as well as South America and Africa?
-
Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.
-
Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.
I was simply illustrating the faulty logic used by JBJosh.
If dinosaurs never traversed the ocean then their fossil record in said oceans would not exist. This is not the case. Much like ants form a boat made out of their own bodies, the fossil record suggests that dinosaurs did this as well. This negates the need for bringing livestock as they ate their fallen friends.
-
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.
They won't frown on him, he's on the flat side. :P
-
Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.
I was simply illustrating the faulty logic used by JBJosh.
If dinosaurs never traversed the ocean then their fossil record in said oceans would not exist. This is not the case. Much like ants form a boat made out of their own bodies, the fossil record suggests that dinosaurs did this as well. This negates the need for bringing livestock as they ate their fallen friends.
Lets see:
1)Dinosaurs aren't ants.
2) Which ants cross the ocean intentionally on these rafts and which cling together for survival?
3) Which ants eat the others as sustenance on their ocean journey?
4) The fossil record suggests a certain distribution of fossils. You are inferring a dino-tilla as the vehicle for this distribution-sans fact.
5) You never provided the species of bird that crossed the ocean in their nest puprose built for travel.
6) You must have not read up on James' theory that we have been debating prior to your arrival.
7) You are close to an ocean(allegedly), why don't you try lashing together 10 or so dead cows and set sail for the land down under and see how far that raft takes you before it gets eaten.
Hint:
(http://www.riverandreef.com/articlelive/content_images/1/newspics/sharkbitten.jpg)
-
Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.
I was simply illustrating the faulty logic used by JBJosh.
If dinosaurs never traversed the ocean then their fossil record in said oceans would not exist. This is not the case. Much like ants form a boat made out of their own bodies, the fossil record suggests that dinosaurs did this as well. This negates the need for bringing livestock as they ate their fallen friends.
Lets see:
1)Dinosaurs aren't ants.
2) Which ants cross the ocean intentionally on these rafts and which cling together for survival?
3) Which ants eat the others as sustenance on their ocean journey?
4) The fossil record suggests a certain distribution of fossils. You are inferring a dino-tilla as the vehicle for this distribution-sans fact.
5) You never provided the species of bird that crossed the ocean in their nest puprose built for travel.
6) You must have not read up on James' theory that we have been debating prior to your arrival.
7) You are close to an ocean(allegedly), why don't you try lashing together 10 or so dead cows and set sail for the land down under and see how far that raft takes you before it gets eaten.
Hint:
(http://www.riverandreef.com/articlelive/content_images/1/newspics/sharkbitten.jpg)
1) Excellent observation.
2) Why don't you ask one.
3) See 2) above.
4) Is is common knowledge that dinosaur fossils are highly concentrated in sub-oceanic waters.
5) (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et)
6) I speak for myself. I am not a parrot.
7) Dinosaurs were not prey, their meat was not preferred.
-
Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.
-
The image for 5) was not uploaded previously. I will try again.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et)
-
Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.
Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
-
1) Activity along the plates does not confirm drifting.
2) Says who?
3) The evidence suggests otherwise. What about the strata in Iceland being almost identical to strata located in Australia?
4) I assume you observed this? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic] There are many other theories that use the same evidence you use but reach different conclusions.
5) It is not the size that matters, but how you use it.
6) Why would you expect this?
7) The myth of continental drift is widely discredited by objective scientists around the world. Just because you cannot see them does not mean they do not exist. If you think there are only four of us, you are sadly mistaken.
We are still waiting for you to show us some research that is not just a quick browse in Wikipedia. You are saying all the time that there are "many other theories", theories that are "widely discredited by objective scientists", "many other theories that use the same evidence", and so on. Where are those objective scientists? What are their names? What other theories are there that discredit continental drifting? (the kind we all know about, that is, with continents moving thousands of kilometers, that is).
While many details about the exact way continental drifting occurs are hotly debated, I know of just a handful of "scientists" that reject continental drifting altogether: James, Adolf and Wilmore. Where are the rest? You say there are many other theories. What are they?
Just so you start reading real science, try this article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383776/abstract (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383776/abstract). Like so many others, it explains how the geomagnetic reversals show how the continental drifting has occurred for millenia. If your speculation were true, you would not be able to find a continuous geological record of the creation of land close to the main geological hotspots ranging eons.
And, yes, you can see how (just as an example) several species of bipedal carnivores, all similar to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, appear in every continent, with the possible exception of Antarctica. By comparing the different anatomical differences and dating of strata where the fossils were found we can see how they all came from common ancestors. But of course, you know this since you work in Evolutionary studies and therefore have read extensively about the subject. Or... have you?
-
1) Activity along the plates does not confirm drifting.
2) Says who?
3) The evidence suggests otherwise. What about the strata in Iceland being almost identical to strata located in Australia?
4) I assume you observed this? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic] There are many other theories that use the same evidence you use but reach different conclusions.
5) It is not the size that matters, but how you use it.
6) Why would you expect this?
7) The myth of continental drift is widely discredited by objective scientists around the world. Just because you cannot see them does not mean they do not exist. If you think there are only four of us, you are sadly mistaken.
We are still waiting for you to show us some research that is not just a quick browse in Wikipedia. You are saying all the time that there are "many other theories", theories that are "widely discredited by objective scientists", "many other theories that use the same evidence", and so on. Where are those objective scientists? What are their names? What other theories are there that discredit continental drifting? (the kind we all know about, that is, with continents moving thousands of kilometers, that is).
While many details about the exact way continental drifting occurs are hotly debated, I know of just a handful of "scientists" that reject continental drifting altogether: James, Adolf and Wilmore. Where are the rest? You say there are many other theories. What are they?
Just so you start reading real science, try this article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383776/abstract (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383776/abstract). Like so many others, it explains how the geomagnetic reversals show how the continental drifting has occurred for millenia. If your speculation were true, you would not be able to find a continuous geological record of the creation of land close to the main geological hotspots ranging eons.
And, yes, you can see how (just as an example) several species of bipedal carnivores, all similar to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, appear in every continent, with the possible exception of Antarctica. By comparing the different anatomical differences and dating of strata where the fossils were found we can see how they all came from common ancestors. But of course, you know this since you work in Evolutionary studies and therefore have read extensively about the subject. Or... have you?
I assure you that none of my research is from "Wikipedia".
Opponents of continental drift include the reputable J. D. Dana, Scheidigger, V.V. Beloussov, Steven Dutch...how many do you require? The primary theories are that the continents have always been stationary or, the theory to which I ascribe, "settle" in the Earth.
I read you article, very amusing but full of errors and admitted unavailability of data. Then I recognized the author, William Lowrie. William Lowrie makes his living from EarthRef.org. Don't you think his "research" is a little biased?
Of course I am aware that several dinosaur species share common ancestors and are also located around the world. Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.
By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.
-
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.
Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.
-
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
Hold on. You said this before:
I never said the continents did not move.
Keep failing alt.
-
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
Hold on. You said this before:
I never said the continents did not move.
Keep failing alt.
You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.
-
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.
Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]
-
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.
Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]
I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
Hold on. You said this before:
I never said the continents did not move.
Keep failing alt.
You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.
Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.
-
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.
Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]
I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
Hold on. You said this before:
I never said the continents did not move.
Keep failing alt.
You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.
Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]
-
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.
Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]
I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
Hold on. You said this before:
I never said the continents did not move.
Keep failing alt.
You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.
Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]
The word 'saw' does not mean there is a video of it, if I had used the word 'filmed' then the meaning would be totally different.
-
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.
Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]
I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
Hold on. You said this before:
I never said the continents did not move.
Keep failing alt.
You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.
Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]
The word 'saw' does not mean there is a video of it, if I had used the word 'filmed' then the meaning would be totally different.
[interpreters note - I will discuss this with him and tell him it may have been an interpretation issue.]
-
Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.
[/quote]
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]
[/quote]
I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]
[/quote]
The word 'saw' does not mean there is a video of it, if I had used the word 'filmed' then the meaning would be totally different.
[/quote]
[interpreters note - I will discuss this with him and tell him it may have been an interpretation issue.]
[/quote]
[Interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will converse with you provided you not state that you possess video evidence of continental movement. He is about to leave for a speaking engagement now and will entertain your questions tomorrow. Just a note, he will not read anything you post prior to tomorrow morning. (This is the first time in three years I have witnessed the Doctor recant his position. I am so confused. This is not like him at all.)]
-
You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.
I'm not sure what you're argument is now.
If there's something moving the continents then when and where did this movement start?
-
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]
[note to interpreter] How do you interpret for him if he speaks German and you speak only Spanish and English?
Also, since the good doctor is so keen to point things out; your note, as it belongs to you, is possessive and requires an apostrophe.
Does Bishop have the patience for an alt like this? Saddam maybe (haven't been around long enough to know one when I see one).
-
You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.
I'm not sure what you're argument is now.
If there's something moving the continents then when and where did this movement start?
I have already addressed this within the thread. See previous posts.
-
[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]
[note to interpreter] How do you interpret for him if he speaks German and you speak only Spanish and English?
Also, since the good doctor is so keen to point things out; your note, as it belongs to you, is possessive and requires an apostrophe.
Does Bishop have the patience for an alt like this? Saddam maybe (haven't been around long enough to know one when I see one).
[Interpreters note - The Doctor just left for a speaking engagement. He speaks limited English, which requires my assistance, Spanish, German and Hindi. The Doctor is very diligent in his linguistic studies. He finds it to be an educational exercise to analyze mistakes used. He says he uses them to learn. I suspect he is an ass in any language. I see you using the word "alt". I am not familiar with this and have not interpreted it to the Doctor. What does it mean? Also, please do not reply with my notes in your response. I would hate to be on the receiving end of the Doctors wrath. He is very respected in my city.]
-
If there's something moving the continents then when and where did this movement start?
I have already addressed this within the thread. See previous posts.
No you haven't. All you've posted is a lot of refuting and a lot of interpreters notes.
And this:
I do believe tectonic plates move. I just do not believe they walk across the Earth, twisting and turning.
No scientist believes the plates "walk" or "dance" so lets ditch that descriptive.
But you've not explained the when, where or why. The reason I ask is that it would be very peculiar indeed if the earth started shifting as soon as we started measuring for shift, which is why you seem to be arguing.
-
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.
You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.
I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.
-
"Vielen dank" to Dr Einholm for holding down the fort here, I'm glad the regulars are not the only academics who are prepared to challenge and refute the ridiculous Pangea hypothesis. Welcome to the fold, doctor.
And, yes, you can see how (just as an example) several species of bipedal carnivores, all similar to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, appear in every continent, with the possible exception of Antarctica. By comparing the different anatomical differences and dating of strata where the fossils were found we can see how they all came from common ancestors. But of course, you know this since you work in Evolutionary studies and therefore have read extensively about the subject. Or... have you?
The word you're looking for is "theropod", but you're excused - it is unreasonable to expect scientific laypersons to employ the correct nomenclature all of the time. Now, I know for a fact that most species of theropod were confined to very specific geographical areas, consistent with seperated continents and some sea-travel. Tyrannosauroidea, one clade of theropods (those most similar to the Tyrannosaurus - perhaps you specifically meant these?) were confined to North America and East Asia, much like the Dromaeosauridae (the family which we have already examined in this thread).
Your refusal to use proper terminology makes it difficult to ascertain exactly what you are trying to say, but it seems you think that either the Tyrannosauridae specifically were ubiquitous (they were not), or that some other family of theropod was (I cannot think of one with the worldwide coverage you're suggesting).
Now, if you'd like to point me to a specific species of theropod which has the ubiquity you claim it to have, I will gladly examine the evidence surrounding it. As it stands, you seem to be rather out of your depth. You ought to do some serious reading on the fossil distributions of theropods before you go making wild unsubstantiated claims about them.
-
"Vielen dank" to Dr Einholm for holding down the fort here, I'm glad the regulars are not the only academics who are prepared to challenge and refute the ridiculous Pangea hypothesis. Welcome to the fold, doctor.
Yes. It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!
Welcome "Dr Einholm".
-
Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.
Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
I would imagine a shark would quite happily attack a baby icthyosaur or plesiosaur.
Are we really supposed to believe "Dr Einholm" and his interpreter who can't speak German are real people and not the same fifteen year old having a laugh? Well, James believes it so automatically I am suspicious.
-
Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.
Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
I would imagine a shark would quite happily attack a baby icthyosaur or plesiosaur.
Are we really supposed to believe "Dr Einholm" and his interpreter who can't speak German are real people and not the same fifteen year old having a laugh? Well, James believes it so automatically I am suspicious.
Or, it is James. I asked a mod if the IP address matched the location of Argentina given, but got stonewalled- as I expected though.
-
[Interpreters note - The Doctor just left for a speaking engagement. He speaks limited English, which requires my assistance, Spanish, German and Hindi. The Doctor is very diligent in his linguistic studies. He finds it to be an educational exercise to analyze mistakes used. He says he uses them to learn. I suspect he is an ass in any language. I see you using the word "alt". I am not familiar with this and have not interpreted it to the Doctor. What does it mean? Also, please do not reply with my notes in your response. I would hate to be on the receiving end of the Doctors wrath. He is very respected in my city.]
Why not just ask the good doctor in Spanish if he was just swearing in German?
Alt means alternate, adolf einholm = James
Does the doctor beat you when you are insubordinate?
-
Opponents of continental drift include the reputable J. D. Dana, Scheidigger, V.V. Beloussov, Steven Dutch...how many do you require? The primary theories are that the continents have always been stationary or, the theory to which I ascribe, "settle" in the Earth.
Lets see every author you mention, one by one:
- J. D. Dana: His main works were done in the mid to late 19th century, when continental drift was not even a theory
- Scheidigger: His objections were made around 1974, when continental drift was slowly gaining momentum. I have not seen any objections published recently by him.
- Beloussov: Same as Scheidigger. He published his reservations decades before the best evidence for continental drift was adecuately developed.
- Steven Dutch: Same as before. In his own web page there is no mention at all of his reservations towards continental drift, so I can only suspect he has changed his mind.
It is easy to make a list of geologists that did not embrace the theory of continental drift. You just find those who published their works before 1990. Where are your geologists that have reservations against the theory today?
Scientists have no trouble at all with accepting new theories as they become well developed and supported by evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble understanding the scientific method.
You can read the book "The rejection of continental drift: theory and method in American earth science" By Naomi Oreskes to understand just a little bit of how one scientific speculation became scientific theory.
-
By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.
You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.
If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.
-
The word you're looking for is "theropod", but you're excused
Yes, the term is Theropod, and they were quite ubiquitus, from North America to South America and India and South Africa. And they were quite successful during all of the Mesozoic, so your nice little speculation about some intelligent dinosaur from the Cretaceous cannot explain how the theropods spread through most of the world during the Triassic.
There is no single species of theropod, or of any other animal, for that matter, that is found in every part of the planet, as you pretend me to show. That is a total misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. You should study a little bit about evolution before coming up with intelligent dinosaurs making boats.
-
The word you're looking for is "theropod", but you're excused
Yes, the term is Theropod, and they were quite ubiquitus, from North America to South America and India and South Africa. And they were quite successful during all of the Mesozoic, so your nice little speculation about some intelligent dinosaur from the Cretaceous cannot explain how the theropods spread through most of the world during the Triassic.
There is no single species of theropod, or of any other animal, for that matter, that is found in every part of the planet, as you pretend me to show. That is a total misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. You should study a little bit about evolution before coming up with intelligent dinosaurs making boats.
Well I've specifically explained the anthropology of dromaeosaurae at an earlier point in this thread. Would you like me to do the same for every other type of theropod? I'm unwilling to make sweeping generalisations, but I will gladly work through the evidence with you on a case-by-case basis.
-
If there's something moving the continents then when and where did this movement start?
I have already addressed this within the thread. See previous posts.
No you haven't. All you've posted is a lot of refuting and a lot of interpreters notes.
And this:
I do believe tectonic plates move. I just do not believe they walk across the Earth, twisting and turning.
No scientist believes the plates "walk" or "dance" so lets ditch that descriptive.
But you've not explained the when, where or why. The reason I ask is that it would be very peculiar indeed if the earth started shifting as soon as we started measuring for shift, which is why you seem to be arguing.
I have stated from the beginning that I believe, much like the concrete foundation of a home settles, the continents settle, moving back and forth. What your scientists are measuring is the back, or forth, movement over a short period of time and extrapolating it over a three billion year time frame. This is ridiculous. I have stated this before so your "No you haven't argument" is absurd. Would you like me to quote the matter from my previous posts?
-
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.
You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.
I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.
Do you honestly believe it is science to take continental movement from a period of less than one hundred years and extrapolate it to a period of over three billion years?
-
"Vielen dank" to Dr Einholm for holding down the fort here, I'm glad the regulars are not the only academics who are prepared to challenge and refute the ridiculous Pangea hypothesis. Welcome to the fold, doctor.
Danka James. I have learned a new word used here, "alt". I believe several of these "alts" have been ignoring the obvious and bombarding me with redundant emails. I now understand their strategy, if they repeat themselves then denigrate you, it furthers their "science". Good luck and I welcome the support.
-
"Vielen dank" to Dr Einholm for holding down the fort here, I'm glad the regulars are not the only academics who are prepared to challenge and refute the ridiculous Pangea hypothesis. Welcome to the fold, doctor.
Yes. It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!
Welcome "Dr Einholm".
I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries. I am afraid it is your obtuse mind that refuses to interpret evidence correctly. Perhaps if you denigrate me further it will validate your science.
-
Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.
Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
I would imagine a shark would quite happily attack a baby icthyosaur or plesiosaur.
Are we really supposed to believe "Dr Einholm" and his interpreter who can't speak German are real people and not the same fifteen year old having a laugh? Well, James believes it so automatically I am suspicious.
Nice imagination.
-
[Interpreters note - The Doctor just left for a speaking engagement. He speaks limited English, which requires my assistance, Spanish, German and Hindi. The Doctor is very diligent in his linguistic studies. He finds it to be an educational exercise to analyze mistakes used. He says he uses them to learn. I suspect he is an ass in any language. I see you using the word "alt". I am not familiar with this and have not interpreted it to the Doctor. What does it mean? Also, please do not reply with my notes in your response. I would hate to be on the receiving end of the Doctors wrath. He is very respected in my city.]
Why not just ask the good doctor in Spanish if he was just swearing in German?
Alt means alternate, adolf einholm = James
Does the doctor beat you when you are insubordinate?
I could use your "alt" argument for the various characters you are presenting here. So your logic is 1) when defeated intellectually resort to personal attacks. Well done.
-
Opponents of continental drift include the reputable J. D. Dana, Scheidigger, V.V. Beloussov, Steven Dutch...how many do you require? The primary theories are that the continents have always been stationary or, the theory to which I ascribe, "settle" in the Earth.
Lets see every author you mention, one by one:
- J. D. Dana: His main works were done in the mid to late 19th century, when continental drift was not even a theory
- Scheidigger: His objections were made around 1974, when continental drift was slowly gaining momentum. I have not seen any objections published recently by him.
- Beloussov: Same as Scheidigger. He published his reservations decades before the best evidence for continental drift was adecuately developed.
- Steven Dutch: Same as before. In his own web page there is no mention at all of his reservations towards continental drift, so I can only suspect he has changed his mind.
It is easy to make a list of geologists that did not embrace the theory of continental drift. You just find those who published their works before 1990. Where are your geologists that have reservations against the theory today?
Scientists have no trouble at all with accepting new theories as they become well developed and supported by evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble understanding the scientific method.
You can read the book "The rejection of continental drift: theory and method in American earth science" By Naomi Oreskes to understand just a little bit of how one scientific speculation became scientific theory.
I wonder how Naomi Oreskes earns her money? Your reliance on biased data is strangling your theory.
-
By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.
You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.
If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.
There are consistent strata therefore continental drifting occurred. Or is it, continental drifting occurred therefore there are consistent strata? There are several examples of "matching" strata throughout the world that negate your use of this as evidence.
There is absolutely no measurement of continental drifting over tens of millions of years. This is absurd.
-
Well I've specifically explained the anthropology of dromaeosaurae at an earlier point in this thread. Would you like me to do the same for every other type of theropod? I'm unwilling to make sweeping generalisations, but I will gladly work through the evidence with you on a case-by-case basis.
I really am interested in the anthropology of non-humans. I am even interested in the zoology of humans. Please send me a copy of your published data so I can ask Webster's to change their definition of "anthropology" to say "the study of humans and dromaeosaurae". But please send the copies before noon, I have to take my child to the vet.
Please work with me a few cases on a case-by-case basis, some from the Triassic, some from the Jurassic and none from the Cretaceous, since you have talked enough about the dromeosaurus.
-
I wonder how Naomi Oreskes earns her money? Your reliance on biased data is strangling your theory.
Does Naomi Orestes force you to not find current studies that contradict Continental Drift? Or maybe William Lowrie and the evil EarthRef.org pay every geologist to keep The Conspiracy alive? But, please do not be afraid, risk your life and get us a paper or two that found their way around the Conspiracy. And they are out there, you just have to venture outside of Wikipedia.
You were doing so well, mentioning information that is not directly in Wikipedia for the first time, that you deserve a second chance. And write your findings in your will, so they are brought to the public as soon as the The Conspiracy kills you.
-
By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.
You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.
If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.
There are consistent strata therefore continental drifting occurred. Or is it, continental drifting occurred therefore there are consistent strata? There are several examples of "matching" strata throughout the world that negate your use of this as evidence.
There is absolutely no measurement of continental drifting over tens of millions of years. This is absurd.
Please learn about radioactive dating. What you consider absurd or not does not change the science of Geology, but the continuous layering of solidified lava over millions of years in places close to the geological hotspots does give ample evidence for continental drift over millions of years.
"This is absurd" is not a valid scientific argument.
-
I wonder how Naomi Oreskes earns her money? Your reliance on biased data is strangling your theory.
Does Naomi Orestes force you to not find current studies that contradict Continental Drift? Or maybe William Lowrie and the evil EarthRef.org pay every geologist to keep The Conspiracy alive? But, please do not be afraid, risk your life and get us a paper or two that found their way around the Conspiracy. And they are out there, you just have to venture outside of Wikipedia.
You were doing so well, mentioning information that is not directly in Wikipedia for the first time, that you deserve a second chance. And write your findings in your will, so they are brought to the public as soon as the The Conspiracy kills you.
I am fully aware of the arguments and "evidence" for continental dancing (or drift as you call it). It is amusing when I hear "if you just move South America closer to Africa and twist it this way then move the bottom closer to Africa and tilt the continent a little more on the Northern side..." this is not science.
Also, taking the measurements from a period of less than one hundred years and applying it to a period exceeding three billion years is absurd. Any objective person would agree with this.
-
By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.
You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.
If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.
There are consistent strata therefore continental drifting occurred. Or is it, continental drifting occurred therefore there are consistent strata? There are several examples of "matching" strata throughout the world that negate your use of this as evidence.
There is absolutely no measurement of continental drifting over tens of millions of years. This is absurd.
Please learn about radioactive dating. What you consider absurd or not does not change the science of Geology, but the continuous layering of solidified lava over millions of years in places close to the geological hotspots does give ample evidence for continental drift over millions of years.
"This is absurd" is not a valid scientific argument.
Radioactive dating is absolutely invalid. The decay rates used as the basis for this testing uses the same logic of extrapolation as you use to validate your continental movement for three billion years. It seems faulty extrapolation is the key to your continental drift theory.
-
I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.
No, the world hasn't believed that dinosaurs built galleons and sailed the oceans. Ever.
Perhaps if you denigrate me further it will validate your science.
I'm not denigrating, merely pointing out the obviously ridiculous notion that a doctor hires an interpreter so that he can post rants in an obscure subforum of an obscure internet site. This is increased dramatically when it's noted how quickly he gets up to speed on the subject.
There are other reasons I could go into about why the "german doctor posting through a translator" is a charade (for those that hadn't guessed it already), but I'd risk posting personal information.
Lets leave it at "no one is convinced".
-
I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.
No, the world hasn't believed that dinosaurs built galleons and sailed the oceans. Ever.
Perhaps if you denigrate me further it will validate your science.
I'm not denigrating, merely pointing out the obviously ridiculous notion that a doctor hires an interpreter so that he can post rants in an obscure subforum of an obscure internet site. This is increased dramatically when it's noted how quickly he gets up to speed on the subject.
There are other reasons I could go into about why the "german doctor posting through a translator" is a charade (for those that hadn't guessed it already), but I'd risk posting personal information.
Lets leave it at "no one is convinced".
I was speaking to the discussion of a flat earth. The entire world believed this for centuries. You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.
As a side note to your musings, my interpreter's primary responsibilities are to assist me in my research and communications with English speaking publications, Universities, etc. Believe what you like, it matters not.
-
I was speaking to the discussion of a flat earth.
No you weren't.
It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!
I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.
As a side note to your musings, my interpreter's primary responsibilities are to assist me in my research and communications with English speaking publications, Universities, etc.
Sure. ::)
-
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.
You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.
I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.
Do you honestly believe it is science to take continental movement from a period of less than one hundred years and extrapolate it to a period of over three billion years?
Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.
-
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.
You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.
I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.
Do you honestly believe it is science to take continental movement from a period of less than one hundred years and extrapolate it to a period of over three billion years?
Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.
If it is science to believe in extrapolation then why is it not acceptable to believe that a dinosaur can make a floating nest or clump with other dinosaurs as lesser developed species do. If you accept extrapolation as science you must also accept this. You cannot have it both ways.
As for the land masses appearing to "fit". I hardly believe your one example of South America and Africa almost fitting with significant manipulation is concrete enough. You are playing with a jigsaw puzzle.
Using your same "evidence" I find the fossil record supports dinosaurs migrating to the different continents over the ocean.
You are simply stating that your theory is the only explanation for the evidence. I, and many others, disagree.
Your definition of science is flawed.
-
I was speaking to the discussion of a flat earth.
No you weren't.
It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!
I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.
As a side note to your musings, my interpreter's primary responsibilities are to assist me in my research and communications with English speaking publications, Universities, etc.
Sure. ::)
What you know as "James theory" here has been discussed for decades as the "Transoceanic Migration Theory". Just because the subject might not be included in your "wikipedia" does not mean it does not exist.
"No you weren't" - this is an excellent response. Keep up the good work LiceFarm [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic.]
-
Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.
If it is science to believe in extrapolation then why is it not acceptable to believe that a dinosaur can make a floating nest or clump with other dinosaurs as lesser developed species do. If you accept extrapolation as science you must also accept this. You cannot have it both ways.
As for the land masses appearing to "fit". I hardly believe your one example of South America and Africa almost fitting with significant manipulation is concrete enough. You are playing with a jigsaw puzzle.
Using your same "evidence" I find the fossil record supports dinosaurs migrating to the different continents over the ocean.
You are simply stating that your theory is the only explanation for the evidence. I, and many others, disagree.
Your definition of science is flawed.
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.
Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
-
1) Excellent observation.
2) Why don't you ask one.
3) See 2) above.
4) Is is common knowledge that dinosaur fossils are highly concentrated in sub-oceanic waters.
5) (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et)
6) I speak for myself. I am not a parrot.
7) Dinosaurs were not prey, their meat was not preferred.
1) 2) and 3) you can't support.
4) Still inferring sans fact.
5) Your image is of a coot. The coot's nest is anchored to a foundation which touches the ground.
6) Ca-Caw
7) See 4 and below.
(http://www.billcurtsingerphoto.com/*Resources/*homeimages/Tiger%20Story/tigereatsbird.jpg)
Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
See above picture.
You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.
So you are implying that someone who would proclaim that dinosaurs used any type of sophisticated ship and sailed the oceans is idiotic and has no perception of what could and couldn't happen?
-
Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.
If it is science to believe in extrapolation then why is it not acceptable to believe that a dinosaur can make a floating nest or clump with other dinosaurs as lesser developed species do. If you accept extrapolation as science you must also accept this. You cannot have it both ways.
As for the land masses appearing to "fit". I hardly believe your one example of South America and Africa almost fitting with significant manipulation is concrete enough. You are playing with a jigsaw puzzle.
Using your same "evidence" I find the fossil record supports dinosaurs migrating to the different continents over the ocean.
You are simply stating that your theory is the only explanation for the evidence. I, and many others, disagree.
Your definition of science is flawed.
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.
Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
And what data and I ignoring?
You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.
I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.
-
No
Way to address none of the post there doc!
Have you ever attempted to hang a clock in the batroom, but slip on the toilet seat, fall, hit your head and wake up with this image stuck in your mind?
(http://www.timboucher.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/flux-capacitor-merkaba-hexagram0.jpg)
-
No
Way to address none of the post there doc!
Have you ever attempted to hang a clock in the batroom, but slip on the toilet seat, fall, hit your head and wake up with this image stuck in your mind?
(http://www.timboucher.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/flux-capacitor-merkaba-hexagram0.jpg)
I simply answered your question. What is a "batroom"? I do not understand the picture you provided. Would you please stay on topic?
-
I simply answered your question. What is a "batroom"? I do not understand the picture you provided. Would you please stay on topic?
Sorry, doctor Spelling. I meant bathroom. Maybe one day you will see the potential of the item in the picture.
For S's and G's we'll go around again then.
1) Excellent observation.
2) Why don't you ask one.
3) See 2) above.
4) Is is common knowledge that dinosaur fossils are highly concentrated in sub-oceanic waters.
5) (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et)
6) I speak for myself. I am not a parrot.
7) Dinosaurs were not prey, their meat was not preferred.
1) 2) and 3) you can't support.
4) Still inferring sans fact.
5) Your image is of a coot. The coot's nest is anchored to a foundation which touches the ground. It would not sail an ocean.
6) Ca-Caw
7) See 4 and below.
(http://www.billcurtsingerphoto.com/*Resources/*homeimages/Tiger%20Story/tigereatsbird.jpg)
Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
See above picture.
You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.
In what way is the belief that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans ridiculous? How would you describe someone who would proclaim that dinosaurs used any type of sophisticated ship and sailed the oceans? What would your opinion of their logic be?
TD's post just reminded me. Why does a German speaking doctor have a Spanish speaking interpreter?
-
What you know as "James theory" here has been discussed for decades as the "Transoceanic Migration Theory".
No it hasn't.
"No you weren't" - this is an excellent response. Keep up the good work LiceFarm [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic.]
I quoted you in the reply. You weren't talking about flat earth but dinosaurs.
Also, given that you're just a weak alt do you think you could quit the "Interpreters note" thing?
-
I do think it a little odd that a German can spell English words like "denigrate" yet is unable to spell the word "thankyou" in his own language.
[interpreter's note - I'm not being sarcastic]
-
I simply answered your question. What is a "batroom"? I do not understand the picture you provided. Would you please stay on topic?
Sorry, doctor Spelling. I meant bathroom. Maybe one day you will see the potential of the item in the picture.
For S's and G's we'll go around again then.
1) Excellent observation.
2) Why don't you ask one.
3) See 2) above.
4) Is is common knowledge that dinosaur fossils are highly concentrated in sub-oceanic waters.
5) (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et)
6) I speak for myself. I am not a parrot.
7) Dinosaurs were not prey, their meat was not preferred.
1) 2) and 3) you can't support.
4) Still inferring sans fact.
5) Your image is of a coot. The coot's nest is anchored to a foundation which touches the ground. It would not sail an ocean.
6) Ca-Caw
7) See 4 and below.
(http://www.billcurtsingerphoto.com/*Resources/*homeimages/Tiger%20Story/tigereatsbird.jpg)
Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
See above picture.
You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.
In what way is the belief that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans ridiculous? How would you describe someone who would proclaim that dinosaurs used any type of sophisticated ship and sailed the oceans? What would your opinion of their logic be?
TD's post just reminded me. Why does a German speaking doctor have a Spanish speaking interpreter?
This was already addressed in a previous post. Please stay on topic.
-
What you know as "James theory" here has been discussed for decades as the "Transoceanic Migration Theory".
No it hasn't.
"No you weren't" - this is an excellent response. Keep up the good work LiceFarm [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic.]
I quoted you in the reply. You weren't talking about flat earth but dinosaurs.
Also, given that you're just a weak alt do you think you could quit the "Interpreters note" thing?
Please stay on topic.
-
I do think it a little odd that a German can spell English words like "denigrate" yet is unable to spell the word "thankyou" in his own language.
[interpreter's note - I'm not being sarcastic]
How does this further your "science"?
-
Or, it is James. I asked a mod if the IP address matched the location of Argentina given, but got stonewalled- as I expected though.
Yeah, massive surprise that I refuse to give out private, confidential information to anyone who cares to ask. ::)
-
Or, it is James. I asked a mod if the IP address matched the location of Argentina given, but got stonewalled- as I expected though.
Yeah, massive surprise that I refuse to give out private, confidential information to anyone who cares to ask. ::)
No suprise was noted, thus the as I expected.
-
Or, it is James. I asked a mod if the IP address matched the location of Argentina given, but got stonewalled- as I expected though.
Yeah, massive surprise that I refuse to give out private, confidential information to anyone who cares to ask. ::)
No suprise was noted, thus the as I expected.
RE'r strategy:
1) Present illogical facts
2) when those fail, bombard the FE'r with dozens of posts stating his theory is ridiculous
3) when that fails, resort to name-calling. Unless you are the "alt" LiceFarm then simply say "no, you are"
Now that this thread has officially been derailed may we discuss this matter intelligently? Do so in Spanish, Hindi, or German if you wish me to respond personally. English if you wish to include others in the discussion.
-
1) Present illogical facts
2) when those fail, bombard the FE'r with dozens of posts stating his theory is ridiculous
3) when that fails, resort to name-calling. Unless you are the "alt" LiceFarm then simply say "no, you are"
Now that this thread has officially been derailed may we discuss this matter intelligently? Do so in Spanish, Hindi, or German if you wish me to respond personally. English if you wish to include others in the discussion.
Half of the posts on this page are your's
Try responding with something with more content than no, which does not count as addressing a post. (click below to connect)
-
Radioactive dating is absolutely invalid. The decay rates used as the basis for this testing uses the same logic of extrapolation as you use to validate your continental movement for three billion years. It seems faulty extrapolation is the key to your continental drift theory.
And your arguments to say it is invalid are... what, exactly? That you do not like it?
Your argument is, in essence, that scientists are idiots that extrapolate anything they have in front of them and declare that the extrapolation is science. Your arrogance only demeans yourself, because it shows that you do not even read the articles that you criticize. I have news for you, Adolf: you are less intelligent than the people you are considering beneath you, and all those Doctors and Professors in Geology have actually understood the scientific method, something you still have not shown to have bothered to do.
Every research paper that you are criticizing refers to or describes a model of the Earth and its internal dynamics, makes predictions based on that model and compares the predictions with actual results. That comparison is the basis for the conclusions.
If you want to declare invalid a research paper you have to show that the data is invalid or that the conclusions are not supported by the data. Saying "it is absolutely invalid" is not part of the scientific method.
Which of the papers about the drilling of strata near the hotspots are you declaring invalid? Have you even read a single paper about the research on continental drift? Or have you just said "it smells like extrapolation" and never read a word?
-
I am fully aware of the arguments and "evidence" for continental dancing (or drift as you call it). It is amusing when I hear "if you just move South America closer to Africa and twist it this way then move the bottom closer to Africa and tilt the continent a little more on the Northern side..." this is not science.
Where is the study that you read that declares the similarity of the coasts of America and Africa as the only reason to believe in the continental drift? I sure want to read it and I myself will help you expose him as a bum if he is a professional geologist.
If you had read anything about what you criticize you would have seen that this similarity in shapes of the coasts is only a small and not very important piece of evidence from a much larger body of evidence.
Of course, you did not invent the argument so you could have something easy enough to criticize, or did you? Do you have the study that shows this as the only evidence?
-
Radioactive dating is absolutely invalid. The decay rates used as the basis for this testing uses the same logic of extrapolation as you use to validate your continental movement for three billion years. It seems faulty extrapolation is the key to your continental drift theory.
And your arguments to say it is invalid are... what, exactly? That you do not like it?
Your argument is, in essence, that scientists are idiots that extrapolate anything they have in front of them and declare that the extrapolation is science. Your arrogance only demeans yourself, because it shows that you do not even read the articles that you criticize. I have news for you, Adolf: you are less intelligent than the people you are considering beneath you, and all those Doctors and Professors in Geology have actually understood the scientific method, something you still have not shown to have bothered to do.
Every research paper that you are criticizing refers to or describes a model of the Earth and its internal dynamics, makes predictions based on that model and compares the predictions with actual results. That comparison is the basis for the conclusions.
If you want to declare invalid a research paper you have to show that the data is invalid or that the conclusions are not supported by the data. Saying "it is absolutely invalid" is not part of the scientific method.
Which of the papers about the drilling of strata near the hotspots are you declaring invalid? Have you even read a single paper about the research on continental drift? Or have you just said "it smells like extrapolation" and never read a word?
Trig, you seem to be the fairest of the RE'rs in this forum. Thank you for your professionalism. I offer you the following:
An invalid argument is one that lacks evidence. I accept many theories that I do not personally favor because the evidence supports them.
My argument regarding the extrapolation of data exists only when the known data is less than 1/100,000,000,000,000 of the frame to which it is applied. I do not believe this is science. You think I am arrogant because of the fallacies in your logic? I have stated the fallacies yet you continue to accept them blindly as truth and use them to support your theory. I do know that calling me ?stupid? because I disagree with the conclusion of your data is not scientific.
I am very familiar with the regurgitation of articles and the same data being parsed in different ways. It has been the same for the last twenty five to thirty years. I know these theories and the data well.
I would like to address your points individually:
Hypothesis ?
Dinosaur fossils exist world-wide because the Earth was once a ?Pangea?
Observation ?
1) there are similar fossils located around the world.
2) South America and Africa seem to fit together.
3) Geological stratum in these ?matching? areas are similar.
4) the polarity of the stratum indicates a precise match.
5) We can measure the movement of the continents.
6) Isotope decay proves the continental drift theory.
Conclusion ? the Earth was once a ?Pangea?
Consider the following:
1) I agree with this.
2) I disagree that they ?fit together?. A close review of the perceived connection demonstrates that this ?fit? is not possible. The northern portion of the continent does not fit in a manner consistent with the remainder of the continent. When you ?zoom out? to a higher level the tessellation seems more acceptable but then you must account for the twisting and tilting that has to occur for the ?fit? to take place. It is not acceptable, in my mind, to play with the continents like a jigsaw puzzle.
3) I agree that geological stratum are consistent in some of these ?matched? areas of the world. How do you explain the consistency of geological stratum in places that do not ?match?? Also, how do you explain the lack of consistency in places where the stratum should ?match?? All areas that should ?match? must be consistent for your theory to be correct. This is not the case.
4) This observation is true in many instances but false in others. The same issues discussed in 3) apply here as well.
5) No, you extrapolated less than one hundred years of movement to a period in excess of three billion years.
6) The decay tables used as a basis for the aging process use similar extrapolation methods where one short time period of decay is applied to a substantially longer time period.
In actuality your only evidence is that the same dinosaur fossils are located around the world. This can be used to prove that their migration occurred in a different manner. I think this is fair.
-
1) Present illogical facts
2) when those fail, bombard the FE'r with dozens of posts stating his theory is ridiculous
3) when that fails, resort to name-calling. Unless you are the "alt" LiceFarm then simply say "no, you are"
Now that this thread has officially been derailed may we discuss this matter intelligently? Do so in Spanish, Hindi, or German if you wish me to respond personally. English if you wish to include others in the discussion.
Half of the posts on this page are your's
Try responding with something with more content than no, which does not count as addressing a post. (click below to connect)
When you are ready to have a mature conversation I am willing.
-
When you are ready to have a mature conversation I am willing.
[/quote]
I have been trying to do just that.
To save room I only copied the link, it is located here. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg853255#msg853255)
I would have thought that a doctor would have used scientific notation and included references and citations for his claims in his replies to trig.
-
When you are ready to have a mature conversation I am willing.
I have been trying to do just that.
To save room I only copied the link, it is located here. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg853255#msg853255)
I would have thought that a doctor would have used scientific notation and included references and citations for his claims in his replies to trig.
[/quote]
Your picture of a shark about to eat a bird is irrelevant. Your parroting is irrelevant. When you are ready to have a mature discussion, let us do that. [interpreters note - the Doctor is growing impatient with you. He says you should re-post your valid questions without your ignorant rambling. I think it is funny though. Good job.]
-
When you are ready to have a mature conversation I am willing.
I have been trying to do just that.
To save room I only copied the link, it is located here. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg853255#msg853255)
I would have thought that a doctor would have used scientific notation and included references and citations for his claims in his replies to trig.
Your picture of a shark about to eat a bird is irrelevant. Your parroting is irrelevant. When you are ready to have a mature discussion, let us do that. [interpreters note - the Doctor is growing impatient with you. He says you should re-post your valid questions without your ignorant rambling. I think it is funny though. Good job.]
[/quote]
As birds are descended from dinosaurs it addresses your baseless claims of both dinosaur meat not being eaten and fish not eating dinosaurs.
-
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.
Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
And what data and I ignoring?
You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.
I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.
Continental Movements.
Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.
See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?
-
When you are ready to have a mature conversation I am willing.
I have been trying to do just that.
To save room I only copied the link, it is located here. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg853255#msg853255)
I would have thought that a doctor would have used scientific notation and included references and citations for his claims in his replies to trig.
Your picture of a shark about to eat a bird is irrelevant. Your parroting is irrelevant. When you are ready to have a mature discussion, let us do that. [interpreters note - the Doctor is growing impatient with you. He says you should re-post your valid questions without your ignorant rambling. I think it is funny though. Good job.]
As birds are descended from dinosaurs it addresses your baseless claims of both dinosaur meat not being eaten and fish not eating dinosaurs.
[/quote]
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
-
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.
Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
And what data and I ignoring?
You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.
I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.
Continental Movements.
Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.
See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?
I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.
-
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.
Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
And what data and I ignoring?
You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.
I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.
Continental Movements.
Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.
See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?
I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.
If I am unclear about something you've stated, usually giving a brief run-down is productive, especially if I'm not the only one who is confused.
-
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.
Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
And what data and I ignoring?
You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.
I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.
Continental Movements.
Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.
See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?
I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.
If I am unclear about something you've stated, usually giving a brief run-down is productive, especially if I'm not the only one who is confused.
I think my previous posts would be valuable to you then.
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
Like the differences between ants and dinosaurs or elephants and dinosaurs which you so eagerly grasped on to earlier? Again nice job dodging the rest of the points and continuing to not post any supporting data.
I have grown bored with your consistent deflection of points, you provide no new material, no references to anything you claim and have yet to add one piece of credible evidence, such as accounting for the sea travel. One picture you do post is that of a bird whose nest is anchored to the bed below the water it is in, way to not research that one.
Carry on with your doctor act.
At least Bishop will debate.
-
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.
Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
And what data and I ignoring?
You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.
I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.
Continental Movements.
Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.
See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?
I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.
If I am unclear about something you've stated, usually giving a brief run-down is productive, especially if I'm not the only one who is confused.
I think my previous posts would be valuable to you then.
From what I've read, you've said fossils of dinosaurs found on the ocean floor is your proof, right?
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?
What is your question?
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
Like the differences between ants and dinosaurs or elephants and dinosaurs which you so eagerly grasped on to earlier? Again nice job dodging the rest of the points and continuing to not post any supporting data.
I have grown bored with your consistent deflection of points, you provide no new material, no references to anything you claim and have yet to add one piece of credible evidence, such as accounting for the sea travel. One picture you do post is that of a bird whose nest is anchored to the bed below the water it is in, way to not research that one.
Carry on with your doctor act.
At least Bishop will debate.
Ants "clumping" and elephants swimming was used to illustrate a behavior, and a theory supported by the fossil record, that may explain transoceanic migration. The fossil record is evidence of this.
You asked for a picture of a birds nest on the water. I provided you one as you requested. From your request it seemed you denied that birds could not make floating nests. There are other species of birds whose nests are not anchored.
As for evidence. My theories are as well or better evidenced than that of dancing continents. What specifically would you like to see?
I see you are growing frustrated because you cannot support your theory. This is understandable. If I were you I would be frustrated too. Perhaps it is time to re-examine the evidence with open eyes?
-
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.
Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
And what data and I ignoring?
You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.
I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.
Continental Movements.
Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.
See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?
I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.
If I am unclear about something you've stated, usually giving a brief run-down is productive, especially if I'm not the only one who is confused.
I think my previous posts would be valuable to you then.
From what I've read, you've said fossils of dinosaurs found on the ocean floor is your proof, right?
Disproportionate amounts of dinosaur fossils have been found in ancient sea beds and in current sub-oceanic regions.
-
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.
Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
And what data and I ignoring?
You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.
I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.
Continental Movements.
Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.
See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?
I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.
If I am unclear about something you've stated, usually giving a brief run-down is productive, especially if I'm not the only one who is confused.
I think my previous posts would be valuable to you then.
From what I've read, you've said fossils of dinosaurs found on the ocean floor is your proof, right?
Disproportionate amounts of dinosaur fossils have been found in ancient sea beds and in current sub-oceanic regions.
Didn't we go over that it was because of better conditions for fossilization?
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?
What is your question?
Question is why is okay for you to do it? I thought I made myself pretty clear.
-
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.
Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
And what data and I ignoring?
You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.
I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.
Continental Movements.
Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.
See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?
I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.
If I am unclear about something you've stated, usually giving a brief run-down is productive, especially if I'm not the only one who is confused.
I think my previous posts would be valuable to you then.
From what I've read, you've said fossils of dinosaurs found on the ocean floor is your proof, right?
Disproportionate amounts of dinosaur fossils have been found in ancient sea beds and in current sub-oceanic regions.
Didn't we go over that it was because of better conditions for fossilization?
So, by your logic, the only fossils ever found would be in the water. This is not the case.
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?
What is your question?
Question is why is okay for you to do it? I thought I made myself pretty clear.
Birds today are different from extinct dinosaurs. Do you deny this?
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?
What is your question?
Question is why is okay for you to do it? I thought I made myself pretty clear.
Birds today are different from extinct dinosaurs. Do you deny this?
No, I don't deny that, and that wasn't my point. Please don't straw man.
-
Didn't we go over that it was because of better conditions for fossilization?
So, by your logic, the only fossils ever found would be in the water. This is not the case.
Not part of my logic. I said better, as I've bolded for you, not the only conditions.
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?
What is your question?
Question is why is okay for you to do it? I thought I made myself pretty clear.
Birds today are different from extinct dinosaurs. Do you deny this?
No, I don't deny that, and that wasn't my point. Please don't straw man.
You are making little sense. I do not understand "don't straw man." What is your point?
-
Didn't we go over that it was because of better conditions for fossilization?
So, by your logic, the only fossils ever found would be in the water. This is not the case.
Not part of my logic. I said better, as I've bolded for you, not the only conditions.
That is very convenient for you then. Using your logic, even if more dinosaurs actually died in the ocean than on land, you would blindly dismiss it because fossilization occurs easier in the ocean environment. This is a perfect example of coming to a conclusion then manipulating the evidence to match it. I am now aware of your tactics.
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?
What is your question?
Question is why is okay for you to do it? I thought I made myself pretty clear.
Birds today are different from extinct dinosaurs. Do you deny this?
No, I don't deny that, and that wasn't my point. Please don't straw man.
You are making little sense. I do not understand "don't straw man." What is your point?
You're making a straw man argument. I never denied that Birds from today are different than dinosaurs.
-
Didn't we go over that it was because of better conditions for fossilization?
So, by your logic, the only fossils ever found would be in the water. This is not the case.
Not part of my logic. I said better, as I've bolded for you, not the only conditions.
That is very convenient for you then. Using your logic, even if more dinosaurs actually died in the ocean than on land, you would blindly dismiss it because fossilization occurs easier in the ocean environment. This is a perfect example of coming to a conclusion then manipulating the evidence to match it. I am now aware of your tactics.
This is a what if scenario. If you proved to me, without a doubt, that more dinosaurs died in the ocean, then I'd come to different conclusions. Right now, You're saying, "Well, a lot more dinosaurs could have died in the ocean!" You've come to a conclusion about my logic, and are manipulating my words to fit your own conclusion.
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?
What is your question?
Question is why is okay for you to do it? I thought I made myself pretty clear.
Birds today are different from extinct dinosaurs. Do you deny this?
No, I don't deny that, and that wasn't my point. Please don't straw man.
You are making little sense. I do not understand "don't straw man." What is your point?
You're making a straw man argument. I never denied that Birds from today are different than dinosaurs.
If you agree then you have admitted your comparison is baseless.
-
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?
What is your question?
Question is why is okay for you to do it? I thought I made myself pretty clear.
Birds today are different from extinct dinosaurs. Do you deny this?
No, I don't deny that, and that wasn't my point. Please don't straw man.
You are making little sense. I do not understand "don't straw man." What is your point?
You're making a straw man argument. I never denied that Birds from today are different than dinosaurs.
If you agree then you have admitted your comparison is baseless.
No, no I'm not. Read this:
There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.
Now this:
You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?
What I said is that you were being a bit hypocritical. You were free to use comparisons that were also baseless, yet you seem to be allowed to do that.
-
Didn't we go over that it was because of better conditions for fossilization?
So, by your logic, the only fossils ever found would be in the water. This is not the case.
Not part of my logic. I said better, as I've bolded for you, not the only conditions.
That is very convenient for you then. Using your logic, even if more dinosaurs actually died in the ocean than on land, you would blindly dismiss it because fossilization occurs easier in the ocean environment. This is a perfect example of coming to a conclusion then manipulating the evidence to match it. I am now aware of your tactics.
This is a what if scenario. If you proved to me, without a doubt, that more dinosaurs died in the ocean, then I'd come to different conclusions. Right now, You're saying, "Well, a lot more dinosaurs could have died in the ocean!" You've come to a conclusion about my logic, and are manipulating my words to fit your own conclusion.
Consider this a challenge to your reasoning. If more dinosaurs died in the ocean then how would you know? What evidence would you expect to see? If more died on land, how would you know?
You see less fossil records on land than in the waters yet believe more dinosaurs live on land. Your rationale is that the conditions are more favorable to fossilization in the water. However this is directly contradicted by fossils discovered throughout the world.
I think the main problem with RE'rs is their interpretation of data. You are so "brainwashed" into believing a theory that has been preached to you that you ignore what is right in front of you.
-
I think the main problem with RE'rs is their interpretation of data. You are so "brainwashed" into believing a theory that has been preached to you that you ignore what is right in front of you.
Things flat guys ignore which is right in front of them:
The presence of two celestial poles (no explanation in a flat world)
Why nobody can go further south than 90oS, even in a plane.
Why aircraft travel times fit exactly with what one would expect in a round world and not at all with what you'd expect with a flat one.
And he thinks we're brainwashed... ::)
-
Consider this a challenge to your reasoning. If more dinosaurs died in the ocean then how would you know? What evidence would you expect to see? If more died on land, how would you know?
You see less fossil records on land than in the waters yet believe more dinosaurs live on land. Your rationale is that the conditions are more favorable to fossilization in the water. However this is directly contradicted by fossils discovered throughout the world.
If you know that conditions for fossilization are better in the waters, then you would expect to find more fossils in water environments. If conditions for fossilization on land are less favorable, then you would expect to find fewer fossils in land environments. It a simple matter of statistical analysis to estimate populations based on remains found.
-
I think the main problem with RE'rs is their interpretation of data. You are so "brainwashed" into believing a theory that has been preached to you that you ignore what is right in front of you.
Things flat guys ignore which is right in front of them:
The presence of two celestial poles (no explanation in a flat world)
Why nobody can go further south than 90oS, even in a plane.
Why aircraft travel times fit exactly with what one would expect in a round world and not at all with what you'd expect with a flat one.
And he thinks we're brainwashed... ::)
Yet you continue to deviate from the subject at hand.
-
Consider this a challenge to your reasoning. If more dinosaurs died in the ocean then how would you know? What evidence would you expect to see? If more died on land, how would you know?
You see less fossil records on land than in the waters yet believe more dinosaurs live on land. Your rationale is that the conditions are more favorable to fossilization in the water. However this is directly contradicted by fossils discovered throughout the world.
If you know that conditions for fossilization are better in the waters, then you would expect to find more fossils in water environments. If conditions for fossilization on land are less favorable, then you would expect to find fewer fossils in land environments. It a simple matter of statistical analysis to estimate populations based on remains found.
Which poses the question, if there were more dinosaurs living in the water, how would you know?
-
You deviated from the subject by proposing a general idea that people who believe in a round earth are brainwashed but flat guys are not. I merely provided facts that countered that. Do not blame the deviation on me.
-
Consider this a challenge to your reasoning. If more dinosaurs died in the ocean then how would you know? What evidence would you expect to see? If more died on land, how would you know?
You see less fossil records on land than in the waters yet believe more dinosaurs live on land. Your rationale is that the conditions are more favorable to fossilization in the water. However this is directly contradicted by fossils discovered throughout the world.
If you know that conditions for fossilization are better in the waters, then you would expect to find more fossils in water environments. If conditions for fossilization on land are less favorable, then you would expect to find fewer fossils in land environments. It a simple matter of statistical analysis to estimate populations based on remains found.
Which poses the question, if there were more dinosaurs living in the water, how would you know?
By statistical analysis of the number of fossils found in different environments.
-
You deviated from the subject by proposing a general idea that people who believe in a round earth are brainwashed but flat guys are not. I merely provided facts that countered that. Do not blame the deviation on me.
And so the deviation continues...
-
Consider this a challenge to your reasoning. If more dinosaurs died in the ocean then how would you know? What evidence would you expect to see? If more died on land, how would you know?
You see less fossil records on land than in the waters yet believe more dinosaurs live on land. Your rationale is that the conditions are more favorable to fossilization in the water. However this is directly contradicted by fossils discovered throughout the world.
If you know that conditions for fossilization are better in the waters, then you would expect to find more fossils in water environments. If conditions for fossilization on land are less favorable, then you would expect to find fewer fossils in land environments. It a simple matter of statistical analysis to estimate populations based on remains found.
Which poses the question, if there were more dinosaurs living in the water, how would you know?
By statistical analysis of the number of fossils found in different environments.
You can only statistically analyze the number of fossils found, if the environmental variable determines the number of living beings in that same environment, how can you quantify the living dinosaur population?
-
You deviated from the subject by proposing a general idea that people who believe in a round earth are brainwashed but flat guys are not. I merely provided facts that countered that. Do not blame the deviation on me.
And so the deviation continues...
Yes, fuelled by you as much as me. Who cares if it deviates? The purpose of this thread was to establish who among the flat guys supports James's lunatic notion that dinosaurs built boats. Anyone who does has had ample time to identify themselves. YOU have turned it into a RE-bashing session, "Dr" Einholm. You may beat your interpreter and gnash your teutonic teeth as much as you want, but none of us are taking you seriously. And my "deviation" had the valid point that RE devotees are arguably less brainwashed than FET devotees.
-
You deviated from the subject by proposing a general idea that people who believe in a round earth are brainwashed but flat guys are not. I merely provided facts that countered that. Do not blame the deviation on me.
And so the deviation continues...
Yes, fuelled by you as much as me. Who cares if it deviates? The purpose of this thread was to establish who among the flat guys supports James's lunatic notion that dinosaurs built boats. Anyone who does has had ample time to identify themselves. YOU have turned it into a RE-bashing session, "Dr" Einholm. You may beat your interpreter and gnash your teutonic teeth as much as you want, but none of us are taking you seriously. And my "deviation" had the valid point that RE devotees are arguably less brainwashed than FET devotees.
Continue your rant until your are all tired out. Then you may return to your Communal College.
-
Then you may return to your Communal College.
???
-
Then you may return to your Communal College.
???
It is interesting that the PhDs that I work with seem to be in a whole different calss of professionalism. They always have a well thought out answer and when giving facts they can actually provide a source of reference. Not to mention they just don't communicate like he does, not the foreign language thing, as several of them are foreing language speakers, I'm talking an overall manner of communicating.
-
This is a what if scenario. If you proved to me, without a doubt, that more dinosaurs died in the ocean, then I'd come to different conclusions. Right now, You're saying, "Well, a lot more dinosaurs could have died in the ocean!" You've come to a conclusion about my logic, and are manipulating my words to fit your own conclusion.
Consider this a challenge to your reasoning. If more dinosaurs died in the ocean then how would you know? What evidence would you expect to see? If more died on land, how would you know?
You see less fossil records on land than in the waters yet believe more dinosaurs live on land. Your rationale is that the conditions are more favorable to fossilization in the water. However this is directly contradicted by fossils discovered throughout the world.
I think the main problem with RE'rs is their interpretation of data. You are so "brainwashed" into believing a theory that has been preached to you that you ignore what is right in front of you.
Please stop side-stepping my points.
First off, You still won't admit that you're twisting my words and being a bit hypocritical.
Also, I need to back-track. The best place for fossilization is in places like these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerst%C3%A4tte). Sorry for being wrong about my evidence, you got me there. But, as I've realized, we haven't done nearly enough deep sea digging around to even say one place has more than the other, in terms of fossils.
Also, why must you keep bring up that we're brainwashed if you don't like it when we say the same things about you, which are based more in fact than what you're pointing out?
-
Trig, you seem to be the fairest of the RE'rs in this forum. Thank you for your professionalism. I offer you the following:
An invalid argument is one that lacks evidence. I accept many theories that I do not personally favor because the evidence supports them.
My argument regarding the extrapolation of data exists only when the known data is less than 1/100,000,000,000,000 of the frame to which it is applied. I do not believe this is science. You think I am arrogant because of the fallacies in your logic? I have stated the fallacies yet you continue to accept them blindly as truth and use them to support your theory. I do know that calling me ?stupid? because I disagree with the conclusion of your data is not scientific.
I am very familiar with the regurgitation of articles and the same data being parsed in different ways. It has been the same for the last twenty five to thirty years. I know these theories and the data well.
I would like to address your points individually:
Hypothesis ?
Dinosaur fossils exist world-wide because the Earth was once a ?Pangea?
Observation ?
1) there are similar fossils located around the world.
2) South America and Africa seem to fit together.
3) Geological stratum in these ?matching? areas are similar.
4) the polarity of the stratum indicates a precise match.
5) We can measure the movement of the continents.
6) Isotope decay proves the continental drift theory.
Conclusion ? the Earth was once a ?Pangea?
Consider the following:
1) I agree with this.
2) I disagree that they ?fit together?. A close review of the perceived connection demonstrates that this ?fit? is not possible. The northern portion of the continent does not fit in a manner consistent with the remainder of the continent. When you ?zoom out? to a higher level the tessellation seems more acceptable but then you must account for the twisting and tilting that has to occur for the ?fit? to take place. It is not acceptable, in my mind, to play with the continents like a jigsaw puzzle.
3) I agree that geological stratum are consistent in some of these ?matched? areas of the world. How do you explain the consistency of geological stratum in places that do not ?match?? Also, how do you explain the lack of consistency in places where the stratum should ?match?? All areas that should ?match? must be consistent for your theory to be correct. This is not the case.
4) This observation is true in many instances but false in others. The same issues discussed in 3) apply here as well.
5) No, you extrapolated less than one hundred years of movement to a period in excess of three billion years.
6) The decay tables used as a basis for the aging process use similar extrapolation methods where one short time period of decay is applied to a substantially longer time period.
In actuality your only evidence is that the same dinosaur fossils are located around the world. This can be used to prove that their migration occurred in a different manner. I think this is fair.
In science the models are what tell us what can be extrapolated and what cannot. Your dislike does not play any part in the decision.
The model of the nucleus of atoms has been proposed, then tested by experimentation and observation in countless occasions, and in fact has been perfected to the point where the atomic bomb could be developed and much more. We do note extrapolate the concentrations of radioactive substances into the past just because we feel like doing it. We know which conditions alter the half-lives of these substances and we know when our predictions are highly reliable and when they are not.
When you decide that an extrapolation cannot be extended into the remote past without having the model into account you are throwing away the scientific method altogether. Some extrapolations cannot be extended into next (or last) month, like most climate predictions you see in the news, some can be extrapolated almost without limit, like the ones regarding nucleus of atoms that are not being bombarded by significant amounts of radiation.
And you are right about one thing: extrapolating current continental drift, without taking any other evidence into account, is valid only for a few thousand years, or maybe less. The current model of continental drift, including the method of creation of new land, the model of creation of mountains on the opposite side of the tectonic plate, the model of the core of this planet, all together, do support the theory of continental drift that moved land and sea floor for thousands of kilometers. These theories, taken all as a whole, have been used to predict a whole lot of phenomena that has then been seen.
When your "theory" of intelligent dinosaurs becomes a model that can then go through the scientific method you will have something. For now you only have the the "I do not like it " argument, against which we can always tell you to see the evidence as a scientist or keep your theory to yourself.
And if you do not like radioactive decay as explained and used to date rocks, you will have to show the physical forces that change the way radioactive nucleus function, not just say "the known data is less than 1/100,000,000,000,000 of the frame to which it is applied". There are more than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of oxygen in the atmosphere, but I do not say "wait a minute, what if the atoms of oxygen I am breathing today are poisonous?"
-
Sorry to be a bit off-topic, but I really hope adolf einholm didn't leave. I was quite enjoying myself.
-
Someone found out he was the VP of an accounting firm or something. And not a german doctor after all.
I know it was a shock for me too.
-
Someone found out he was the VP of an accounting firm or something. And not a german doctor after all.
I know it was a shock for me too.
I highly doubt that too.
I do hope that the VP of an accounting firm would have better things to do than troll a flat earth site even if it were a one man firm which he owned and was VP pres and director of media relations.
On a side note, this just in:
Conclusive proof that the mysterious underwater Japanes ruins at Yonaguni were built by octopi.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214121953.htm
http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html
-
In science the models are what tell us what can be extrapolated and what cannot. Your dislike does not play any part in the decision.
The model of the nucleus of atoms has been proposed, then tested by experimentation and observation in countless occasions, and in fact has been perfected to the point where the atomic bomb could be developed and much more. We do note extrapolate the concentrations of radioactive substances into the past just because we feel like doing it. We know which conditions alter the half-lives of these substances and we know when our predictions are highly reliable and when they are not.
Your faith in globularism is misguided. Globite atomic theory is far from "perfected", and following its doctrines to their [il]logical conclusions begets such absurdities and untenabilities as wave-particle duality, gravitons and other inexplicable inventions of the globularist fantasists. The extrapolations of globular science ultimately conclude in farcical sci-fi.
When your "theory" of intelligent dinosaurs becomes a model that can then go through the scientific method you will have something. For now you only have the the "I do not like it " argument, against which we can always tell you to see the evidence as a scientist or keep your theory to yourself.
It is a model which can and has been tested against observable evidence. As for "scientific method", the accolade that something conforms with the inventive procedures of Neocopernican theoreticism is not something desired by many true scientific theorists. The zetetic method takes the plain evidence as its starting point before making hypotheses, not the other way around.
-
Give me your flaws with atomic theory. Go on, I dare you.
Also your arguments can be repeated exactly with your theory, so I would formulate a better plan of atttack.
Also, we have particle accelerators, atom bombs, nuclear fusion and fission, and yet you say that our theory is wrong? Want to tell us its those silly satanic globuralists?
Satanism is not bad. Just as good as christianity actually.
Also you proposed cold light from the moon. Seriously, even gravitrons could eat that theory for breakfast.
-
The zetetic method takes the plain evidence as its starting point before making hypotheses, not the other way around.
Which is why we're all confused as to how you manage to create dino-galleons out of thin air.
-
The zetetic method takes the plain evidence as its starting point before making hypotheses, not the other way around.
Which is why we're all confused as to how you manage to create dino-galleons out of thin air.
How else do you explain the dispersal of Dinosaurs among the several continents across the seven seas... There is no evidence of "Pangaea" that has not be disproven on this very forum.
-
Give me your flaws with atomic theory. Go on, I dare you.
Wave particle duality is incomprehensible. The law of identity holds stronger than some shaky post-hoc theorising.
Also, we have particle accelerators, atom bombs, nuclear fusion and fission, and yet you say that our theory is wrong? Want to tell us its those silly satanic globuralists?
Satanism is not bad. Just as good as christianity actually.
Also you proposed cold light from the moon. Seriously, even gravitrons could eat that theory for breakfast.
Let's try and stay on topic, but particle accelerators are props to support the mistaken inductions of gloublarism, they aren't some sort of beneficial outcome. As for ordinance, I'm not sure why you view that as a boon.
Satanism is terrible. It's a ridiculous doctrine, begot by childish ego-hedonism and mopey countercultural pretentiousness, and it induces its followers to commit the most grossly selfish behaviours. This is fine when most of the practitioners are 13 year olds listening to death metal in their parent's houses, it's not so fine when it comes to control the world's aerospace industry and government funding!
The zetetic method takes the plain evidence as its starting point before making hypotheses, not the other way around.
Which is why we're all confused as to how you manage to create dino-galleons out of thin air.
Correction; I did not create these boats, the dinosaurs created them.
The zetetic method takes the plain evidence as its starting point before making hypotheses, not the other way around.
Which is why we're all confused as to how you manage to create dino-galleons out of thin air.
How else do you explain the dispersal of Dinosaurs among the several continents across the seven seas... There is no evidence of "Pangaea" that has not be disproven on this very forum.
Thank you Johannes. It's reassuring to know that these crazy beliefs about floating continents and retarded dinosaurs aren't held by my esteemed colleagues, either.
-
If Dinosaurs really did make these ships, why don't you prove it.
I don't mean ask silly questions like "How do you suppose they got there then, if they didn't have boats"
That proves nothing. Show me a single shred of evidence that Dinosaurs built and sailed on boats.
-
There is loads of evidence for pangaea, the way the continents fit, simulations, fossils (you haven't shown anything about boats so it doesn't count, when you do then we can talk), etc.
Debunk that all for me.
-
There is loads of evidence for pangaea, the way the continents fit,
If you actually look at a map of the world, you'll find it's possible to make many of the continents fit together in many ways. If you think playing jigsaw with the Earth is evidence, then I really think you should absent yourself from this discussion.
simulations,
How is a simulation evidence of anything? It's totally fabricated. They can be used to demonstrate concepts, but not to prove them.
fossils (you haven't shown anything about boats so it doesn't count, when you do then we can talk), etc.
First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.
Debunk that all for me.
Using the word 'debunk' is to give your post undue credit.
-
What fossil records? As of now, your theory is purely conjecture. The continents are moving, and if we simulate the way they were moving and attempt to "rewind" time, we see there is one big continent. There are no boats.
Disprove the movement of the continents.
Go on, I dare you.
-
First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.
I'm sorry, but what in the fossil record suggests that any dinosaur had the intelligence and manual dexterity required to build seaworthy boats? For all the "evidence" you've presented, you could just as easily say that aliens transported and raised the flora and fauna in question and the argument would be just as plausible.
-
There is no evidence of "Pangaea" that has not be disproven on this very forum.
I'm afraid that's horribly incorrect.
-
First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.
I'm sorry, but what in the fossil record suggests that any dinosaur had the intelligence and manual dexterity required to build seaworthy boats? For all the "evidence" you've presented, you could just as easily say that aliens transported and raised the flora and fauna in question and the argument would be just as plausible.
Not true. Just for starters, there is no fossil record of alien life-forms on Earth.
-
Not true. Just for starters, there is no fossil record of dinosaur boats on Earth.
-
There is also no fossil record of the boats used by humans to colonize Australia or Hawaii. Yet no-one disputes that they did.
-
Well seeing as it takes time for fossils to form...
Also, there is basically only way for humans to get to australia and hawaii and that is through some sort of water based travel.
There is more than one way for dinosaur fossils to be spread out like they are. Since there are no evidence of these boats nor of dinosaurs smart enough or even able to build a boat.
-
Well seeing as it takes time for fossils to form...
Also, there is basically only way for humans to get to australia and hawaii and that is through some sort of water based travel.
There is more than one way for dinosaur fossils to be spread out like they are. Since there are no evidence of these boats nor of dinosaurs smart enough or even able to build a boat.
Why is there only one way for humans, but more than one way for dinosaurs?
Oh that's right, because you assume Pangea to be a valid model, and then claim to have evidence based on that unproven assumption.
-
There is also no fossil record of the boats used by humans to colonize Australia or Hawaii. Yet no-one disputes that they did.
*facepalm*
This lame argument has already been covered Wilmore.
We know humans build boats. (We know quite a bit about Polynesian navigation actually)
We don't know dinosaurs built boats. There's no legitimate reason to assume they did.
Humans needed to build boats.
Dinosaurs didn't. The landmasses were all connected.
Why do you keep on posting the same old stuff over and over again?
-
Because Humans were not around when the continents were connected. Dinosaurs could have just walked to the other lands when the continents were together.
Please troll moar.
-
Humans needed to build boats.
Dinosaurs didn't. The landmasses were all connected.
You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.
Because Humans were not around when the continents were connected. Dinosaurs could have just walked to the other lands when the continents were together.
Please troll moar.
Once again, I highlight the assumption that pangea theory is correct.
-
You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.
??? But that's not something I've done. The proof for Pangea is vast.
*sigh* This is all old Wilmore. Old and dead.
-
However, we have independantly proved the Pangaea theory.
"Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa.
The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents which would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[7]
Apparent polar wandering paths also support the theory of a super-continent. Geologists can determine the movement of continental plates by examining the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks; when rocks are formed, they take on the magnetic properties of the Earth and indicate in which direction the poles lie relative to the rock. Because we know that the poles do not move more than a few degrees, magnetic anomalies in rocks can only be explained by the drifting of continents.[citation needed]
The continuity of mountain chains also provide evidence for Pangea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain which extends from the northeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.[8]"
From wikipedia.
-
Once again, I highlight the assumption that pangea theory is correct.
An assumtion based on evidence, unlike the Boat O' Dinosaurs which is based on nothing at all. The B.O.D theory is a conclusion needed to support another guessed idea with no proof.
-
None of those prove Pangea theory. Please read more.
-
I am sorry Wilmore, please show me how. Just saying no doesn't change reality.
-
None of those prove Pangea theory. Please read more.
There's plenty of proof of Pangea. Much of it has been posted on this site. Please read more.
-
You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.
Well, we do have proof [READ: EVIDENCE] that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.
Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?
-
First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.
I'm sorry, but what in the fossil record suggests that any dinosaur had the intelligence and manual dexterity required to build seaworthy boats? For all the "evidence" you've presented, you could just as easily say that aliens transported and raised the flora and fauna in question and the argument would be just as plausible.
Not true. Just for starters, there is no fossil record of alien life-forms on Earth.
That's because aliens would be smart enough not to get fossilized.
-
First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.
I'm sorry, but what in the fossil record suggests that any dinosaur had the intelligence and manual dexterity required to build seaworthy boats? For all the "evidence" you've presented, you could just as easily say that aliens transported and raised the flora and fauna in question and the argument would be just as plausible.
Not true. Just for starters, there is no fossil record of alien life-forms on Earth.
That's because aliens would be smart enough not to get not to get fossilized.
So they were smart enough to get fossilized? ???
-
That's it Tom, focus on the grammatical errors, that's the important thing here.
Willy, you've pointed out that the continents could fit together rather easily, therefore it is easy to understand how they could have all been connected once upon a time. Then go on to state that the whole theory is impossible? Whilst maintaining that Dino-yachts existed?
Get a grip, you're a walking contradiction, and it's not contributing to the discussion.
-
You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.
Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.
Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?
It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".
-
You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.
Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.
Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?
It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".
Nit-picking over semantics has no place in this serious forum.
-
You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.
Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.
Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?
It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".
Yes, but "scholarly" implies a greater level of critical analysis (and therefore a higher likelihood of truth) than just claiming "it is because I say it is", does it not?
-
You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.
Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.
Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?
It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".
Nit-picking over semantics has no place in this serious forum.
It's not 'nit-picking'. Canadark is treating 'scholarly' sources as if they have more merit than anything James has written. The point is, there is no greater standard than truth. Plenty of 'scholarly' research is totally incorrect, in any field.
-
It's not 'nit-picking'. Canadark is treating 'scholarly' sources as if they have more merit than anything James has written. The point is, there is no greater standard than truth. Plenty of 'scholarly' research is totally incorrect, in any field.
Canadark's use of the word "scholarly" clearly carries the intended meaning of being sources with extremely good credentials in the field of learning. Yeah, technically that might not be the exact correct usage of the word, but jumping on him for that IS nit-picking semantics.
I think in a debate where the only argument is "oh yes it is" versus "oh no it isn't" with equal weight to either side, it makes more logical sense to side with the debater with the most demonstrably correct past history, as the probability of them being correct is greater, even though they may be wrong sometimes. Since James is only a few millimetres away from the box marked Crazed Lunatic, it makes the chances of anything he writes having any merit whatsoever extremely slim. A man who makes the claim that the Moon through a telescope resembles a flat disc and not a spherical object with terrain features is not a reliable witness for anything at all.
-
It's not 'nit-picking'. Canadark is treating 'scholarly' sources as if they have more merit than anything James has written. The point is, there is no greater standard than truth. Plenty of 'scholarly' research is totally incorrect, in any field.
As the Jedi master once said, truth is often a matter of your point of view.
-
You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.
Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.
Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?
It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".
Nit-picking over semantics has no place in this serious forum.
It's not 'nit-picking'. Canadark is treating 'scholarly' sources as if they have more merit than anything James has written. The point is, there is no greater standard than truth. Plenty of 'scholarly' research is totally incorrect, in any field.
I wasn't equating the two terms, although perhaps "evidence" would have been a better word than "proof". However, if I have two doctors who are trying to prescribe me two different forms of medication and one of the doctors has a medical degree, a medical license, and years of experience in the medical field and the other one bases his suggestion on assumptions about physical anatomy that have been rejected by modern medicine for the better part of the last millennium (as well as what he reads on really strange forums on the internet), I'm going to side with the first guy. There isn't a 50-50 chance that one is right and the other is wrong; I want the quack to take a hike.
-
It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".
Wikipedia is not referencing bana undergraduate dissertations.
Nothing you have produced is "true" by any stretch of the imagination.
If it were it might have got some scholarly attention.
-
Hypothesis or theory, it merits more than just compulsive skepticism disguised as clear-sightedness. I support James and I think there are others, Ski for instance.
I do not personally subscribe to the sea-faring dinosaur theories, nor do I have a problem with plate tectonics. I do find James's hypothesis to be plausible, however, and worth some thought.
-
I really can't subscribe to a theory that requires boats to exist for millions of years. I own a boat and it doesn't look like it could last that long. Any explanation for this?
-
I really can't subscribe to a theory that requires boats to exist for millions of years. I own a boat and it doesn't look like it could last that long. Any explanation for this?
Dinosaurs had hands that were adapted to barnacle scraping and brushing on tar. As shown in this image:
(http://www.tucsonweekly.com/images/blogimages/2009/05/26/1243378744-therizinosaur300.jpg)
Fossil evidence proves that they adapted wings as primitive brushes and hardened claws to scrape barnacles. They also used their brushes to shave, because sea voyages would last a long time. You do not have a barnacle scraping tar brush hand. This proves conclusively that dinosaurs built boats.
(http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/Genealogy/Documents/Asia/Ships/galleon2.jpg)
-
I really can't subscribe to a theory that requires boats to exist for millions of years. I own a boat and it doesn't look like it could last that long. Any explanation for this?
Dinosaurs had hands that were adapted to barnacle scraping and brushing on tar. As shown in this image:
(http://www.tucsonweekly.com/images/blogimages/2009/05/26/1243378744-therizinosaur300.jpg)
Fossil evidence proves that they adapted wings as primitive brushes and hardened claws to scrape barnacles. They also used their brushes to shave, because sea voyages would last a long time. You do not have a barnacle scraping tar brush hand. This proves conclusively that dinosaurs built boats.
(http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/Genealogy/Documents/Asia/Ships/galleon2.jpg)
Did you not read my post? I somehow doubt boats could exist for that long.
-
I really can't subscribe to a theory that requires boats to exist for millions of years. I own a boat and it doesn't look like it could last that long. Any explanation for this?
Dinosaurs had hands that were adapted to barnacle scraping and brushing on tar. As shown in this image:
(http://www.tucsonweekly.com/images/blogimages/2009/05/26/1243378744-therizinosaur300.jpg)
Fossil evidence proves that they adapted wings as primitive brushes and hardened claws to scrape barnacles. They also used their brushes to shave, because sea voyages would last a long time. You do not have a barnacle scraping tar brush hand. This proves conclusively that dinosaurs built boats.
(http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/Genealogy/Documents/Asia/Ships/galleon2.jpg)
Did you not read my post? I somehow doubt boats could exist for that long.
I believe he was using humor to show the fallacy of James' reasoning and how his arguments are clearly sad attempts to show that a physical trait of a dinosaur was used for a highly specialized purpose, while completely lacking evidence of such.
Crustinator's only gaffe was his obvious lack of knowledge of dinosaurs discovery of fire, which they had observed in nature for millions of years. As they had far longer to study and adapt with this tool it is only logical that they became master metal workers and that the increase in dino-piracy would have made a more likely dino-ship appear as below.
(http://maxgrace.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/battleship_003.jpg)
-
I really can't subscribe to a theory that requires boats to exist for millions of years. I own a boat and it doesn't look like it could last that long. Any explanation for this?
Dinosaurs had hands that were adapted to barnacle scraping and brushing on tar. As shown in this image:
(http://www.tucsonweekly.com/images/blogimages/2009/05/26/1243378744-therizinosaur300.jpg)
Fossil evidence proves that they adapted wings as primitive brushes and hardened claws to scrape barnacles. They also used their brushes to shave, because sea voyages would last a long time. You do not have a barnacle scraping tar brush hand. This proves conclusively that dinosaurs built boats.
(http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/Genealogy/Documents/Asia/Ships/galleon2.jpg)
Did you not read my post? I somehow doubt boats could exist for that long.
I believe he was using humor to show the fallacy of James' reasoning and how his arguments are clearly sad attempts to show that a physical trait of a dinosaur was used for a highly specialized purpose, while completely lacking evidence of such.
Crustinator's only gaffe was his obvious lack of knowledge of dinosaurs discovery of fire, which they had observed in nature for millions of years. As they had far longer to study and adapt with this tool it is only logical that they became master metal workers and that the increase in dino-piracy would have made a more likely dino-ship appear as below.
(http://maxgrace.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/battleship_003.jpg)
How could dinosaurs have studied fire? Fire last for a few hours at most, and that was, again, millions of years ago.
-
How could dinosaurs have studied fire? Fire last for a few hours at most, and that was, again, millions of years ago.
In the exact same way that they built a series of ocean going vessels, created a mercantile community, became farmers and raised livestock. (They didn't)
Though, I do think fire lasts more than a few hours.
-
How could dinosaurs have studied fire? Fire last for a few hours at most, and that was, again, millions of years ago.
In the exact same way that they built a series of ocean going vessels, created a mercantile community, became farmers and raised livestock. (They didn't)
Though, I do think fire lasts more than a few hours.
Perhaps, but definitely not millions of years, the fuel requirements would be enormous and would require fossil fuels which dinosaurs did not have. Also their muscle structures were poorly suited for repeated quick back and forth movements needed to start fires.
-
Perhaps, but definitely not millions of years, the fuel requirements would be enormous and would require fossil fuels which dinosaurs did not have. Also their muscle structures were poorly suited for repeated quick back and forth movements needed to start fires.
Why does fire need to last millions of years? It is quite likely that the biggest dino-cities had watchpoints with torches that were never extinguished, these could be refueled as and when required. But even the best guesses say these would usually stay lit for 6 months, or a few years in the northern cities.
As Its a Sphere correctly points out Dinosaurs had mastered fire. They also had an abundant supply of trees and were naturally adept at using axes and the two man crosscut saw, as shown in this historical reconstruction of dinosaur techniques:
(http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/strike/images/fallers.jpg)
This is where we get the word "saw" from. It is a corruption of "'saur".
This proves beyond all doubt that dinosaurs were a sea faring mercantile race.
-
Perhaps, but definitely not millions of years, the fuel requirements would be enormous and would require fossil fuels which dinosaurs did not have. Also their muscle structures were poorly suited for repeated quick back and forth movements needed to start fires.
Why does fire need to last millions of years? It is quite likely that the biggest dino-cities had watchpoints with torches that were never extinguished, these could be refueled as and when required. But even the best guesses say these would usually stay lit for 6 months, or a few years in the northern cities.
As Its a Sphere correctly points out Dinosaurs had mastered fire. They also had an abundant supply of trees and were naturally adept at using axes and the two man crosscut saw, as shown in this historical reconstruction of dinosaur techniques:
(http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/strike/images/fallers.jpg)
This is where we get the word "saw" from. It is a corruption of "'saur".
This proves beyond all doubt that dinosaurs were a sea faring mercantile race.
Fire can't last for millions of years. It would be incredibly old and would appear decayed.
-
Fire can't last for millions of years. It would be incredibly old and would appear decayed.
Wrong old fire can appear just the same as new fire. Burn a lump of coal. It is millions of years old. This was a secret understood by the dinosaurs: evidence indicates their market values for old and new fire was exactly the same.
-
Fire can't last for millions of years. It would be incredibly old and would appear decayed.
Wrong old fire can appear just the same as new fire. Burn a lump of coal. It is millions of years old. This was a secret understood by the dinosaurs: evidence indicates their market values for old and new fire was exactly the same.
Coal IS dinosaurs. The fire isn't millions of years old, the stored energy is. Also, how can we trust the dinosaurs to tell the truth about anything especially now that we know they are causing global warming with all of their carbon?
-
Coal IS dinosaurs. The fire isn't millions of years old, the stored energy is. Also, how can we trust the dinosaurs to tell the truth about anything especially now that we know they are causing global warming with all of their carbon?
The dinosaurs were a noble race with many great philosophers who aside from inventing concepts such as government and freedom also took time to develop an electric individual rapid short range transportation device which predates the Segway by several billions of years. If they were capable of these feats I see no reason why we should assume they would lie.
-
I like this thread and the way its going now.
-
Coal IS dinosaurs. The fire isn't millions of years old, the stored energy is. Also, how can we trust the dinosaurs to tell the truth about anything especially now that we know they are causing global warming with all of their carbon?
The dinosaurs were a noble race with many great philosophers who aside from inventing concepts such as government and freedom also took time to develop an electric individual rapid short range transportation device which predates the Segway by several billions of years. If they were capable of these feats I see no reason why we should assume they would lie.
Well, the segway is a safe energy alternative to burning dead dinosaurs in your car, so I will concede your point. They do sound like a noble race.
-
Coal IS dinosaurs.
No. Coal is plants.
Coal begins as layers of plant matter accumulate at the bottom of a body of water.
-
Coal IS dinosaurs.
No. Coal is plants.
Coal begins as layers of plant matter accumulate at the bottom of a body of water.
And it can contain both plant and animal matter.
http://thecarbonmiracle.com/coal.html (http://thecarbonmiracle.com/coal.html)
Oooh! A Google fight!
-
Fire can't last for millions of years. It would be incredibly old and would appear decayed.
Wrong old fire can appear just the same as new fire. Burn a lump of coal. It is millions of years old. This was a secret understood by the dinosaurs: evidence indicates their market values for old and new fire was exactly the same.
Coal IS dinosaurs. The fire isn't millions of years old, the stored energy is. Also, how can we trust the dinosaurs to tell the truth about anything especially now that we know they are causing global warming with all of their carbon?
Perhaps in the people-dinosaur-people-dinosaur-people cycle the coal that the dinousaurs burned was people. It was known as soylent coal and was green in color as opposed to the black coal we burn.
-
Coal IS dinosaurs.
No. Coal is plants.
Coal begins as layers of plant matter accumulate at the bottom of a body of water.
And it can contain both plant and animal matter.
http://thecarbonmiracle.com/coal.html (http://thecarbonmiracle.com/coal.html)
Oooh! A Google fight!
Sure, there can be animal matter in coal, but unless dinos were buried in mass graves, I don't think that very much of the coal is indeed made of animal materail.
-
Socrates and Darwin were mocked for their theories too, but now who's laughing?
-
Darwin provided lots of evidence that has been proven. Cold Fusion scientists were laughed at then, and are still laughed out now.
You have not provided any evidence only conjecture. Thus this is only conjecture and as it does not fit with the current theory, is only one of many feasible realities.
-
Darwin provided lots of evidence that has been proven. Cold Fusion scientists were laughed at then, and are still laughed out now.
You have not provided any evidence only conjecture. Thus this is only conjecture and as it does not fit with the current theory, is only one of many feasible realities.
You have provided no justification, only the repeated assertion that I am wrong. Your argument is on the same rational level as that of the dullest-minded creationist oaf. It amounts to nothing but the utterance of a mantra which lacks the most rudimentary understanding of the architecture of scientific enquiry.
Of course my argument does not fit with the current theory, that is a rather central point. "Fitting with the current theory" is not by any means a criterion by which to judge the correctness of a claim, else I would exclusively cite the Epic of Gilgamesh as the last word on every issue of human science and ethics. Your naivety is as astounding as it is appalling.
-
Coal IS dinosaurs.
No. Coal is plants.
Coal begins as layers of plant matter accumulate at the bottom of a body of water.
Obviously. A lot of coal are trees that formed before bacteria were able to metabolize its cell walls. At this time trees did not rot but merely sat on the bottom of the water.
-
Darwin provided lots of evidence that has been proven. Cold Fusion scientists were laughed at then, and are still laughed out now.
You have not provided any evidence only conjecture. Thus this is only conjecture and as it does not fit with the current theory, is only one of many feasible realities.
You have provided no justification, only the repeated assertion that I am wrong. Your argument is on the same rational level as that of the dullest-minded creationist oaf. It amounts to nothing but the utterance of a mantra which lacks the most rudimentary understanding of the architecture of scientific enquiry.
Of course my argument does not fit with the current theory, that is a rather central point. "Fitting with the current theory" is not by any means a criterion by which to judge the correctness of a claim, else I would exclusively cite the Epic of Gilgamesh as the last word on every issue of human science and ethics. Your naivety is as astounding as it is appalling.
agreed......
You have provided no justification, only the repeated assertion that I am wrong. Your argument is on the same rational level as that of the dullest-minded creationist oaf. It amounts to nothing but the utterance of a mantra which lacks the most rudimentary understanding of the architecture of scientific enquiry.
-
Socrates and Darwin were mocked for their theories too, but now who's laughing?
Both Socrates and Darwin are now dead. They no longer posses the audible expression of happiness.
Dinosaurs however are known to have possessed a range of emotions including laughter, sadness and something untranslatable expressing the surprise at the loss of a tail feather. They produced the worlds first three act plays, and theatre companies travelled the world on the huge merchant ships which journeyed the shipping canals, paying their way by rehearsing for their next production in front of the crew.
This photo shows "living archeologists" attempts to reproduce their thatrical efforts:
(http://blog.nj.com/warrenreporter/2007/10/large_pix-1005Dinosaur.jpg)
-
Socrates and Darwin were mocked for their theories too, but now who's laughing?
Darwin wasn't mocked by anyone with any understanding of his theory, only by the thick plebs.
-
That darn Roman underclass, laughing at people in the future.
-
Socrates and Darwin were mocked for their theories too, but now who's laughing?
Darwin wasn't mocked by anyone with any understanding of his theory, only by the thick plebs.
So he was just like me, then.
-
That darn Roman underclass, laughing at people in the future.
Thats why they had such issues with the Goths. If we can barely stand them now, in this day and age, consider them.
This theory is unduly mocked though. C'est la vie. I'm not a supporter of the theory, but its not that far fetched.
-
That darn Roman underclass, laughing at people in the future.
Thats why they had such issues with the Goths. If we can barely stand them now, in this day and age, consider them.
This theory is unduly mocked though. C'est la vie. I'm not a supporter of the theory, but its not that far fetched.
It's not how far fetched it is, it is entirely possible that a race of intelligent dinosaurs could accomplish a lot. It is the fact that no evidence points towards the existence of super intelligent dinosaurs. Their ability to use tools was not based on James finding evidence of tool use but simply by him claiming they did and showing they COULD. A theory being possible makes it no more correct than one that is impossible.
Other than this it is a rather interesting and plausible theory.
-
Socrates and Darwin were mocked for their theories too, but now who's laughing?
Darwin wasn't mocked by anyone with any understanding of his theory, only by the thick plebs.
So he was just like me, then.
I'm sorry, Man Who Thinks The Moon Is A Flat Disc, but I think you'll find the highest minds of the modern age would be mocking you if you ever came under their scrutiny. Plus the Navy, who understand why they give sailors indoor berths. Oh yeah, botanists too. They'd mock you. Even the ones with doctorates. Manufacturers of thermal imaging equipment would be close behind. Then the palaeontologists, searching fruitlessly for your Boat O' Dinosaurs.
See James, your theory is actually very easy to understand. The problem it's it's a pile of garbage and demonstrably contradictory to observed evidence, which could not be said for Darwin's ideas.
-
I'm confused where the evidence is that dinosaurs where super-intelligent.
I thought it was generally accepted that many dinosaurs were very unintelligent and even the more intelligent dinosaurs still had relatively small brains.
-
Socrates and Darwin were mocked for their theories too, but now who's laughing?
Darwin wasn't mocked by anyone with any understanding of his theory, only by the thick plebs.
So he was just like me, then.
No.
-
Look - if dinosaurs didn't travel on flotation devices, and Pangaea never existed (proven on these forums) ... then how would dinosaurs have dispersed to all the "continents" ? I admit dinosaurs flying and or swimming are possibilities, but highly improbable. It would be much more energy efficient for a dinosaur to construct a raft, then hibernate while on the raft before arriving in a new land.
-
If the proof against pangea is "the earth is flat" it doesn't count.
-
Pangaea never existed (proven on these forums)
No, not proven. If you think the paltry ideas on this forum are enough to prove that Pangaea didn't exist, then you must certainly accept the link in my sig is enough to prove the earth is not flat. If you accept one but not the other, then you are displaying hypocrisy and bias.
In a nutshell Johannes, if you think Pangaea is disproven then you are admitting your belief in a round earth :P
-
Look - if dinosaurs didn't travel on flotation devices, and Pangaea never existed (proven on these forums) ... then how would dinosaurs have dispersed to all the "continents" ? I admit dinosaurs flying and or swimming are possibilities, but highly improbable. It would be much more energy efficient for a dinosaur to construct a raft, then hibernate while on the raft before arriving in a new land.
Just did a search, found no real prof against it. Link to some proof please?
-
Look - if dinosaurs didn't travel on flotation devices, and Pangaea never existed (proven on these forums) ... then how would dinosaurs have dispersed to all the "continents" ? I admit dinosaurs flying and or swimming are possibilities, but highly improbable. It would be much more energy efficient for a dinosaur to construct a raft, then hibernate while on the raft before arriving in a new land.
I'm sorry, but when you set up an argument based on assumptions of others you are no better than any RE'er and certainly not following the zetetic method.
-
The level for "proof" required here is pretty low.
It would be more accurate to say that there is a double standard required for "proof" here. The standard of proof they accept for anything supporting FET is abysmally low, and the standard of proof they insist on for anything supporting RET is impossible to meet.
-
We are not willing to make concessions for any particular theories here, our own scientific claims are afforded the same rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to the scientific claims of others.
-
We are not willing to make concessions for any particular theories here, our own scientific claims are afforded the same rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to the scientific claims of others.
Are you including Tom Bishop in your wide ranging statement?
The truth is, there is no standard at all in these fora, so anyone who declares himself an FE'r can say pretty much anything and the other FE'rs will not even attempt to do a peer review.
In fact, there are also some "RE'rs" here that would not pass peer review in eighth grade.
There is one thing called the Scientific Method that is taught in Elementary school and that all of you Flat Earth "theorists" choose to ignore. The phrase "rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to scientific claims" assumes you are, at least, paying attention to the scientific method, and that means models, predictions, all those things you never do.
While real scientists have made predictions in the areas of Geology and Evolutionary Biology, among others, that have then been demonstrated to be sound and give Pangea credibility, you can, at most, play with lack of evidence and try to pass it as evidence of lack.
-
Are you including Tom Bishop in your wide ranging statement?
The truth is, there is no standard at all in these fora, so anyone who declares himself an FE'r can say pretty much anything and the other FE'rs will not even attempt to do a peer review.
The lack of standards probably derives from the overwhelming number of spherical fundamentalists on the website. I've noticed that the Round Earth apologists tend to compose their arguments more or less on-the-fly, cobbling together seemingly irrelevant data from the internet with their own wildly implausible assertions.
If you look carefully, the theories of Flat Earthers are usually very carefully researched over many years, drawing from a well-scrutinized corpus of source material, experimental data and stringent deduction.
There is one thing called the Scientific Method that is taught in Elementary school and that all of you Flat Earth "theorists" choose to ignore. The phrase "rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to scientific claims" assumes you are, at least, paying attention to the scientific method, and that means models, predictions, all those things you never do.
You should read Chapter I of Earth Not a Globe, entitled "Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared", which sets out the sophisticated methodological basis for essentially all further Flat Earth science. The scientific method of the globularist is fraught with oversights and error, that of the zeteticist is epistemologically conservative and fundamentally empirical.
-
We are not willing to make concessions for any particular theories here, our own scientific claims are afforded the same rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to the scientific claims of others.
Damage caused by moonlight to living creatures - NOT tested by James, as is the zetetic way.
Damage caused to eyesight by staring at the moon - NOT tested by James, as is the zetetic way.
Boat o' Dinosaurs - no evidence found by James personally, as is the zetetic way.
Earth Not A Globe - second hand account written by someone before many modern scientific ideas were even discovered or conceptualised - accepted completely by James without testing the ideas within himself, as is the zetetic way.
-
Look - if dinosaurs didn't travel on flotation devices, and Pangaea never existed (proven on these forums) ... then how would dinosaurs have dispersed to all the "continents" ? I admit dinosaurs flying and or swimming are possibilities, but highly improbable. It would be much more energy efficient for a dinosaur to construct a raft, then hibernate while on the raft before arriving in a new land.
Either you are trolling, or
What is more probable, continents expanding?
OR dinosaurs cutting down trees and making rafts, jumping onto the sea and travelling thousands of miles and landing on some other landmass?
1. What would they make the rafts with? Their teeth?
2. The raft was so~ well-built it didn't tip at all during the entire journey which would have taken months?
3. The sea stayed calm during the entire journey?
4. Dinosaurs adapting to a COMPLETELY different habitat instantly?
5. To overcome these odds, MILLIONS of dinosaurs would have had to build rafts. Yet, there are none. Explanation please?
-
What is more probable, continents expanding?
OR dinosaurs cutting down trees and making rafts, jumping onto the sea and travelling thousands of miles and landing on some other landmass?
The second one.
1. What would they make the rafts with? Their teeth?
Their teeth, forelimbs, tails, etc. One could argue that the average dinosaur was far better naturally equipped as a shipwright than the average human.
2. The raft was so~ well-built it didn't tip at all during the entire journey which would have taken months?
3. The sea stayed calm during the entire journey?
4. Dinosaurs adapting to a COMPLETELY different habitat instantly?
5. To overcome these odds, MILLIONS of dinosaurs would have had to build rafts. Yet, there are none. Explanation please?
Well all these coefficients of adversity are the same ones which have recently faced humanity, but that does not seem to have been much of an impediment to us colonising every landmass on Earth, except the Ice Wall.
-
1. What would they make the rafts with? Their teeth?
Their teeth, forelimbs, tails, etc. One could argue that the average dinosaur was far better naturally equipped as a shipwright than the average human.
Personally, I think dinosaurs were far better equipped in terms of tool-making ability. Normally, one needs a tool to make a tool (e.g. sharp stone to make sharp stick), but dinosaurs were a step ahead in this sense.
-
Are you including Tom Bishop in your wide ranging statement?
The truth is, there is no standard at all in these fora, so anyone who declares himself an FE'r can say pretty much anything and the other FE'rs will not even attempt to do a peer review.
The lack of standards probably derives from the overwhelming number of spherical fundamentalists on the website. I've noticed that the Round Earth apologists tend to compose their arguments more or less on-the-fly, cobbling together seemingly irrelevant data from the internet with their own wildly implausible assertions.
If you look carefully, the theories of Flat Earthers are usually very carefully researched over many years, drawing from a well-scrutinized corpus of source material, experimental data and stringent deduction.
There is one thing called the Scientific Method that is taught in Elementary school and that all of you Flat Earth "theorists" choose to ignore. The phrase "rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to scientific claims" assumes you are, at least, paying attention to the scientific method, and that means models, predictions, all those things you never do.
You should read Chapter I of Earth Not a Globe, entitled "Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared", which sets out the sophisticated methodological basis for essentially all further Flat Earth science. The scientific method of the globularist is fraught with oversights and error, that of the zeteticist is epistemologically conservative and fundamentally empirical.
Did anyone else notice how James just forgot to talk about models and predictions?
All of a sudden, after talking about the rigorous scientific scrutiny of FE'rs, James jumped directly into Zeteticism. Maybe the rigorous scientific scrutiny is not scientific, after all, just Zetetic.
I do not mind if you talk whatever you like based on Zeteticism. Just don't talk about scientific rigour unless you are ready to show some models, predictions and experiments or observations that confirm your predictions.
And by the way, I would like to know which FE "theories" have been years in the making, waiting to be confirmed before being published. All I see is lots of "theories" that come out of someone's hat and are then discussed for years while the full development of the "theory" is promised and promised, and promised... and never gets done.
-
1. What would they make the rafts with? Their teeth?
Their teeth, forelimbs, tails, etc. One could argue that the average dinosaur was far better naturally equipped as a shipwright than the average human.
Personally, I think dinosaurs were far better equipped in terms of tool-making ability. Normally, one needs a tool to make a tool (e.g. sharp stone to make sharp stick), buth dinosaurs were a step ahead in this sense.
And where did you get the idea that shipbuilding is either a one step or a two step process?
Shipbuilding includes a myriad steps, of which the following are just a few:
- The creation of an agricultural or cattle-growing society that gives some of its members the spare time and resources to attempt large projects
- The acquired know-how that comes from endless generations of progressively better tools used to make better tools and infrastructure
- The language to transmit that knowhow
- A damn good reason to believe there will be something at the other side of the ocean
- Navigational know-how and tools
- Knowledge about ocean currents
- And so on, and so on...
Even assuming a dinosaur had teeth that could be used to make tools, that is a very small step in a very long ladder.
-
We are not willing to make concessions for any particular theories here, our own scientific claims are afforded the same rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to the scientific claims of others.
Damage caused by moonlight to living creatures - NOT tested by James, as is the zetetic way.
Damage caused to eyesight by staring at the moon - NOT tested by James, as is the zetetic way.
Boat o' Dinosaurs - no evidence found by James personally, as is the zetetic way.
Earth Not A Globe - second hand account written by someone before many modern scientific ideas were even discovered or conceptualised - accepted completely by James without testing the ideas within himself, as is the zetetic way.
ignoreignoreignore...
-
1. What would they make the rafts with? Their teeth?
Their teeth, forelimbs, tails, etc. One could argue that the average dinosaur was far better naturally equipped as a shipwright than the average human.
Personally, I think dinosaurs were far better equipped in terms of tool-making ability. Normally, one needs a tool to make a tool (e.g. sharp stone to make sharp stick), buth dinosaurs were a step ahead in this sense.
Did they have the manual dexterity to use them with the same accuracy and acuteness as humans though? No.
-
I disagree.
-
We should be very careful in our suppositions of the digital dexterity of dinosaurs. The dexterity of the panda is undeniable and this is achieved by a mere small bone and a pad that works like a thumb. We might like to suppose that the anatomical arrangement of opposable thumbs gives us a leg up in dexterity but other configurations could have been just as serviceable.
-
In fact, other configurations have been just as successful - the nest building of birds, who have no hands let alone thumbs, as well as the extensive tool use of otters are two prime modern examples that you don't need thumbs to build things.
-
But yet no other modern equivalent of construction of complex machines by any of the species you mentioned.
-
Quite obviously, observations of the tool-oriented behaviour of dinosaurs are now beyond us, however the TOB of crows is now receiving the kind and depth of study that may help us bridge that expanse of time. "Self-conceit is our natural hereditary disease" as Montaigne opined and this human ego has been responsible for previous underestimations of the talents and abilities of other species.
-
I disagree.
I've never heard any credited paleontologist say that dinosaurs were physically capable of doing the tasks James says they can.
-
I disagree.
I've never heard any credited paleontologist say that dinosaurs were physically capable of doing the tasks James says they can.
Credited paleontologists can't even make up their minds about whether dinosaurs had feathers, or if they were warm blooded or cold blooded. It is a field where conjecture rules supreme.
-
I disagree.
I've never heard any credited paleontologist say that dinosaurs were physically capable of doing the tasks James says they can.
Credited paleontologists can't even make up their minds about whether dinosaurs had feathers, or if they were warm blooded or cold blooded. It is a field where conjecture rules supreme.
What do the presence of feathers or the temperature of a dinosaur's blood have to do with their ability to build ships?
-
If a bird can weave a water tight nest, I see no reason why a dinosaur couldn't build a boat.
-
In fact, boats are like large nests in many respects.
Boats are the next logical step for a nest-building society as it advances.
-
I see no reason badgers cannot make machine guns.
-
I disagree.
I've never heard any credited paleontologist say that dinosaurs were physically capable of doing the tasks James says they can.
Credited paleontologists can't even make up their minds about whether dinosaurs had feathers, or if they were warm blooded or cold blooded. It is a field where conjecture rules supreme.
This has nothing to do with the fact that not one credited paleontologist has suggested that the dinosaurs were capable of making the technologies James has said. If any dinosaurs anatomy even had a slight hint of the capabilities that you say they have, I would think someone would have said so by now.
Just because there is no absolute way to prove that they didn't build boats, it doesn't mean that you should act like they did. There is no absolute way to prove a T-Rex couldn't fire-bend. Does this mean we should assume it did?
-
The size of their cortex and cerebellum hinted at by their skulls definitely does not leave room for the cognitive abilities they would need to build a boat.
-
If a bird can weave a water tight nest, I see no reason why a dinosaur couldn't build a boat.
A nest is not a boat. At best, a nest is a raft.
-
The size of their cortex and cerebellum hinted at by their skulls definitely does not leave room for the cognitive abilities they would need to build a boat.
"Hinted at" says it all - we can't reliably induce anything substantial from dinosaur skull size.
Furthermore, how can you possibly estimate the physical amount of brain-matter required to have boat-building cognitive abilities? Is this the grand unveiling of Raist, dinosaur psychic? Face it, there's no way such highly specific behaviours could be ruled out by any contingencies of physical brain size, or even cortex size. At best, you might reasonably expect to make extremely broad generalisations about overall cognitive capacity, but this would be utterly muted by our complete chronological isolation from any dinosaur. We have to rely on hard fossil evidence here - and there are hundreds of coastal fossil specimens testifying to the pre-mortem Odysseys of their living embodiments.
-
If a bird can weave a water tight nest, I see no reason why a dinosaur couldn't build a boat.
A nest is not a boat. At best, a nest is a raft.
And a raft is a boat.
-
If a bird can weave a water tight nest, I see no reason why a dinosaur couldn't build a boat.
A nest is not a boat. At best, a nest is a raft.
And a raft is a boat.
Would you rather take a raft across the ocean, or a boat?
-
If a bird can weave a water tight nest, I see no reason why a dinosaur couldn't build a boat.
A nest is not a boat. At best, a nest is a raft.
And a raft is a boat.
Would you rather take a raft across the ocean, or a boat?
If I took a raft across the ocean, I would have taken a boat across the ocean.
-
If I took a raft across the ocean, I would have taken a boat across the ocean.
If you took a raft across the ocean, you would likely wind up at the bottom of the ocean.
-
If I took a raft across the ocean, I would have taken a boat across the ocean.
If you took a raft across the ocean, you would likely wind up at the bottom of the ocean.
Although lots of people have crossed the ocean in rafts.
Anyway, I think the raft/boat distinction might be tripping us up a bit here. The key claim is that certain species of dinosaur built large wooden structures which crossed the ocean. What we call these crafts may not necessarily matter all that much.
-
The size of their cortex and cerebellum hinted at by their skulls definitely does not leave room for the cognitive abilities they would need to build a boat.
"Hinted at" says it all - we can't reliably induce anything substantial from dinosaur skull size.
Furthermore, how can you possibly estimate the physical amount of brain-matter required to have boat-building cognitive abilities? Is this the grand unveiling of Raist, dinosaur psychic? Face it, there's no way such highly specific behaviours could be ruled out by any contingencies of physical brain size, or even cortex size. At best, you might reasonably expect to make extremely broad generalisations about overall cognitive capacity, but this would be utterly muted by our complete chronological isolation from any dinosaur. We have to rely on hard fossil evidence here - and there are hundreds of coastal fossil specimens testifying to the pre-mortem Odysseys of their living embodiments.
Well, since we can deduce how much matter can fit inside a skull, we can accurately see how large each area of a dinosaur brain would be. We also have analogues in the modern day world such as crocodiles that have very similar brain structures. Amount of matter is hardly relevant though, it is in fact the relative size of each area of the brain along with how complicated the nerve cells in the brain are.
Considering they lack a decent sized cortex, it doesn't matter how smart they were, they couldn't combine sensory input with rational thought.
If you believe that this is impossible, we can easily see this in humans when there is blindness caused by brain damage in the frontal lobe. In some cases a vestigial region of the brain near the brain stem will take over for the damaged vision center. This new arrangement bipasses the cortex. In these cases the patient will be able to catch objects that are thrown, to them, guess the facial expressions of those around them, but are unable to process this visual input in the conscious part of their brain. This leads them to believe that they are completely blind.
A dinosaur would be stuck at the same level as these people if it did not have a sufficiently large cortex to allow communication between the upper and lower brain.
I don't have to be psychic to understand the basic functions of a brain. Nice attempt at ridicule though.
-
Well, since we can deduce how much matter can fit inside a skull, we can accurately see how large each area of a dinosaur brain would be. We also have analogues in the modern day world such as crocodiles that have very similar brain structures. Amount of matter is hardly relevant though, it is in fact the relative size of each area of the brain along with how complicated the nerve cells in the brain are.
Crocodiles simply are not dinosaurs - our best possible guess is that dinosaurs shared more (but still, little) with modern birds than with modern crocodiles. Also, how do you propose we figure the complexity of nerve cells from cranial remains which completely lack these cells?
Considering they lack a decent sized cortex, it doesn't matter how smart they were, they couldn't combine sensory input with rational thought.
Based entirely on faulty induction from the brain structures of modern, stupider animals.
If you believe that this is impossible, we can easily see this in humans when there is blindness caused by brain damage in the frontal lobe. In some cases a vestigial region of the brain near the brain stem will take over for the damaged vision center. This new arrangement bipasses the cortex. In these cases the patient will be able to catch objects that are thrown, to them, guess the facial expressions of those around them, but are unable to process this visual input in the conscious part of their brain. This leads them to believe that they are completely blind.
A dinosaur would be stuck at the same level as these people if it did not have a sufficiently large cortex to allow communication between the upper and lower brain.
Thanks for the phrenology lesson, but we have no good reason to suspect that dinosaur minds worked anything like human minds. We can't even be wholly sure that the brain itself was shaped similarly, let alone speculate about their actual psychology. As I have said, we must stick to solid fossil evidence here.
I don't have to be psychic to understand the basic functions of a brain. Nice attempt at ridicule though.
You're welcome, it is always a pleasure to deride the wild and farcical beliefs of the globularist.
-
I suspect that the enlarged nerve plexus of all sauropods may have allowed more of the proper brain and medio-rostral neostriatum/hyperstriatum ventrale and a form of nidopallium to control cognitive function. Did you know the nerve plexus I referenced was roughly 20 times the size of their brain? That leaves a lot of room for a nidopallium in the skull. The brain of a crow is relatively small but the crow has shown the ability to make tools; something that even primates (apart from humans) have not demonstrated. The size of the nidopallium in a dinosaur would be several times as large.
-
As I have said, we must stick to solid fossil evidence here.
Yes, that there is no proof of any form of technology that is comparable to boats that was around at the same time as dinosaurs.
-
Well, since we can deduce how much matter can fit inside a skull, we can accurately see how large each area of a dinosaur brain would be. We also have analogues in the modern day world such as crocodiles that have very similar brain structures. Amount of matter is hardly relevant though, it is in fact the relative size of each area of the brain along with how complicated the nerve cells in the brain are.
Crocodiles simply are not dinosaurs - our best possible guess is that dinosaurs shared more (but still, little) with modern birds than with modern crocodiles. Also, how do you propose we figure the complexity of nerve cells from cranial remains which completely lack these cells?
Considering they lack a decent sized cortex, it doesn't matter how smart they were, they couldn't combine sensory input with rational thought.
Based entirely on faulty induction from the brain structures of modern, stupider animals.
If you believe that this is impossible, we can easily see this in humans when there is blindness caused by brain damage in the frontal lobe. In some cases a vestigial region of the brain near the brain stem will take over for the damaged vision center. This new arrangement bipasses the cortex. In these cases the patient will be able to catch objects that are thrown, to them, guess the facial expressions of those around them, but are unable to process this visual input in the conscious part of their brain. This leads them to believe that they are completely blind.
A dinosaur would be stuck at the same level as these people if it did not have a sufficiently large cortex to allow communication between the upper and lower brain.
Thanks for the phrenology lesson, but we have no good reason to suspect that dinosaur minds worked anything like human minds. We can't even be wholly sure that the brain itself was shaped similarly, let alone speculate about their actual psychology. As I have said, we must stick to solid fossil evidence here.
I don't have to be psychic to understand the basic functions of a brain. Nice attempt at ridicule though.
You're welcome, it is always a pleasure to deride the wild and farcical beliefs of the globularist.
So, they had similar dna, similar shaped brains, but they just happened to work in completely different ways. So are you implying coevolving systems that completely changed function after they had already formed to a completely functional point (at the shared ancestor between crocs and dinosaurs).
That's very very unlikely.
Dinosaurs also had a lot less evolutionary drive for intelligence due to the lack of a dexterous limp. A grasping claw may be usable for tools, but it is not very useful for the steps leading up to tool use. (Manipulation of objects, etc.)
-
Logical steps to deduce and conclude (correctly) that dinosaurs building boats is an incredibly unrealistic/stupid idea.
1) What would dinosaurs have built boats with?
If your answer is 'wood', see point 2.
If your answer is 'metal', see point 3.
2) How would they have felled trees and obtained lumber?
If your answer is 'head-butt trees then use claws to carve it down', see point 4.
If your answer is 'they are clever enough to build boats, they used axes to cut them down and make timber' see point 3.
3) Where would they have obtained metal? (For the ship and axe blade)
Obviously, the most common metal available is iron. However, it exists as Fe(II)3O2 or Fe(III)2O3. It must be purified by a redox reaction involving the reduction of the iron ore and the oxidation of the reducing agent. The simplest way to obtain refined iron from iron ore, is from a furnace. Coke or carbon is often used to reduce the iron ore. Since furnace temperatures can get extremely high (in the magnitude of many thousands of degrees), ceramic bricks such as magnesium carbonate or covalent substances insulate the furnace. In the furnace, iron MELTS, and is tapped off into bars of pig iron or whatever. Is there any evidence of 100-million year old furnaces such as this? Did dinosaurs live in a society with an education system, with schools where high school chemistry was taught? Does anything like this exist? No. Therefore, we can conclude that i) Dinosaurs did not build ships OR ii) Dinosaurs did not build ships with METAL. For those (unfortunately) still believing that there is a possibility that dinosaurs can build ships, see point 4.
4) Ok, they use wood only to build ships. How do they prevent the wood from being damaged from MONTHS of exposure to salty water?
Commercial timber is vacuum/pressure treated. I think it was the ancient greeks? (might have been another ancient civilization) that doused wood in olive oil to preserve it. But that does not prevent damage against salty water for months on end. And the ancient greeks never travelled long and far anyway. I could go on about some more chemical processes to preserve wood, but I won't because SURELY, the answer would be clear by now. Anyway, where would dinosaurs get the olive oil to treat their wood? Did they have a hierarchical system of slaves to collect olives and grind them in olive mills and presses?
Also, if dinosaurs were discovered to be able to build things like ships (or even rafts!), wouldn't that be a pretty big discovery? Surely ONE paleontologist would have discovered it by now? Wait! Every paleontologist, excavator, and people in related professions are ALL part of the conspiracy! Even the professors! OR large men with fair hair wearing sunglasses and a dark coat approached each and every one of them and told them to 'drop it'!
Yup.
-
What point do I go to if I answer 'reeds?'
-
What point do I go to if I answer 'reeds?'
You go back to primary school.
-
What point do I go to if I answer 'reeds?'
I'd imagine the poor dinosaur would make holes in it.
-
A nest is not a machine.
Tool use does not equal building machines.
This is not a raft:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/MayflowerHarbor.jpg)
-
A nest is not a machine.
Tool use does not equal building machines.
This is not a raft:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/MayflowerHarbor.jpg)
No, it is a boat, and I am claiming that dinosaurs built boats. Rafts are a type of boat. The nomenclature here is irrelevant. If you construct a wooden vessel for oceanic travel, you are doing what we are talking about.
-
A nest is not a machine.
Tool use does not equal building machines.
This is not a raft:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/MayflowerHarbor.jpg)
No, it is a boat, and I am claiming that dinosaurs built boats. Rafts are a type of boat. The nomenclature here is irrelevant. If you construct a wooden vessel for oceanic travel, you are doing what we are talking about.
All rafts are boats, but not all boats are rafts. That is not a raft and a raft is not a complex machine. What you show is a complex machine. Tool use does not equal the building of machines.
A house could be considered a type of nest, though not every nest can be considered a house. Just because a bird can build a nest doesn't mean it can build a structure containing machines.
-
So what you're saying is you concede that dinosaurs had the ability to build rafts?
-
So what you're saying is you concede that dinosaurs had the ability to build rafts?
I am doing nothing of the sort.
Are you conceding that dinosaurs did not have the ability to build complex machines such as the one you implied they were capable of building?
-
So what you're saying is you concede that dinosaurs had the ability to build rafts?
Raft implies intent. They had the ability to blindly follow instincts and base urges.
-
Well, since we can deduce how much matter can fit inside a skull, we can accurately see how large each area of a dinosaur brain would be. We also have analogues in the modern day world such as crocodiles that have very similar brain structures. Amount of matter is hardly relevant though, it is in fact the relative size of each area of the brain along with how complicated the nerve cells in the brain are.
Crocodiles simply are not dinosaurs - our best possible guess is that dinosaurs shared more (but still, little) with modern birds than with modern crocodiles. Also, how do you propose we figure the complexity of nerve cells from cranial remains which completely lack these cells?
Considering they lack a decent sized cortex, it doesn't matter how smart they were, they couldn't combine sensory input with rational thought.
Based entirely on faulty induction from the brain structures of modern, stupider animals.
If you believe that this is impossible, we can easily see this in humans when there is blindness caused by brain damage in the frontal lobe. In some cases a vestigial region of the brain near the brain stem will take over for the damaged vision center. This new arrangement bipasses the cortex. In these cases the patient will be able to catch objects that are thrown, to them, guess the facial expressions of those around them, but are unable to process this visual input in the conscious part of their brain. This leads them to believe that they are completely blind.
A dinosaur would be stuck at the same level as these people if it did not have a sufficiently large cortex to allow communication between the upper and lower brain.
Thanks for the phrenology lesson, but we have no good reason to suspect that dinosaur minds worked anything like human minds. We can't even be wholly sure that the brain itself was shaped similarly, let alone speculate about their actual psychology. As I have said, we must stick to solid fossil evidence here.
I'm going to post this again.
Just because there is no absolute way to prove that they didn't build boats, it doesn't mean that you should act like they did. There is no absolute way to prove a T-Rex couldn't fire-bend. Does this mean we should assume it did?
Same argument goes for the dino brains.
-
Everyone ignores my post?
Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.
EDIT: added untreated
-
Everyone ignores my post?
Wood would not last in the water for that long.
Let alone the dinosaurs appetite
Dinosaurs weren't hibernating creatures
-
Everyone ignores my post?
Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.
EDIT: added untreated
How long would it last for then exactly?
-
Everyone ignores my post?
Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.
EDIT: added untreated
Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant. What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.
-
Everyone ignores my post?
Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.
EDIT: added untreated
Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant. What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.
Even if they were buoyant....
ndividual Triceratops are estimated to have reached about 7.9 to 9.0 m (26.0–29.5 ft) in length, 2.9 to 3.0 m (9.5–9.8 ft) in height,[7][8] and 6.1–12.0 tonnes (13,000–26,000 lb) in weight.
Now, that's one animal. There's gonna be a female, not to mention vast amounts of food (that they need to gather and prepare beforehand so that they do not die), food must be non-perishable to survive the months (did they vacuum pack raisins?), and many many 'couples' need to travel, so a lot of reed bundles, cos I mean, the ocean isn't going to stay nice and flat for months at a time so dinosaurs can get across right?
And you believe this happened for EVERY DINOSAUR SPECIES FOUND ON MATCHING COASTLINES?
Even if they did make it (which they did not), they would have to adapt instantly into their new environment, without disturbing ecological processes and find a habitat, food source etc right away, i.e. find their own niche. Instantly.
-
Everyone ignores my post?
Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.
EDIT: added untreated
Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant. What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.
Even if they did make it (which they did not), they would have to adapt instantly into their new environment, without disturbing ecological processes and find a habitat, food source etc right away, i.e. find their own niche. Instantly.
I'm gonna just argue with this part because this rest seemed sound.
Who says they can't disturb the ecological process to find a niche. Snakes are not natural to Hawaii and yet the are live there quite well now. Rabbits aren't naturally in Australia and now they are surviving there extremely well.
-
Everyone ignores my post?
Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.
EDIT: added untreated
Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant. What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.
Heyerdahl's boat was balsa wood (just a bit more technology there) and even the Spanish guy that tried a reed boat in '99 had it half eaten by mollusks. And those boats only had to support a few hundred pounds and could have even supported a horse, much less a larger creature.
-
Everyone ignores my post?
Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.
EDIT: added untreated
Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant. What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.
Even if they did make it (which they did not), they would have to adapt instantly into their new environment, without disturbing ecological processes and find a habitat, food source etc right away, i.e. find their own niche. Instantly.
I'm gonna just argue with this part because this rest seemed sound.
Who says they can't disturb the ecological process to find a niche. Snakes are not natural to Hawaii and yet the are live there quite well now. Rabbits aren't naturally in Australia and now they are surviving there extremely well.
They stand out because such cases are.. not very common. But yea ok, there are occasionally animals which have a large variety of prey and can adapt more easily (like humans, omnivorous). But every dinosaur species? Just ridiculous.
-
If dinosaurs were so intelligent, why didn't they evolve hands with opposable thumbs so that they could build boats?
-
Everyone ignores my post?
Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.
EDIT: added untreated
Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant. What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.
Got a picture of one of those reed rafts?
-
Whilst I'm sure many smaller dinosaurs did build canoes from reeds, I don't see how we can discount the fact that they built wooden boats too, given the logistical challenge of transporting larger livestock (such as saurolophus yearlings, etc.) on crafts made from reeds.
It's likely that fleets would have had a variety of different boats of different sizes for specific different jobs, just like modern navies do.
-
So the claim is that dinosaurs were capable of building complex machines?
-
What do you propose they were held together with?
Did dinosaurs have metal nails? And hammers?
If they were made of wood, how were they made watertight? Did they use some sort of pitch to seal them with?
There is not a single shred of evidence for just about anything you have proposed in this thread, and you call yourself a zeteticist?
You should write a book. Not a factual one, of course. Fiction. It'd be hilarious, you have quite an imagination.
-
There is not a single shred of evidence for just about anything you have proposed in this thread, and you call yourself a zeteticist?
To re-affirm your point, remember that this "theory", without a shred of evidence, is just as solid as the following:
- The extraterrestrials did it, and then erased any evidence they left
- Humans existed at that time and made the rafts
- Meteorites levelled large portions of ancient woods, leaving the dinosaurs stranded on the ocean, surrounded by felled trees
- The God Thor, with his hammer, sent the dinosaurs flying through the skies
- several other idiotic "theories" proposed in this thread for the purpose of showing this exact point
Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?
-
Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?
Fossil evidence suggests either sea-migrating dinosaurs or moving continents.
Sea-migration isn't really that far fetched. There is a chain of islands across the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska spread about 20 miles apart, visible to each other, which are easily swimable.
-
Island proximity has nothing to do with dinosaurs building complex machines.
-
Tom believes that the dinosaurs swam the oceans in order to make their new homes, which is why the proximity of islands is salient.
-
Tom believes that the dinosaurs swam the oceans in order to make their new homes, which is why the proximity of islands is salient.
I looked up the dictionary definition of "untrue". The entry read, "Everything believed by Tom Bishop".
-
If dinosaurs were so intelligent, why didn't they evolve hands with opposable thumbs so that they could build boats?
... /facepalm
You really don't understand evolution do you.
-
Island proximity has nothing to do with dinosaurs building complex machines.
Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?
Fossil evidence suggests either sea-migrating dinosaurs or moving continents.
Sea-migration isn't really that far fetched. There is a chain of islands across the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska spread about 20 miles apart, visible to each other, which are easily swimable.
Tom raises a valid point to your observation.
Disregarding the argument concerning opposable thumbs, which by the way one of mine is not yet I am still able to function under my own brain power, James' argument can still be sound even if applied to modern day thinking and so called scientific evidence.
There is undisputed agreement amongst the modern scientific community that there is proven migration of species over short term distances across bodies of water by means of swimming or piggybacking on driftwood.
If we take Tom's observations and Jame's conjecture can we not build a simple model of creatures migrating across open bodies of water by accident and then, as all creatures do, of the learning process taking effect and accelerating.
I'm not proposing that pterodactyls built themselves aircraft carriers but it is entirely feasible, given modern understanding of, for instance, how a raptor operated and integrated with it's peers that a level of comprehension was evident that would allow for understanding and evaluation of a given situation which could lead to a conscious decision to travel across open water to seek prey.
-
Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?
Fossil evidence suggests either sea-migrating dinosaurs or moving continents.
Sea-migration isn't really that far fetched. There is a chain of islands across the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska spread about 20 miles apart, visible to each other, which are easily swimable.
Tom, have you ever tried swimming 20 miles across the Bering Straight? Try it some time and tell us how easy it really is.
-
Tom, have you ever tried swimming 20 miles across the Bering Straight? Try it some time and tell us how easy it really is.
This polar bear didn't have trouble with this 200 mile Arctic swim: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour
Martin Strel didn't have a problem swimming down the length of the Amazon River: http://www.amazonswim2007.com/main.php?S=1&Folder=2&L=2
-
Tom, have you ever tried swimming 20 miles across the Bering Straight? Try it some time and tell us how easy it really is.
This polar bear didn't have trouble with this 200 mile Arctic swim: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour
Martin Strel didn't have a problem swimming down the length of the Amazon River: http://www.amazonswim2007.com/main.php?S=1&Folder=2&L=2
That amazon guy impresses me very much. Amazon River is a very scary place to swim.
-
I'v done 32 miles over the channel.
I'm not saying it was an easy gig, in fact I spent the majority of it cheating by regularly spinning onto my back and blaming the prevailing currents.
Point is my leg muscles are in nowhere near as good condition as a top league predator from the Jurassic or the Cretaceous which is the periods that would be most likely to produce predators with the mental capacity to undertake such trips.
-
Tom, have you ever tried swimming 20 miles across the Bering Straight? Try it some time and tell us how easy it really is.
This polar bear didn't have trouble with this 200 mile Arctic swim: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour
Martin Strel didn't have a problem swimming down the length of the Amazon River: http://www.amazonswim2007.com/main.php?S=1&Folder=2&L=2
A polar bear isn't a dinosaur, and neither is Martin Strel.
-
A polar bear isn't a dinosaur, and neither is Martin Strel.
You're right. A dinosaur could probably out swim a polar bear.
-
A polar bear isn't a dinosaur, and neither is Martin Strel.
You're right. A dinosaur could probably out swim a polar bear.
That depends on what species of dinosaur you're referring to.
-
Tom, have you ever tried swimming 20 miles across the Bering Straight? Try it some time and tell us how easy it really is.
This polar bear didn't have trouble with this 200 mile Arctic swim: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour
Martin Strel didn't have a problem swimming down the length of the Amazon River: http://www.amazonswim2007.com/main.php?S=1&Folder=2&L=2
A polar bear isn't a dinosaur, and neither is Martin Strel.
That' s actually getting more of blurred line than you would believe.
Recent research leads to the belief that most of Jurassic and cretaceous predators had developing, if not fully grown feather plumage.
Why would they have developed this when skeletal remains prove they were incapable of flight
The obvious answer is for a basic form of insulation which if developed over the course of the ensuing millenia could lead to an adaptation to changing climate circ 65 million years ago which would allow dinosaurs to survive in modern birds
-
Island proximity has nothing to do with dinosaurs building complex machines.
Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?
Fossil evidence suggests either sea-migrating dinosaurs or moving continents.
Sea-migration isn't really that far fetched. There is a chain of islands across the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska spread about 20 miles apart, visible to each other, which are easily swimable.
Tom raises a valid point to your observation.
Disregarding the argument concerning opposable thumbs, which by the way one of mine is not yet I am still able to function under my own brain power, James' argument can still be sound even if applied to modern day thinking and so called scientific evidence.
There is undisputed agreement amongst the modern scientific community that there is proven migration of species over short term distances across bodies of water by means of swimming or piggybacking on driftwood.
If we take Tom's observations and Jame's conjecture can we not build a simple model of creatures migrating across open bodies of water by accident and then, as all creatures do, of the learning process taking effect and accelerating.
I'm not proposing that pterodactyls built themselves aircraft carriers but it is entirely feasible, given modern understanding of, for instance, how a raptor operated and integrated with it's peers that a level of comprehension was evident that would allow for understanding and evaluation of a given situation which could lead to a conscious decision to travel across open water to seek prey.
James' theory on dinosaurs involves dinosaurs constructing vast complex machines to transport themselves, livestock and plants across open ocean. Island proximity has nothing to do with their ability to do so.
If Tom wants to start a thread called Tom's theory on dinosaurs he should do so. He can then freely explain how they organized themselves en masse to swim and detail out how they transported their plants and livestock across hundreds of miles of open ocean. In spirit of the true zetetic way this will require considerable experimentation.
-
If dinosaurs were so intelligent, why didn't they evolve hands with opposable thumbs so that they could build boats?
... /facepalm
You really don't understand evolution do you.
If dinosaurs had brains, the ones that mutated to have the hands that could use tools would survive for longer (something that wouldn't be an advantage if they were too stupid to use their hands), thus being able to reproduce and further the survival of the dinosaur-man species. However, this didn't happen, so I dispute the fact that they were intelligent.
Well, at least they never believed that the earth was flat, so they can't have been that stupid.
-
I looked up the dictionary definition of "untrue". The entry read, "Everything believed by Tom Bishop".
Stay on topic; no personal attacks;
-
Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?
Fossil evidence suggests either sea-migrating dinosaurs or moving continents.
Sea-migration isn't really that far fetched. There is a chain of islands across the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska spread about 20 miles apart, visible to each other, which are easily swimable.
Tom raises a valid point to your observation.
Disregarding the argument concerning opposable thumbs, which by the way one of mine is not yet I am still able to function under my own brain power, James' argument can still be sound even if applied to modern day thinking and so called scientific evidence.
There is undisputed agreement amongst the modern scientific community that there is proven migration of species over short term distances across bodies of water by means of swimming or piggybacking on driftwood.
If we take Tom's observations and Jame's conjecture can we not build a simple model of creatures migrating across open bodies of water by accident and then, as all creatures do, of the learning process taking effect and accelerating.
Why are you limiting yourself to the fossil record?
Modern theory about continental drift is based on a lot more than the fossil record. Even assuming that the fossil record is just as easily explainable with the idea of migration of 10 ton dinosaurs through the oceans (which it is not), there is a lot more evidence to take into account.
The case for James' "theory" still is just a case of lack of evidence trying to pass as evidence of lack, or plain and simple evidence. And the competing theory is backed by evidence on every step.
-
Lmao @ Tom...
Seeing that building ships to cross the oceans is impossible, they are swimming? What's after this, flying carpets?
-
I don't see why you should dismiss the thought as being nonsensical.
There are aquatic reptiles in existence to this day which are capable of traveling great distances.
And before you retort with the observation that they are not the size of dinosaurs consider the largest land based predator around today, that is the polar bear, which when the need arises can still cross vast distances of open water.
-
Lmao @ Tom...
Seeing that building ships to cross the oceans is impossible, they are swimming? What's after this, flying carpets?
Uh, many animals have migrated to islands by swimming. It's not outrageous at all. Did you ever wonder how animals that can't fly make it to volcanic islands?
-
evidence please.
-
Uh, many animals have migrated to islands by swimming. It's not outrageous at all. Did you ever wonder how animals that can't fly make it to volcanic islands?
By building boats, obviously.
-
If dinosaurs were so intelligent, why didn't they evolve hands with opposable thumbs so that they could build boats?
As your post proves, there is no correlation between opposable thumbs and intelligence.
-
If dinosaurs were so intelligent, why didn't they evolve hands with opposable thumbs so that they could build boats?
As your post proves, there is no correlation between opposable thumbs and intelligence.
Perhaps not. But how would they use tools?
-
Perhaps not. But how would they use tools?
They would be perfectly capable of banging in nails with their heads. Woodpeckers are known to be able to exert tremendous force with their beak and most experts agree that this is how dinosaurs hammered nails into their boats.
So you're suggesting that they were capable of mining, extracting ore, melting it, shaping it into nails, quenching and of constructing boats, but they would have to use their heads to drive the nails?
Tool use does not indicate ability to construct complex machines.
-
Perhaps not. But how would they use tools?
They would be perfectly capable of banging in nails with their heads. Woodpeckers are known to be able to exert tremendous force with their beak and most experts agree that this is how dinosaurs hammered nails into their boats.
So you're suggesting that they were capable of mining, extracting ore, melting it, shaping it into nails, quenching and of constructing boats, but they would have to use their heads to drive the nails?
Tool use does not indicate ability to construct complex machines.
To complement your post, no animal just wakes up one morning and thinks, "oh, how tired I am of killing Diplodocus with my bare claws, lets go to the small green spot I see on the other side of this ocean, and lets make some nails to stick those logs together".
A whole society with several individuals fulfilling several roles and making much more than just boats is required to finally make an inter-oceanic voyage possible. And each time this is mentioned, this discussion changes again from discussing boats to speculating about inter-oceanic nests and straw boats.
-
We would find nails in amongst Dinosaur fossils, and vegetation fossils of what would look like rafts.
Both of which we haven't, even though there are thousands of dinosaur fossils.
Dinosaurs that have to work together to get anything done.
I'm sure they would rather eat one another - except the Stegosaurus and Pachycephalosaurus.
-
So you're suggesting that they were capable of mining, extracting ore, melting it, shaping it into nails, quenching and of constructing boats, but they would have to use their heads to drive the nails?
No they would probably use a flattened bill or sharp claws to do the mining. What I'm saying is different dinosaurs were adapted to do different tasks. There has been much academic research into dino tool use and they all agree. You may be familiar with some of it if you ever watched The Flintstones.
Could you point out the experts in paleontology that have suggested that dinosaurs did this?
-
A whole society with several individuals fulfilling several roles and making much more than just boats is required to finally make an inter-oceanic voyage possible. And each time this is mentioned, this discussion changes again from discussing boats to speculating about inter-oceanic nests and straw boats.
Exactly. Fossil evidence shows that there were a wide variety of dinosaurs, each adapted to a different task. For example it is undisputed fact that the pachycephalosaurus used it's large head to hammer in nails and rivets.
While the stegasaurus would use it's spine tail to drill holes in the wood:
And bird like pterosaurs would use their beaks to cut the wood:
(The helicoprion having already taken care of lumber delivery up river by using it's specialised heavy duty wood cutting tool.
Those dinosaurs not having specialised tools, such as the Brachiosaurs, would be largely concerned with magagement or secretarial activities.
Ergo dinosaurs build boats.
I am having trouble guessing whether you are serious or just trying to be sarcastic. Are you saying that all these animals were found in the same location, at the same time? And that there is undisputed evidence of any of them using any tool at all?
-
So you're suggesting that they were capable of mining, extracting ore, melting it, shaping it into nails, quenching and of constructing boats, but they would have to use their heads to drive the nails?
No they would probably use a flattened bill or sharp claws to do the mining. What I'm saying is different dinosaurs were adapted to do different tasks. There has been much academic research into dino tool use and they all agree. You may be familiar with some of it if you ever watched The Flintstones.
Could you point out the experts in paleontology that have suggested that dinosaurs did this?
Well, James for one.
-
A quick note, remember that member moderating is closely tied with off topic posting. Don't memberate and stay on topic with debate based content. This thread has already gone to hell once, lets not let it fall again.
-
So you're suggesting that they were capable of mining, extracting ore, melting it, shaping it into nails, quenching and of constructing boats, but they would have to use their heads to drive the nails?
No they would probably use a flattened bill or sharp claws to do the mining. What I'm saying is different dinosaurs were adapted to do different tasks. There has been much academic research into dino tool use and they all agree. You may be familiar with some of it if you ever watched The Flintstones.
Could you point out the experts in paleontology that have suggested that dinosaurs did this?
Well, James for one.
He has a degree in paleontology from an accredited institute or just likes to call himself an expert?
-
Could you point out the experts in paleontology that have suggested that dinosaurs did this?
Well, James for one.
He has a degree in paleontology from an accredited institute or just likes to call himself an expert?
According to top diploma mill dean Tom Bishop, there is no difference between an accredited institute and buying a certificate on line.
-
Could you point out the experts in paleontology that have suggested that dinosaurs did this?
Well, James for one.
He has a degree in paleontology from an accredited institute or just likes to call himself an expert?
According to top diploma mill dean Tom Bishop, there is no difference between an accredited institute and buying a certificate on line.
And James has not even gone that far. Most university educations aren't that great.
-
I'm enthused by the large number of recent posts since my last visit, I am glady this theory is finally being taken seriously by so many of our astute members.
However, I must address this issue of dinosaurs swimming from continent to continent, which has been brought to light by my colleague Mr Bishop.
Now, it's very clear that dinosaurs were excellent swimmers. See 2:40 in this clip from the Polish documentary Wędrowki z Dinozaurami:
Ridiculous as it looks in the video, this young Teropody Dinozaur is an adept island-hopper. I'm quite happy to accept that the dinosaurs were able to swim (in fact, I think it quite likely by virtue of their able seamanship).
What I'm concerned about, Tom, is how the dinosaurs were able to swim the Atlantic and the Pacific. It seems an impossible feat, even for the Michael Phelps of Dromaeosaurids. Such huge expanses of water are really only traversable with the use of maritime craft, and the ability to construct such sturdy craft as could cross the largest of the Earth's oceans seems to strongly suggest a mercantile, post-agrarian society.
-
I'll give you one reason and two examples of why Tom's reasoning is sound.
The reason is tectonic shift and the examples are the Hawaiian chain of islands and the North Atlantic Rift.
Plate tectonics is a fact, you can see it happening in real time. I can see no reason why plate tectonics can operate on a spherical theory but not on a planar model. Both deal with a finite area and both are well able to accommodate shifting land masses.
That given it stands that eons ago there was no Atlantic or Pacific, there were only expanding bodies of open water which intelligent creatures who worked within a co-operative society could have seen as nothing more than a problem to be overcome in the search for prey.
In addition consider this: the first human aquatic explorers didn't just set off on trans oceanic excursions, they were confined to shoreline exploration or at best traveling to goals within their sphere of observation.
-
I'm enthused by the large number of recent posts since my last visit, I am glady this theory is finally being taken seriously by so many of our astute members.
A lot of posts does not equal your theory being taken seriously. We all think its a joke, it is entertsaining seeing funny dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are good comedy animals.
-
Plate tectonics is a fact, you can see it happening in real time. I can see no reason why plate tectonics can operate on a spherical theory but not on a planar model. Both deal with a finite area and both are well able to accommodate shifting land masses.
On a round globe, the tectonic plates will always balance out distances between continents - as it gets further from one, it will get closer to another.
On a planar model, keeping the same balance, would require the southern boundaries to work twice as much, seeing as the distances on the southern end of the map are completely retarded.
You guys really need to find a map that works.
-
Whilst your attempts at mockery do an excellent job of obeying the letter of the law, Licefarm, I am going to officially ask you to stop posting these obvious parody-posts. They undermine the tone and purpose of this board.
-
Some might say the same of James' posts.
-
Some might say the same of James' posts.
Arguably its his theory so he can say what ever he wants.
-
Some might say the same of James' posts.
Arguably its his theory so he can say what ever he wants.
So if I proposed a theory that 99% of other forum members felt was ludicrous, I could say whatever the hell I liked about it without it being subject to moderation? Even if I deliberately started parodying?
-
Whilst your attempts at mockery do an excellent job of obeying the letter of the law, Licefarm, I am going to officially ask you to stop posting these obvious parody-posts. They undermine the tone and purpose of this board.
Dinosaurs building boats is reasonable, hot air balloons is unreasonable? I'd like to see some justification.
-
Whilst your attempts at mockery do an excellent job of obeying the letter of the law, Licefarm, I am going to officially ask you to stop posting these obvious parody-posts. They undermine the tone and purpose of this board.
Dinosaurs building boats is reasonable, hot air balloons is unreasonable? I'd like to see some justification.
What would they use for fuel? Since they are our fossil fuels, what would they have used.
It's obviously unreasonable.
-
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
-
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
Not if all they had were boats. Our society is just getting around to doing that. You have to assume dinosaur society was somewhere a few hundred years behind our current one.
-
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
Not if all they had were boats. Our society is just getting around to doing that. You have to assume dinosaur society was somewhere a few hundred years behind our current one.
That's the point being debated. Why assume all they had were boats? Why assume they were behind our current socitey
The dinosaurs got advanced enough by natural selection, just like humans did. The dinosaurs had countless millenia more to do so, too.
-
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
Not if all they had were boats. Our society is just getting around to doing that. You have to assume dinosaur society was somewhere a few hundred years behind our current one.
That's the point being debated. Why assume all they had were boats? Why assume they were behind our current socitey
The dinosaurs got advanced enough by natural selection, just like humans did. The dinosaurs had countless millenia more to do so, too.
General lack of proof?
-
Anything can be used as a fuel. If ants can make fire then I don't see why dinosaurs can't.
When do ants make fire?!?!?!
-
Anything can be used as a fuel. If ants can make fire then I don't see why dinosaurs can't.
When do ants make fire?!?!?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ant
So when do the ants make fire again?
-
Whilst your attempts at mockery do an excellent job of obeying the letter of the law, Licefarm, I am going to officially ask you to stop posting these obvious parody-posts. They undermine the tone and purpose of this board.
Dinosaurs building boats is reasonable, hot air balloons is unreasonable? I'd like to see some justification.
What would they use for fuel? Since they are our fossil fuels, what would they have used.
It's obviously unreasonable.
Did organisms not live before the dinosaurs? They would have been the dinosaurs' fuel as they are for us.
There is no reason why dinosaurs could not have used fossil fuels.
Some might say the same of James' posts.
Arguably its his theory so he can say what ever he wants.
So if I proposed a theory that 99% of other forum members felt was ludicrous, I could say whatever the hell I liked about it without it being subject to moderation? Even if I deliberately started parodying?
Precisely. If you had a thread called, "Thermal Detonator's Theory on Teeth" I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to get to say what is considered part of your theory and what isn't.
-
They used wood for their fuel.
Burning wood works well for making hot.
-
They used wood for their fuel.
Burning wood works well for making hot.
You're not taking this entirely seriously are you?
-
Anything can be used as a fuel. If ants can make fire then I don't see why dinosaurs can't.
When do ants make fire?!?!?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ant
Did you not read your own link? That was the dumbest thing I have seen on this site yet.
BTW, for those of you that are confused about the origin of fossil fuels, they come primarily from decayed plant material, with a bit of fauna biomass included.
-
They used wood for their fuel.
Burning wood works well for making hot.
You're not taking this entirely seriously are you?
Look at the topic, how can you.
-
They used wood for their fuel.
Burning wood works well for making hot.
You're not taking this entirely seriously are you?
If you do not wish to participate in serious debate please leave the upper fora.
-
They used wood for their fuel.
Burning wood works well for making hot.
As I said on the last page, fossil fuels existed far before dinosaurs were around, so there is no reason they didn't use them just as we are.
-
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
Not if all they had were boats. Our society is just getting around to doing that. You have to assume dinosaur society was somewhere a few hundred years behind our current one.
That's the point being debated. Why assume all they had were boats? Why assume they were behind our current socitey
The dinosaurs got advanced enough by natural selection, just like humans did. The dinosaurs had countless millenia more to do so, too.
General lack of proof?
The same general lack of proof for dinosaurs having boats, right?
-
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned. I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.
-
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
Not if all they had were boats. Our society is just getting around to doing that. You have to assume dinosaur society was somewhere a few hundred years behind our current one.
That's the point being debated. Why assume all they had were boats? Why assume they were behind our current socitey
The dinosaurs got advanced enough by natural selection, just like humans did. The dinosaurs had countless millenia more to do so, too.
General lack of proof?
The same general lack of proof for dinosaurs having boats, right?
If they were wooden boats or rafts, is it unreasonable to assume it has decayed?
-
If they were wooden boats or rafts, is it unreasonable to assume it has decayed?
So they're counting on a lack of evidence to support the theory? ???
-
So we're talking about the same general lack of proof.
-
So we're talking about the same general lack of proof.
If they had metal artifacts they most likely would have been found. It is reasonable to then assume that they only made things of wood.
If they were wooden boats or rafts, is it unreasonable to assume it has decayed?
So they're counting on a lack of evidence to support the theory? ???
Correct.
-
Both cases, lacking proof, got it.
-
Both cases, lacking proof, got it.
yes.
Is it reasonable to assume that we'd find metal tools made by dinosaurs, since we've found dinosaur fossils?
-
a)Irrelevant.
b)I never claimed any metal tools existed.
c)What evidence is there to suggest that the tools could survive that long?
-
Vegetation fossils aren't exactly hard to come by, so why haven't we found any that resemble boats or rafts.
-
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned. I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.
You should probably move this thread to the proper forum then as it has absolutely nothing to do with fe theory.
-
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned. I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.
You should probably move this thread to the proper forum then as it has absolutely nothing to do with fe theory.
It is a major contribution to FE canon and has substantial explanatory power with regard to issues in zetetic geology and geography. As a fervent globularist I would not expect you to understand its merit.
Vegetation fossils aren't exactly hard to come by, so why haven't we found any that resemble boats or rafts.
It's hardly surprising if you consider the ratio of plants found to plants which existed. There would have to have been a staggeringly large number of boats in order for it to be statistically probable that one would be found. Current evidence is not anomalous in light of the approximate proportions of fossils found to fossilisable artifacts which were produced.
However, that's not to say the boats aren't out there. I personally think we should be looking for them much harder than we currently are.
-
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned. I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.
You should probably move this thread to the proper forum then as it has absolutely nothing to do with fe theory.
It is a major contribution to FE canon and has substantial explanatory power with regard to issues in zetetic geology and geography. As a fervent globularist I would not expect you to understand its merit.
I'd hardly call it canon, but then again, there are few things one can even call "canon" in respect to FET. However, it most certainly has to do with flat earth theory.
Vegetation fossils aren't exactly hard to come by, so why haven't we found any that resemble boats or rafts.
It's hardly surprising if you consider the ratio of plants found to plants which existed. There would have to have been a staggeringly large number of boats in order for it to be statistically probable that one would be found. Current evidence is not anomalous in light of the approximate proportions of fossils found to fossilisable artifacts which were produced.
However, that's not to say the boats aren't out there. I personally think we should be looking for them much harder than we currently are.
If boats are found they will also likely be misidentified for a long time.
-
I'm still curious......
Are you conceding that dinosaurs did not have the ability to build complex machines such as the one you implied they were capable of building?
-
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned. I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.
You should probably move this thread to the proper forum then as it has absolutely nothing to do with fe theory.
It is a major contribution to FE canon and has substantial explanatory power with regard to issues in zetetic geology and geography. As a fervent globularist I would not expect you to understand its merit.
Vegetation fossils aren't exactly hard to come by, so why haven't we found any that resemble boats or rafts.
It's hardly surprising if you consider the ratio of plants found to plants which existed. There would have to have been a staggeringly large number of boats in order for it to be statistically probable that one would be found. Current evidence is not anomalous in light of the approximate proportions of fossils found to fossilisable artifacts which were produced.
However, that's not to say the boats aren't out there. I personally think we should be looking for them much harder than we currently are.
You use the term "globularist" as a pejorative, like it is something that we should be ashamed of. Try understanding our point of view before making adolescent ad hominem attacks.
Without evidence of these boats having ever existed beyond the fact that you want it to be true in order for your Flat Earth premise to make sense, it is nothing more than a baseless hypothesis.
-
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned. I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.
You should probably move this thread to the proper forum then as it has absolutely nothing to do with fe theory.
It is a major contribution to FE canon and has substantial explanatory power with regard to issues in zetetic geology and geography. As a fervent globularist I would not expect you to understand its merit.
Vegetation fossils aren't exactly hard to come by, so why haven't we found any that resemble boats or rafts.
It's hardly surprising if you consider the ratio of plants found to plants which existed. There would have to have been a staggeringly large number of boats in order for it to be statistically probable that one would be found. Current evidence is not anomalous in light of the approximate proportions of fossils found to fossilisable artifacts which were produced.
However, that's not to say the boats aren't out there. I personally think we should be looking for them much harder than we currently are.
You use the term "globularist" as a pejorative, like it is something that we should be ashamed of. Try understanding our point of view before making adolescent ad hominem attacks.
Without evidence of these boats having ever existed beyond the fact that you want it to be true in order for your Flat Earth premise to make sense, it is nothing more than a baseless hypothesis.
Labeling your opponent is fine as long as you are acting like he is oppressing you.
-
I love how no one has discussed how if dino's can make rafts, how do they use them effectively? I doubt any large dinosaurs could use rafts nor could it be used to cross oceans. This leaves lots of large dinosaurs' habitats that are split by the atlantic ocean.
Also, just because something is feasible, doesn't mean we should accept it. There is substantial evidence for the movement of tectonic plates that has nothing to do with dinosaurs. As scientists, we accept the most complete theory until another more complete one comes along. This is feasible but is in conflict with the far more complete tectonic plate theory.
If you can reconcile all the evidence of the plates moving, then you might be on to something.
-
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned. I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.
You should probably move this thread to the proper forum then as it has absolutely nothing to do with fe theory.
It is a major contribution to FE canon and has substantial explanatory power with regard to issues in zetetic geology and geography. As a fervent globularist I would not expect you to understand its merit.
Vegetation fossils aren't exactly hard to come by, so why haven't we found any that resemble boats or rafts.
It's hardly surprising if you consider the ratio of plants found to plants which existed. There would have to have been a staggeringly large number of boats in order for it to be statistically probable that one would be found. Current evidence is not anomalous in light of the approximate proportions of fossils found to fossilisable artifacts which were produced.
However, that's not to say the boats aren't out there. I personally think we should be looking for them much harder than we currently are.
You use the term "globularist" as a pejorative, like it is something that we should be ashamed of. Try understanding our point of view before making adolescent ad hominem attacks.
Without evidence of these boats having ever existed beyond the fact that you want it to be true in order for your Flat Earth premise to make sense, it is nothing more than a baseless hypothesis.
*points to his own username* ;D
-
They used wood for their fuel.
Burning wood works well for making hot.
As I said on the last page, fossil fuels existed far before dinosaurs were around, so there is no reason they didn't use them just as we are.
So it wasn't an asteroid, but climate change that was their downfall? :o :)
-
This whole thread should be renames "James's opposition to continental drift theory".
That is where all this originates from. James does not believe that the earth's crust moves over time, therefore the fossil record requires something else to explain its distribution. The dinosaur fleet is secondary.
James needs to give us a serious argument as to why continental drift doesn't exist and plate-tectonics is wrong. Then we can proceed.
-
This whole thread should be renames "James's opposition to continental drift theory".
That is where all this originates from. James does not believe that the earth's crust moves over time, therefore the fossil record requires something else to explain its distribution. The dinosaur fleet is secondary.
James needs to give us a serious argument as to why continental drift doesn't exist and plate-tectonics is wrong. Then we can proceed.
The argument given by James, several pages ago, is "it has been proven elsewhere in this forum". But his real argument is the "ugh!" explanation: he thinks that this theory is ugly, therefore there must be a proof somewhere to debunk it. Whats more, he feels he can base his thought process on the existence of this proof, even though it does not exist.
The "ugh!" argument was used for some time against Continental Drift when the evidence was skimpy, but a lot has happened since then.
-
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned. I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.
You should probably move this thread to the proper forum then as it has absolutely nothing to do with fe theory.
It is a major contribution to FE canon and has substantial explanatory power with regard to issues in zetetic geology and geography. As a fervent globularist I would not expect you to understand its merit.
Vegetation fossils aren't exactly hard to come by, so why haven't we found any that resemble boats or rafts.
It's hardly surprising if you consider the ratio of plants found to plants which existed. There would have to have been a staggeringly large number of boats in order for it to be statistically probable that one would be found. Current evidence is not anomalous in light of the approximate proportions of fossils found to fossilisable artifacts which were produced.
However, that's not to say the boats aren't out there. I personally think we should be looking for them much harder than we currently are.
You use the term "globularist" as a pejorative, like it is something that we should be ashamed of. Try understanding our point of view before making adolescent ad hominem attacks.
Without evidence of these boats having ever existed beyond the fact that you want it to be true in order for your Flat Earth premise to make sense, it is nothing more than a baseless hypothesis.
*points to his own username* ;D
They can't use that word. Only we can use that word!
Waddup mah globularist brotha.
-
Its a stupid term. We believve in a globe, not a glob.
-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globular
-
They do originate from the mantle, and that is precisely how they become magnetic, I'm not sure how you've construed me as suggesting otherwise.
Doop doop
Do you believe in plate tectonics?
No.
So if rocks originate from the mantle, that would mean that they somehow get to the surface, at divergent boundaries - which is a part of plate tectonics.
Make up your mind.
You cannot keep adding material to a surface without removing it from somewhere else and keep the same size.
Eventually, the surface will move away from where new material is being added and get closer to where it is being removed.
So um, if he thinks new rock is formed at boundaries, but not that it moves, how does that work?
-
Its a stupid term. We believve in a globe, not a glob.
Globularist is a hell of a word to try to pronounce. a bit of a tongue twister. I lurked a lot, in fact...I think I found the word on this thread, I think James is one of the few who actually uses it.
they could have at least come up with something like globalist, which is already a scary conspiracy theorist word.
-
Its a stupid term. We believve in a globe, not a glob.
Globularist is a hell of a word to try to pronounce. a bit of a tongue twister. I lurked a lot, in fact...I think I found the word on this thread, I think James is one of the few who actually uses it.
they could have at least come up with something like globalist, which is already a scary conspiracy theorist word.
I prefer globite.
On a completely unrelated note, you know how continental drift has been "disproved" on these forums, meaning dinosaurs needed to build boats? Well how did the rest of the animals get across, e.g. worm species which are the same in Africa as in South America?
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
So after they got onto seperate continents, they evolved in exactly the same way?
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
So after they got onto seperate continents, they evolved in exactly the same way?
Well depends if you believe they evolved, then traveled or traveled, then evolved.
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
So after they got onto seperate continents, they evolved in exactly the same way?
Well depends if you believe they evolved, then traveled or traveled, then evolved.
I think they evolved then the continents drifted apart.
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?
Yes, they were caught by archaeyopteryx.
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?
:D
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?
:D
Anyway, you haven't really explained how the same species of worm could exist in two continents.
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?
:D
Anyway, you haven't really explained how the same species of worm could exist in two continents.
They traveled.
They had many options too.
They could have traveled of their means. (more likely for closer landmasses). The trek honestly wouldn't be that hard for the resilient worm which could travel through different terrain and matter states (water) and had primitive "muscles" (Outside of mesoderm for lacking celoem types) allowing decent locomotion
(unlikely but:) Some could have even hitched a ride on the boats
***Also, if James is correct with his theory (he has done a great job providing evidence to doubting globularists), then it is more than likely that some unfortunate dinosaurs were hosts to worms and as an effect, carried them with overseas.
For more basal species, another host could have done the job with even better means of travel
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?
:D
Anyway, you haven't really explained how the same species of worm could exist in two continents.
They traveled.
They had many options too.
They could have traveled of their means. (more likely for closer landmasses). The trek honestly wouldn't be that hard for the resilient worm which could travel through different terrain and matter states (water) and had primitive "muscles" (Outside of mesoderm for lacking celoem types) allowing decent locomotion
(unlikely but:) Some could have even hitched a ride on the boats
***Also, if James is correct with his theory (he has done a great job providing evidence to doubting globularists), then it is more than likely that some unfortunate dinosaurs were hosts to worms and as an effect, carried them with overseas.
For more basal species, another host could have done the job with even better means of travel
I must have missed all the evidence. Could you please point it out.
Thanks.
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?
:D
Anyway, you haven't really explained how the same species of worm could exist in two continents.
They traveled.
They had many options too.
They could have traveled of their means. (more likely for closer landmasses). The trek honestly wouldn't be that hard for the resilient worm which could travel through different terrain and matter states (water) and had primitive "muscles" (Outside of mesoderm for lacking celoem types) allowing decent locomotion
(unlikely but:) Some could have even hitched a ride on the boats
***Also, if James is correct with his theory (he has done a great job providing evidence to doubting globularists), then it is more than likely that some unfortunate dinosaurs were hosts to worms and as an effect, carried them with overseas.
For more basal species, another host could have done the job with even better means of travel
We're talking about the same organisms that exist in South America and Africa, so they wouldn't have been able to swim the Atlantic. Also, this is before dinosaur colonialism.
-
Early worms were not restricted to land.
Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?
:D
Anyway, you haven't really explained how the same species of worm could exist in two continents.
They traveled.
They had many options too.
They could have traveled of their means. (more likely for closer landmasses). The trek honestly wouldn't be that hard for the resilient worm which could travel through different terrain and matter states (water) and had primitive "muscles" (Outside of mesoderm for lacking celoem types) allowing decent locomotion
(unlikely but:) Some could have even hitched a ride on the boats
***Also, if James is correct with his theory (he has done a great job providing evidence to doubting globularists), then it is more than likely that some unfortunate dinosaurs were hosts to worms and as an effect, carried them with overseas.
For more basal species, another host could have done the job with even better means of travel
We're talking about the same organisms that exist in South America and Africa, so they wouldn't have been able to swim the Atlantic. Also, this is before dinosaur colonialism.
Some species Could.
Also, proof?
-
Where is this great evidence you speak of Ichi?? ??? ??? ???
I think, unfortunately, us REer's missed it somehow.
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg707661#msg707661
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg730656#msg730656
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg708894#msg708894
"James's theory on dinosaurs", 26 pages, November 2009
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.0
"What about the Dinosuars", 21 pages, May 2009
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.0
"continental drifting", 16 pages, August 2008
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21863.0
"antartica", 18 pages, June 2006
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2739.0
And this is but a small appetizer of his research.
-
But a small appetizer, a soupcon of the sea of drivel one has to wade through when reading posts by Mad James, spectacular in their nonsense quotient.
-
One, that is all conjecture. He merely has said that dinosaurs in boats was feasible (it isn't). He did not disprove continental drift nor prove dinosaurs in a boat more likely than the current theory.
Besides, how does FE deal with the earthquake and the resulting tsunami?
-
I don't know. But shall we let this topic die? There's been 39 pages of argument about whether dinosaurs could build boats or not.
-
And this is but a small appetizer of his research.
There's nothing there about worms.
-
I don't know. But shall we let this topic die? There's been 39 pages of argument about whether dinosaurs could build boats or not.
I say no, its a really entertaining and interesting topic. I for one would hate to see it go
-
I don't know. But shall we let this topic die? There's been 39 pages of argument about whether dinosaurs could build boats or not.
I say no, its a really entertaining and interesting topic. I for one would hate to see it go
It wears thin after the initial hilarity.
-
But a small appetizer, a soupcon of the sea of drivel one has to wade through when reading posts by Mad James, spectacular in their nonsense quotient.
Keep on topic. Also, that made no sense.
-
But a small appetizer, a soupcon of the sea of drivel one has to wade through when reading posts by Mad James, spectacular in their nonsense quotient.
Keep on topic. Also, that made no sense.
I agree it was off topic, for which I apologise. I do think it makes sense, however.
-
But a small appetizer, a soupcon of the sea of drivel one has to wade through when reading posts by Mad James, spectacular in their nonsense quotient.
Keep on topic. Also, that made no sense.
I agree it was off topic, for which I apologise. I do think it makes sense, however.
Actually I think that nonsense is on-topic for this topic.
-
Anything can be used as a fuel. If ants can make fire then I don't see why dinosaurs can't.
When do ants make fire?!?!?!
If ants are able to create vast tunnels and dungeons, it is not unlikely that their massive prehistoric ancestors were capable of rubbing two sticks together. Furthermore, it could have been used as a sort of warfare against other ants. This and scaring wild dinosaurs away from their tunnels, it would have been very beneficial for ants to use fire.
Furthermore, if ants were able create fire, then they most likely would have been able to heat clay or metals to make basic utensils or tools. In fact, since they have more limbs and thus more dexterity than humans, their tools would have been even more advanced and intricate than anything that our ancestors were capable of making.
Ants very well could have been the equivalent of the modern day blacksmith.
-
Got tired of trolling current topics and decided to necro-troll, I see.
-
If ants are able to create vast tunnels and dungeons, it is not unlikely that their massive prehistoric ancestors were capable of rubbing two sticks together.
Have you ever tried making fire by rubbing two sticks together? It's not as easy as you might think. Trust me, it's a lot easier for an ant to dig a tunnel than a creature with no opposable thumbs to rub two sticks together and make fire.
-
If ants are able to create vast tunnels and dungeons, it is not unlikely that their massive prehistoric ancestors were capable of rubbing two sticks together.
Have you ever tried making fire by rubbing two sticks together? It's not as easy as you might think. Trust me, it's a lot easier for an ant to dig a tunnel than a creature with no opposable thumbs to rub two sticks together and make fire.
You don't need opposable thumbs to start a fire with a stick using the drill method.
-
You don't need opposable thumbs to start a fire with a stick using the drill method.
But I guess you need a drill.
I am glad this thread is
-
You don't need opposable thumbs to start a fire with a stick using the drill method.
But I guess you need a drill.
I am glad this thread is
The drill is the stick...
-
The ants were much larger, too, back in the eocene epoch. They averaged between 1 and 2 inches so their larger appendages could employ a larger stick than the ants of today making a more useful fire for them.
-
The drill is the stick...
Explain further. Perhaps a diagram of an ant with said apparatus would help you get your point across.
-
If ants are able to create vast tunnels and dungeons, it is not unlikely that their massive prehistoric ancestors were capable of rubbing two sticks together.
Have you ever tried making fire by rubbing two sticks together? It's not as easy as you might think. Trust me, it's a lot easier for an ant to dig a tunnel than a creature with no opposable thumbs to rub two sticks together and make fire.
You don't need opposable thumbs to start a fire with a stick using the drill method.
Have you ever successfully started a fire with a stick using the drill method without using your thumbs during any part of the process? Remember that there is more to the drill method than just spinning the drill back and forth.
-
If ants are able to create vast tunnels and dungeons, it is not unlikely that their massive prehistoric ancestors were capable of rubbing two sticks together.
Have you ever tried making fire by rubbing two sticks together? It's not as easy as you might think. Trust me, it's a lot easier for an ant to dig a tunnel than a creature with no opposable thumbs to rub two sticks together and make fire.
You don't need opposable thumbs to start a fire with a stick using the drill method.
Have you ever successfully started a fire with a stick using the drill method without using your thumbs during any part of the process? Remember that there is more to the drill method than just spinning the drill back and forth.
Bear Grylls starts fire by rubbing a stick back and forth all the time.
-
Bear Grylls starts fire by rubbing a fire back and forth all the time.
I am struck in awe at the mere image of somebody rubbing a fire. Doesn't he get burns by rubbing fire?
-
I have watched his show many times, and have never seen Bear Grylls rubbing a fire.
-
If ants are able to create vast tunnels and dungeons, it is not unlikely that their massive prehistoric ancestors were capable of rubbing two sticks together.
Have you ever tried making fire by rubbing two sticks together? It's not as easy as you might think. Trust me, it's a lot easier for an ant to dig a tunnel than a creature with no opposable thumbs to rub two sticks together and make fire.
You don't need opposable thumbs to start a fire with a stick using the drill method.
Have you ever successfully started a fire with a stick using the drill method without using your thumbs during any part of the process? Remember that there is more to the drill method than just spinning the drill back and forth.
Bear Grylls starts fire by rubbing a fire back and forth all the time.
I didn't ask if Bear Grylls (or any other survival expert) has ever started a fire by rubbing a fire back and forth, I asked if you had. Besides, I'm fairly sure that Bear Grylls still has full use of his thumbs.
-
I didn't ask if Bear Grylls (or any other survival expert) has ever started a fire by rubbing a fire back and forth, I asked if you had. Besides, I'm fairly sure that Bear Grylls still has full use of his thumbs.
The whole idea of this thread is so ludicrous that there is not much to discuss here. Should we continue to make fun at the expense of EnglshGentleman for not knowing the difference between rubbing a fire and rubbing sticks to produce fire? Or should we spend another month or so trying to explain that total lack of evidence means total lack of a meaningful hypothesis?
We can discuss the need of opposable thumbs, the need for intelligence beyond what has been demonstrated in any dinosaurs, the need for a society that creates many technological advancements even before they create a seafaring boat. But what we cannot forget is that no evidence has been shown for anything at all.
-
You're forgetting one of the main tenets of FET, "If it even remotely might have a slight chance of being possible, it MUST be true! (but only if it supports the idea of a flat Earth)"
-
Bear Grylls starts fire by rubbing a stick back and forth all the time.
;)
the need for intelligence beyond what has been demonstrated in any dinosaurs
Really? You mean you have gone back in time and witnessed that Dinosaurs were not intelligent enough to make fire or build a boat?
-
Bear Grylls starts fire by rubbing a stick back and forth all the time.
;)
the need for intelligence beyond what has been demonstrated in any dinosaurs
Really? You mean you have gone back in time and witnessed that Dinosaurs were not intelligent enough to make fire or build a boat?
So again, this descends to a "no u" contest. Please demonstrate that dinosaurs were intelligent enough to make fire and build a boat. There is no evidence to suggest they were unless you can provide some.
-
Bear Grylls starts fire by rubbing a stick back and forth all the time.
;)
the need for intelligence beyond what has been demonstrated in any dinosaurs
Really? You mean you have gone back in time and witnessed that Dinosaurs were not intelligent enough to make fire or build a boat?
What are you talking about? Pixie fairies killed them off before they could get that smart.
-
Bear Grylls starts fire by rubbing a stick back and forth all the time.
;)
the need for intelligence beyond what has been demonstrated in any dinosaurs
Really? You mean you have gone back in time and witnessed that Dinosaurs were not intelligent enough to make fire or build a boat?
So again, this descends to a "no u" contest. Please demonstrate that dinosaurs were intelligent enough to make fire and build a boat. There is no evidence to suggest they were unless you can provide some.
This isn't a "no u" contest. Trig said it has been demonstrated that dinosaurs are not intelligent enough. I want to hear these demonstrations that he claims have happened.
-
Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.
-
Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.
That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?
-
Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.
That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?
Wizards and Fairies killed them:
ANTIGUA-Land-Fairies-Wizards-Heroes
Then fire came right out of his nostrils. The Wizard Thandor held his mighty wand up toward the sky and yelled, "Mighty clouds of the sky, I call upon you to bring forth lightening to destroy the Dragon Voltar!"
-
Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.
That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?
If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.
-
Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.
That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?
If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.
If they were intelligent they wouldn't have gone the way of the dodo bird :P They should have remained the lords of the Earth until such day the Earth is to be destroyed.
-
Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.
That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?
If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.
If they were intelligent they wouldn't have gone the way of the dodo bird :P They should have remained the lords of the Earth until such day the Earth is to be destroyed.
Yeah because there's nothing that could happen to the Earth now that could conceivably kill all humans lol.
-
Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.
That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?
If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.
If they were intelligent they wouldn't have gone the way of the dodo bird :P They should have remained the lords of the Earth until such day the Earth is to be destroyed.
Yeah because there's nothing that could happen to the Earth now that could conceivably kill all humans lol.
If we are truly intelligent, that will never happen. Perhaps you are implying we humans are dumb? Perhaps in 400 years we will see the Planet of the Apes, and maybe even intelligent bugs ruling Earth where the Starship Troopers all get ripped apart and even out smarted by the Brain Bugs!
-
No, the dinosaurs were not intelligent enough to build fire. Their EQ was less than 1. Reference: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dinosaur-intelligence.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dinosaur-intelligence.html)
-
Trig said it has been demonstrated that dinosaurs are not intelligent enough. I want to hear these demonstrations that he claims have happened.
The one which is showing a disturbing lack of intelligence (or at least of reading skills) is EnglshGentleman. Trig said there is no demonstration that dinosaurs were intelligent enough to build significant tools.
Since poorly educated people like EnglshGentleman like to tell stories for which there is absolutely no evidence, but then get hassled for the evidence they cannot show, they try to shift the argument around.
-
Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.
That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?
Speaking of proof, where is your proof that any creature, other than humans, did (or even could) start fires by rubbing sticks together?
-
If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.
But the proposition was that dinosaurs were intelligent (and had thumbs and boats and fire). We found there was no evidence to support this.
-
If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.
But the proposition was that dinosaurs were intelligent (and had thumbs and boats and fire). We found there was no evidence to support this.
Roundy does seem to forget that the propostion needs evidence, not the null--that we have no reason to believe. He confuses open-mindedness with fantasy. It's sad really. So there is evidence that dinosaurs are not intelligent. Is there any evidence to support fire starting by dinosaurs?--No. to support that they used boats?--No. That they had thuimbs?--No. Is James once again forgetting how to deal with reality and the Scientific Method?--Yes. Is Roundy inanely supporting that fringe concept?--Yes.
-
Is Roundy inanely supporting that fringe concept?--Yes.
Why else do you think they made him a mod?
-
No, the dinosaurs were not intelligent enough to build fire. Their EQ was less than 1. Reference: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dinosaur-intelligence.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dinosaur-intelligence.html)
That is all guess work. Guessing isn't proof.
-
Just pointing out that dinosaurs are not extinct.
-
No, the dinosaurs were not intelligent enough to build fire. Their EQ was less than 1. Reference: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dinosaur-intelligence.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dinosaur-intelligence.html)
That is all guess work. Guessing isn't proof.
Gee, a peer-review top-shelf journal article's summary in Discover is "all guess work". I guess you have a reference somewhere that you've forgotten to post that counters the diligent and precise work of these experts and their reviewers? Any journal article would at least get the ball rolling. I suspect though, like always, you can't back up your claims. How sad.
-
Just pointing out that dinosaurs are not extinct.
Just pointing out that you're wrong.
-
Just pointing out that dinosaurs are not extinct.
Just pointing out that you're wrong.
lol if you really think that, then you have no place arguing in this thread.
-
Just pointing out that dinosaurs are not extinct.
Just pointing out that you're wrong.
They are and they are not.
Using the strict cladistical definition that all descendants of a single common ancestor must be included in a group for that group to be natural, birds would thus be dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct.
and
From the point of view of cladistics, birds are dinosaurs, but in ordinary speech the word "dinosaur" does not include birds
-
The above is true, and I can affirm with confidence that I have seen a dinosaur using tools with my own eyes (and have also heard a dinosaur speak).
-
The above is true, and I can affirm with confidence that I have seen a dinosaur using tools with my own eyes (and have also heard a dinosaur speak).
Please provide evidence of the above claims and without any pendantic "birds are dinosaurs".
-
But birds are dinosaurs.
-
But birds are dinosaurs.
Proof?
-
Protein sequencing of Tyrannosaurus remains in 2007 demonstrated their close phylogenetic relationship to modern birds: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/280.
-
Protein sequencing of Tyrannosaurus remains in 2007 demonstrated their close phylogenetic relationship to modern birds: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/280.
I counter with the less pendantic:
With all that said, I'm still going to continue hedging, because there is a big difference between technical nomenclature and everyday language. When we talk to non-scientists, they will understand the term ``dinosaur'' to include the likes of T. rex and Triceratops but not swans and sparrows. OK then, there's no need to rock that boat - let's use the word in accordance with people's expectations - in everyday life, ``dinosaurs'' generally means ``non-avian dinosaurs'' - or what I like to think of as ``Real Dinosaurs'' :-)
Reference: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/dinobird/index.html (http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/dinobird/index.html).
So have you seen any 'Real Dinosaurs', or are you just here to troll?
-
Protein sequencing of Tyrannosaurus remains in 2007 demonstrated their close phylogenetic relationship to modern birds: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/280.
I counter with the less pendantic:
With all that said, I'm still going to continue hedging, because there is a big difference between technical nomenclature and everyday language. When we talk to non-scientists, they will understand the term ``dinosaur'' to include the likes of T. rex and Triceratops but not swans and sparrows. OK then, there's no need to rock that boat - let's use the word in accordance with people's expectations - in everyday life, ``dinosaurs'' generally means ``non-avian dinosaurs'' - or what I like to think of as ``Real Dinosaurs'' :-)
Reference: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/dinobird/index.html (http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/dinobird/index.html).
So have you seen any 'Real Dinosaurs', or are you just here to troll?
Holy crap..... did ClockTower just say we should be less pedantic?
From that exact same article.
Since then, a fundamental shift in nomenclature practices has meant that this bird-inclusive definition of the Dinosauria is now accepted as orthodox. This shift has been towards a viewpoint often called the "cladistic'' view (related to, but separate from, the issue of cladistic analysis), which is that the only groupings which may validly by given names are monophyletic ones - that is, those consisting of a single animal together with all of its ancestors.
-
Holy crap..... did ClockTower just say we should be less pedantic?
From that exact same article.
Since then, a fundamental shift in nomenclature practices has meant that this bird-inclusive definition of the Dinosauria is now accepted as orthodox. This shift has been towards a viewpoint often called the "cladistic'' view (related to, but separate from, the issue of cladistic analysis), which is that the only groupings which may validly by given names are monophyletic ones - that is, those consisting of a single animal together with all of its ancestors.
Yes. And yes, the pendantic definition of dinosaurs does include avians. I really doubt that anyone outside of strict taxonomy commonly uses the word, 'dinosaur' to include avians. The author of the articles agrees as I quoted.
-
In that case you know full well the answer - with my eyes I have seen birds and mammals do these things. Only in the limitless demesne of my unwaking mind have I spoken with prehistoric beasts, or used tools alongside them; I fancy that in some past life I too was probably a dinosaur.
-
In that case you know full well the answer - with my eyes I have seen birds and mammals do these things. Only in the limitless demesne of my unwaking mind have I spoken with prehistoric beasts, or used tools alongside them; I fancy that in some past life I too was probably a dinosaur.
You do understand that dreams are not real, right? Delusions should not guide you. (Roundy, someone has you beat with an even more inane 'reason' to believe him. "I dreamt it, so it's true." trumps "It's intuitive to me, so it's true." any day.)
-
Holy crap..... did ClockTower just say we should be less pedantic?
From that exact same article.
Since then, a fundamental shift in nomenclature practices has meant that this bird-inclusive definition of the Dinosauria is now accepted as orthodox. This shift has been towards a viewpoint often called the "cladistic'' view (related to, but separate from, the issue of cladistic analysis), which is that the only groupings which may validly by given names are monophyletic ones - that is, those consisting of a single animal together with all of its ancestors.
Yes. And yes, the pendantic definition of dinosaurs does include avians. I really doubt that anyone outside of strict taxonomy commonly uses the word, 'dinosaur' to include avians. The author of the articles agrees as I quoted.
So yes, dinosaurs do include avians.
-
I think this pretty much confirms the validity of dinosaur-bird comparisons. It's amazing that this point was once so heavily contested. In my view it is only a matter of time before the strength of our argument is grudgingly acknowledged.
-
Birds don't have a civilization capable of building ocean-crossing boats, therefore Dinosaurs didn't have them either. Thanks for clearing that up!
-
I think this pretty much confirms the validity of dinosaur-bird comparisons. It's amazing that this point was once so heavily contested. In my view it is only a matter of time before the strength of our argument is grudgingly acknowledged.
Please link to these successful "dinosaur-bird" comparisons. I don't see any point "so heavily contested". We've suspected for decades that birds evolved from reptiles. You do understand that I can pendantically call you a fish, right? So I can claim that fish make fires by rubbing sticks together, right?
-
I think this pretty much confirms the validity of dinosaur-bird comparisons. It's amazing that this point was once so heavily contested. In my view it is only a matter of time before the strength of our argument is grudgingly acknowledged.
Please link to these successful "dinosaur-bird" comparisons. I don't see any point "so heavily contested". We've suspected for decades that birds evolved from reptiles. You do understand that I can pendantically call you a fish, right? So I can claim that fish make fires by rubbing sticks together, right?
Irrelevant.
Birds don't have a civilization capable of building ocean-crossing boats, therefore Dinosaurs didn't have them either. Thanks for clearing that up!
Birds now a days can just fly (or in the case of penguins, swim) over the oceans. They have evolved to not need boats. Other dinosaurs however, had no such luxury.
-
Birds don't have a civilization capable of building ocean-crossing boats, therefore Dinosaurs didn't have them either.
Please, that conclusion in now way follows from the preceding statement. After all, pre-historic humans did not have a civilisation capable of building ocean-crossing boats, but it does not follow that modern humans do not have one.
-
Birds now a days can just fly (or in the case of penguins, swim) over the oceans. They have evolved to not need boats. Other dinosaurs however, had no such luxury.
There were plenty of non-avian dinosaurs that lived in and traveled the prehistoric oceans.
-
Birds don't have a civilization capable of building ocean-crossing boats, therefore Dinosaurs didn't have them either.
Please, that conclusion in now way follows from the preceding statement. After all, pre-historic humans did not have a civilisation capable of building ocean-crossing boats, but it does not follow that modern humans do not have one.
Your counter-example is in the wrong order. The lesser-evolved should not in general have more advanced technique than their successorts. N-ADs should not be expected to have something the avians don't now. Prehistoric humans being less advanced than modern humans should not be expected to have more capabilities than modern humans.
-
Birds don't have a civilization capable of building ocean-crossing boats, therefore Dinosaurs didn't have them either.
Please, that conclusion in now way follows from the preceding statement. After all, pre-historic humans did not have a civilisation capable of building ocean-crossing boats, but it does not follow that modern humans do not have one.
Birds have had millions of years to evolve since they were dinosaurs. If they had an advanced civilization back then, one can assume they would be even more advanced now.
-
Birds don't have a civilization capable of building ocean-crossing boats, therefore Dinosaurs didn't have them either.
Please, that conclusion in now way follows from the preceding statement. After all, pre-historic humans did not have a civilisation capable of building ocean-crossing boats, but it does not follow that modern humans do not have one.
Birds have had millions of years to evolve since they were dinosaurs. If they had an advanced civilization back then, one can assume they would be even more advanced now.
You are forgetting the majority of the species got wipe out in a very short period. Because different dinosaurs ran different niches in the society, the birds simply could not run it all. Therefore they had to leave their technologies, and learn to be self-sufficient.
-
Therefore they had to leave their technologies, and learn to be self-sufficient.
Speculation alert, evidence requested.
-
...different dinosaurs ran different niches in the society...
Evidence? Proof? Reasoning? Anything? Or are you following the FESOP and just making things up?
-
Therefore they had to leave their technologies, and learn to be self-sufficient.
Speculation alert, evidence requested.
It is common sense. Would farmers be able to run communication, nuclear power, inter-continental transportation, sanitation, civil works, and everything else for all of society, or would they have to learn to take care of their basic needs?
-
It is common sense.
EVIDENCE REQUESTED
-
It is common sense.
EVIDENCE REQUESTED
It is common sense. Would farmers be able to run communication, nuclear power, inter-continental transportation, sanitation, civil works, and everything else for all of society, or would they have to learn to take care of their basic needs?
-
It is common sense.
EVIDENCE REQUESTED
It is common sense. Would farmers be able to run communication, nuclear power, inter-continental transportation, sanitation, civil works, and everything else for all of society, or would they have to learn to take care of their basic needs?
So no evidence then? Glad we can drop this ridiculous crackpot theory.
-
It is common sense.
Please note that from now on all requests by FEers for proof that the Earth is round should be answered:
It is common sense. This is valid reasoning used by FEers. Please reference: It is common sense.
EVIDENCE REQUESTED
It is common sense. Would farmers be able to run communication, nuclear power, inter-continental transportation, sanitation, civil works, and everything else for all of society, or would they have to learn to take care of their basic needs?
-
Your counter-example is in the wrong order. The lesser-evolved should not in general have more advanced technique than their successorts. N-ADs should not be expected to have something the avians don't now. Prehistoric humans being less advanced than modern humans should not be expected to have more capabilities than modern humans.
Why do you conclude that birds are 'lesser-evolved'? They have evolved wings, reduced their weight so as to be buoyant, and thus removed the need to construct boats.
Birds have had millions of years to evolve since they were dinosaurs. If they had an advanced civilization back then, one can assume they would be even more advanced now.
Again, this conclusion does not follow. Why should "one assume" this? And what is your definition of 'advanced'?
-
Your counter-example is in the wrong order. The lesser-evolved should not in general have more advanced technique than their successorts. N-ADs should not be expected to have something the avians don't now. Prehistoric humans being less advanced than modern humans should not be expected to have more capabilities than modern humans.
Why do you conclude that birds are 'lesser-evolved'? They have evolved wings, reduced their weight so as to be buoyant, and thus removed the need to construct boats.
I did not conclude that birds are 'lesser-evolved'. The very concept that a sea-faring civilization is less evolved than modern birds is quite ridiculous. Boats serve more purposes than just transporting individual members of the civilization, including such as the USNSes Mercy's and Comfort's relief and aid.
-
Why do you conclude that birds are 'lesser-evolved'? They have evolved wings, reduced their weight so as to be buoyant, and thus removed the need to construct boats.
But this assumes that they had the need (or ability) to construct boats in the first place.
-
Your counter-example is in the wrong order. The lesser-evolved should not in general have more advanced technique than their successorts. N-ADs should not be expected to have something the avians don't now. Prehistoric humans being less advanced than modern humans should not be expected to have more capabilities than modern humans.
Why do you conclude that birds are 'lesser-evolved'? They have evolved wings, reduced their weight so as to be buoyant, and thus removed the need to construct boats.
I did not conclude that birds are 'lesser-evolved'. The very concept that a sea-faring civilization is less evolved than modern birds is quite ridiculous. Boats serve more purposes than just transporting individual members of the civilization, including such as the USNSes Mercy's and Comfort's relief and aid.
It is ridiculous to think that a sea-faring civilization is less evolved than a flying one? ???
The only reason why we still use boats is because they are more cost effective and can currently carry more than our aircraft can. If we could get massive air carriers that cost less than the ships, and could carry as much, I assure you we would be using them.
-
It is ridiculous to think that a sea-faring civilization is less evolved than a flying one? ???
The only reason why we still use boats is because they are more cost effective and can currently carry more than our aircraft can. If we could get massive air carriers that cost less than the ships, and could carry as much, I assure you we would be using them.
Note to EG: There is not any avian civilization, flying or not, so a sea-faring civilization is more evolved than modern birds. Please adjust the green dial on the left side of your special helmet to return to reality, and do it quickly before you think you're not wearing your helmet again!
-
It is ridiculous to think that a sea-faring civilization is less evolved than a flying one? ???
The only reason why we still use boats is because they are more cost effective and can currently carry more than our aircraft can. If we could get massive air carriers that cost less than the ships, and could carry as much, I assure you we would be using them.
Not necessarily. As you said, boats can carry more than aircraft, yet far more people cross oceans via aircraft than by ship. There is also a booming international air freight system that you shouldn't forget about. There is a balance between cost effectiveness and time sensitivity.
-
It is ridiculous to think that a sea-faring civilization is less evolved than a flying one? ???
The only reason why we still use boats is because they are more cost effective and can currently carry more than our aircraft can. If we could get massive air carriers that cost less than the ships, and could carry as much, I assure you we would be using them.
Not necessarily. As you said, boats can carry more than aircraft, yet far more people cross oceans via aircraft than by ship. There is also a booming international air freight system that you shouldn't forget about. There is a balance between cost effectiveness and time sensitivity.
That is rather my point though. Flying is far quicker, therefore if we were able to cut the costs of flight, would you not agree that most likely everything would be done through flight. This however, would have a greater need on on more advanced technologies. Hence why flying civilizations would be more advanced than sea faring ones.
-
It is ridiculous to think that a sea-faring civilization is less evolved than a flying one? ???
The only reason why we still use boats is because they are more cost effective and can currently carry more than our aircraft can. If we could get massive air carriers that cost less than the ships, and could carry as much, I assure you we would be using them.
Not necessarily. As you said, boats can carry more than aircraft, yet far more people cross oceans via aircraft than by ship. There is also a booming international air freight system that you shouldn't forget about. There is a balance between cost effectiveness and time sensitivity.
That is rather my point though. Flying is far quicker, therefore if we were able to cut the costs of flight, would you not agree that most likely everything would be done through flight. This however, would have a greater need on on more advanced technologies. Hence why flying civilizations would be more advanced than sea faring ones.
And that would be of interest IF there were another flight-capable civilization. There is not.
-
It is common sense. Would farmers be able to run communication, nuclear power, inter-continental transportation, sanitation, civil works, and everything else for all of society, or would they have to learn to take care of their basic needs?
No, but humans could.
-
Watching avian dinosaurs interact amongst each other in the trees is one of the most beautiful things I have ever watched. Indeed, if I did not need to eat and sleep, I could spend an entire week watching them (nonstop!) live in their advanced designated society/community with great content. Is there anything more touching?
-
Watching avian dinosaurs interact amongst each other in the trees is one of the most beautiful things I have ever watched. Indeed, if I did not need to eat and sleep, I could spend an entire week watching them (nonstop!) live in their advanced designated society/community with great content. Is there anything more touching?
I is quite sad whenever the societies war amongst each other. I cry every time. :'(
-
Birds also have art and beautiful music. Who is to say that we are more advanced than they are?
I would also like to point out that a bird's nest is very similar to a boat. If a dinosaur can build a boat-like nest, couldn't a dinosaur build a nest-like boat?
-
Birds also have art and beautiful music. Who is to say that we are more advanced than they are?
I would also like to point out that a bird's nest is very similar to a boat. If a dinosaur can build a boat-like nest, couldn't a dinosaur build a nest-like boat?
Now put that dino in a nest boat as see what happens lol.. Again evidence may help you here since you are relying on conjecture and ignorance for support. So as I said before, Pixie fairies killed the dinosaurs off long before they ever could become intelligent. GAH, don't you know your Pixie Dino history? Sheesh James, and we thought you were intelligent. ::)
-
That is rather my point though. Flying is far quicker, therefore if we were able to cut the costs of flight, would you not agree that most likely everything would be done through flight. This however, would have a greater need on on more advanced technologies. Hence why flying civilizations would be more advanced than sea faring ones.
It depends on living conditions and environment. You don't build sea faring civilization on place where there is no sea. And talking about speed and advanced technology then the civilization who teleport things would be more advanced than flying or sea faring ones.
-
That is rather my point though. Flying is far quicker, therefore if we were able to cut the costs of flight, would you not agree that most likely everything would be done through flight. This however, would have a greater need on on more advanced technologies. Hence why flying civilizations would be more advanced than sea faring ones.
It depends on living conditions and environment. You don't build sea faring civilization on place where there is no sea. And talking about speed and advanced technology then the civilization who teleport things would be more advanced than flying or sea faring ones.
All of your statements are correct. If there were any teleporting dinosaurs they would most certainly be more advanced than the flying ones.
-
That is rather my point though. Flying is far quicker, therefore if we were able to cut the costs of flight, would you not agree that most likely everything would be done through flight. This however, would have a greater need on on more advanced technologies. Hence why flying civilizations would be more advanced than sea faring ones.
It depends on living conditions and environment. You don't build sea faring civilization on place where there is no sea. And talking about speed and advanced technology then the civilization who teleport things would be more advanced than flying or sea faring ones.
All of your statements are correct. If there were any teleporting dinosaurs they would most certainly be more advanced than the flying ones.
Do you have proof that there weren't?
-
That is rather my point though. Flying is far quicker, therefore if we were able to cut the costs of flight, would you not agree that most likely everything would be done through flight. This however, would have a greater need on on more advanced technologies. Hence why flying civilizations would be more advanced than sea faring ones.
It depends on living conditions and environment. You don't build sea faring civilization on place where there is no sea. And talking about speed and advanced technology then the civilization who teleport things would be more advanced than flying or sea faring ones.
All of your statements are correct. If there were any teleporting dinosaurs they would most certainly be more advanced than the flying ones.
Do you have proof that there weren't?
Did I say I did? ???
-
That is rather my point though. Flying is far quicker, therefore if we were able to cut the costs of flight, would you not agree that most likely everything would be done through flight. This however, would have a greater need on on more advanced technologies. Hence why flying civilizations would be more advanced than sea faring ones.
It depends on living conditions and environment. You don't build sea faring civilization on place where there is no sea. And talking about speed and advanced technology then the civilization who teleport things would be more advanced than flying or sea faring ones.
All of your statements are correct. If there were any teleporting dinosaurs they would most certainly be more advanced than the flying ones.
Do you have proof that there weren't?
Did I say I did? ???
I thought I saw the implication, but guess there wasn't.
-
I would also like to point out that a bird's nest is very similar to a boat. If a dinosaur can build a boat-like nest, couldn't a dinosaur build a nest-like boat?
Boat-like nests are not the same as the sea faring naval armadas that you have proposed in this thread.
-
Protein sequencing of Tyrannosaurus remains in 2007 demonstrated their close phylogenetic relationship to modern birds: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/280.
Close relationship is not enough.
See "Sabre toothed tigers are not extinct" for details.
Also, thanks for reviving this thread. I hope to see more of the stuff you posted 20 pages back.
-
That is rather my point though. Flying is far quicker, therefore if we were able to cut the costs of flight, would you not agree that most likely everything would be done through flight. This however, would have a greater need on on more advanced technologies. Hence why flying civilizations would be more advanced than sea faring ones.
It depends on living conditions and environment. You don't build sea faring civilization on place where there is no sea. And talking about speed and advanced technology then the civilization who teleport things would be more advanced than flying or sea faring ones.
All of your statements are correct. If there were any teleporting dinosaurs they would most certainly be more advanced than the flying ones.
Do you have proof that there weren't?
Did I say I did? ???
I thought I saw the implication, but guess there wasn't.
My mistake if it came off that way. I was neither saying there was, nor wasn't teleporting dinosaurs. I was merely agreeing that yes, teleporting dinosaurs should be considered more advanced than flying dinosaurs.
I would also like to point out that a bird's nest is very similar to a boat. If a dinosaur can build a boat-like nest, couldn't a dinosaur build a nest-like boat?
Boat-like nests are not the same as the sea faring naval armadas that you have proposed in this thread.
An armada is merely a large fleet. Is it unlikely that Dinosaurs sailed together in large groups much like humans did for a large part of our history?
-
My mistake if it came off that way. I was neither saying there was, nor wasn't teleporting dinosaurs. I was merely agreeing that yes, teleporting dinosaurs should be considered more advanced than flying dinosaurs.
Very true Brother Engrish. We also need to recognise that jet powered Ichthyosaurs should be considered more advanced than swimming Ichthyosaurs due to the advanced nature of their propulsion, which may or may not have been diesel based.
-
My mistake if it came off that way. I was neither saying there was, nor wasn't teleporting dinosaurs. I was merely agreeing that yes, teleporting dinosaurs should be considered more advanced than flying dinosaurs.
Very true Brother Engrish. We also need to recognise that jet powered Ichthyosaurs should be considered more advanced than swimming Ichthyosaurs due to the advanced nature of their propulsion, which may or may not have been diesel based.
Clearly the Icthys progressed to jet propulsion as demonstrated by the advanced civilizations clearly recorded in the fossil records, They went far beyond diesel technology, /sarcasm
-
Very true Brother Engrish. We also need to recognise that jet powered Ichthyosaurs should be considered more advanced than swimming Ichthyosaurs due to the advanced nature of their propulsion, which may or may not have been diesel based.
I would say that the sea creatures are currently more advanced because they use jet propulsion systems for moving. Birds just flap their wings.
-
Very true Brother Engrish. We also need to recognise that jet powered Ichthyosaurs should be considered more advanced than swimming Ichthyosaurs due to the advanced nature of their propulsion, which may or may not have been diesel based.
I would say that the sea creatures are currently more advanced because they use jet propulsion systems for moving. Birds just flap their wings.
Let's not fail to give credit to the mammals, bats, whales, dolphins, etc. that use sophisticated echo-location for navigation! Obviously by James's reasoning whales must have had an advanced civilization too!
-
I would also like to point out that a bird's nest is very similar to a boat. If a dinosaur can build a boat-like nest, couldn't a dinosaur build a nest-like boat?
Boat-like nests are not the same as the sea faring naval armadas that you have proposed in this thread.
An armada is merely a large fleet. Is it unlikely that Dinosaurs sailed together in large groups much like humans did for a large part of our history?
How large of groups that dinosaurs may or may not have sailed in is irrelevant when no one has demonstrated that dinosaurs were capable of building sea worthy vessels.
-
But you can watch them do so today!
-
But you can watch them do so today!
Watch who do what today? ???
-
Can you watch dinosaurs build ocean-capable boats today?
I'd just like to point out to everyone that nobody has provided any evidence that dinosaurs were an advanced civilization, or that they were capable of building ocean-crossing boats.
-
Very true Brother Engrish. We also need to recognise that jet powered Ichthyosaurs should be considered more advanced than swimming Ichthyosaurs due to the advanced nature of their propulsion, which may or may not have been diesel based.
I would say that the sea creatures are currently more advanced because they use jet propulsion systems for moving. Birds just flap their wings.
Let's not fail to give credit to the mammals, bats, whales, dolphins, etc. that use sophisticated echo-location for navigation! Obviously by James's reasoning whales must have had an advanced civilization too!
Actually it's widely accepted by scientists that whales may or may not have had access to flame throwers at least up until the last ice age. It is quite likely that if they did indeed have access to suh technology then they would have used them for herding plankton.
-
Very true Brother Engrish. We also need to recognise that jet powered Ichthyosaurs should be considered more advanced than swimming Ichthyosaurs due to the advanced nature of their propulsion, which may or may not have been diesel based.
I would say that the sea creatures are currently more advanced because they use jet propulsion systems for moving. Birds just flap their wings.
Let's not fail to give credit to the mammals, bats, whales, dolphins, etc. that use sophisticated echo-location for navigation! Obviously by James's reasoning whales must have had an advanced civilization too!
Actually it's widely accepted by scientists that whales may or may not have had access to flame throwers at least up until the last ice age. It is quite likely that if they did indeed have access to suh technology then they would have used them for herding plankton.
I am so enlightened. Thanks brother!
What I love right now is how loosely the FEers use the term "civilization". Please show me any evidence of a non-human civilization. <cue Jeopardy! theme music>
-
Birds don't have a civilization capable of building ocean-crossing boats, therefore Dinosaurs didn't have them either.
Please, that conclusion in now way follows from the preceding statement. After all, pre-historic humans did not have a civilisation capable of building ocean-crossing boats, but it does not follow that modern humans do not have one.
Just like how humans can tape their figure together and build boats, but it does not follow that dinosaurs could do the same.
-
Very true Brother Engrish. We also need to recognise that jet powered Ichthyosaurs should be considered more advanced than swimming Ichthyosaurs due to the advanced nature of their propulsion, which may or may not have been diesel based.
I would say that the sea creatures are currently more advanced because they use jet propulsion systems for moving. Birds just flap their wings.
Let's not fail to give credit to the mammals, bats, whales, dolphins, etc. that use sophisticated echo-location for navigation! Obviously by James's reasoning whales must have had an advanced civilization too!
Actually it's widely accepted by scientists that whales may or may not have had access to flame throwers at least up until the last ice age. It is quite likely that if they did indeed have access to suh technology then they would have used them for herding plankton.
I am so enlightened. Thanks brother!
What I love right now is how loosely the FEers use the term "civilization". Please show me any evidence of a non-human civilization. <cue Jeopardy! theme music>
ITT prehistoric ants. You do know there is evidence that some members of their civilization used the mummification process long before the Egyptians?
-
What I love right now is how loosely the FEers use the term "civilization". Please show me any evidence of a non-human civilization. <cue Jeopardy! theme music>
ITT prehistoric ants. You do know there is evidence that some members of their civilization used the mummification process long before the Egyptians?
Sorry, you did not provide any evidence. Don Pardo, please tell our contestant about their lovely parting gifts. <cue Weird Al.>
-
Here is up-to-date photographic evidence of a dinosaur travelling on a wooden boat which it has built:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/3796999866_cb68a093b0.jpg)
-
Another victory for FE!!!!
-
That is not traveling on the ocean.
I'd just like to point out to everyone that nobody has provided any evidence that dinosaurs were an advanced civilization, or that they were capable of building ocean-crossing boats.
-
Here is up-to-date photographic evidence of a dinosaur travelling on a wooden boat which it has built:
Please demonstrate that it built that boat as you claim.
-
What kind of demonstration could possibly be offered? What form would that sort of evidence even take?
Your demands are completely unreasonable; any non-fundamentalist would quite rightly infer that the boat was built by the dinosaur. It is testament to your globularist fanaticism that you are unwilling to accept the truth when it is staring you right in the face (from aboard its boat).
-
What kind of demonstration could possibly be offered? What form would that sort of evidence even take?
Your demands are completely unreasonable; any non-fundamentalist would quite rightly infer that the boat was built by the dinosaur. It is testament to your globularist fanaticism that you are unwilling to accept the truth when it is staring you right in the face (from aboard its boat).
Please stop making claims then that you can't support. The existance of a boat does not mean that the current occupant it. I sit in a wonderful nome for example that I did not build. I suppose if I posted a photo of a birdhouse you'd agree that occupants built it. For shame, especially on the name calling. You're above that, and, as a mod, you should respect the rules. I am not a globular fanatic, and I insist you apologize.
-
The existance of a boat does not mean that the current occupant it. I sit in a wonderful nome
What is an existance, nome, and what is the current occupant doing to "it"?
I see your blatant globularism has affected your brain so strongly that you are now making up words in order to try and argue for RE.
-
I shall not apologize, because I am not calling you names, you are a globular fundamentalist, it is not a slur, it is a sincere observation about your beliefs.
Let's continue our analysis of the photograph, with respect to the points you have made. I appreciate that you did not build your own nome, however, one may look at your nome (presumably) and reasonably infer "this was built by a human". It bears, I assume, the hallmarks of human construction - the use of bricks, nails, and whatever else.
Since the boat in the picture is built in the style of other dinosaur buildings and structures which we can observe, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that was built, if not by the dinosaur which is occupying it, at least by a dinosaur. For comparison, here is a dinosaur tree-house built in very similar style:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/osprey1.jpg)
-
I'd just like to point out to everyone that nobody has provided any evidence that dinosaurs were an advanced civilization, or that they were capable of building ocean-crossing boats.
-
I shall not apologize, because I am not calling you names, you are a globular fundamentalist, it is not a slur, it is a sincere observation about your beliefs.
You called be a fanatic, sir. Do be honest. I am not a fanatic. You've insulted me and, especially as a mod, you should apologize. I am offended. If name calling in the upper forums continues, you damage that very goal of estiblishing a open climate of serious debate. Have you no shame, sir? None at all?
-
Let's continue our analysis of the photograph, with respect to the points you have made. I appreciate that you did not build your own nome, however, one may look at your nome (presumably) and reasonably infer "this was built by a human". It bears, I assume, the hallmarks of human construction - the use of bricks, nails, and whatever else.
Since the boat in the picture is built in the style of other dinosaur buildings and structures which we can observe, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that was built, if not by the dinosaur which is occupying it, at least by a dinosaur. For comparison, here is a dinosaur tree-house built in very similar style:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/osprey1.jpg)
I had thought you were dogplatter. Thanks for the confirmation.
When you're done making outlandish assumptions, do post your evidence. Please show us a avian dinosaur building a sea-faring boat. If you're sure such events happen, no doubt and without dreaming, you should be able to provide evidence. Of course, you might want to tell us the reason the bird would need a boat when you get a chance, and show us the bird using the boat in that manner.
-
Here is up-to-date photographic evidence of a dinosaur travelling on a wooden boat which it has built:
It's a bird, not dinosaur. And I just see that it sits on the nest which is on the water. No marks of traveling. It may well be built on the rock which is under the nest.
-
Let's continue our analysis of the photograph, with respect to the points you have made. I appreciate that you did not build your own nome, however, one may look at your nome (presumably) and reasonably infer "this was built by a human". It bears, I assume, the hallmarks of human construction - the use of bricks, nails, and whatever else.
Since the boat in the picture is built in the style of other dinosaur buildings and structures which we can observe, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that was built, if not by the dinosaur which is occupying it, at least by a dinosaur. For comparison, here is a dinosaur tree-house built in very similar style:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/osprey1.jpg)
I had thought you were dogplatter. Thanks for the confirmation.
When you're done making outlandish assumptions, do post your evidence. Please show us a avian dinosaur building a sea-faring boat. If you're sure such events happen, no doubt and without dreaming, you should be able to provide evidence. Of course, you might want to tell us the reason the bird would need a boat when you get a chance, and show us the bird using the boat in that manner.
Why would modern dinosaurs need to build boats when they can fly? ???
They would have no motivation to, therefore they wouldn't.
-
Why would modern dinosaurs need to build boats when they can fly? ???
They would have no motivation to, therefore they wouldn't.
So you agree that James's' claim is false. Thanks for the support.
By the way, I do find it odd that fish still build luxury yachts when they already have airliners.
-
Here is up-to-date photographic evidence of a dinosaur travelling on a wooden boat which it has built:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/3796999866_cb68a093b0.jpg)
Since when was a nest a boat?
-
Birds are considered dinosaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)
-
Birds are considered dinosaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)
Just like humans are considered fish. So do you have a point?
-
Birds are considered dinosaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)
Just like humans are considered fish. So do you have a point?
Yes, that birds are dinosaurs.
-
Birds are considered dinosaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)
Just like humans are considered fish. So do you have a point?
Evidence? Please point me to a site where humans are considered a type of fish.
-
Birds are considered dinosaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)
Just like humans are considered fish. So do you have a point?
Evidence? Please point me to a site where humans are considered a type of fish.
I've already posted a link to that. Please read what I post before asking me to repeat myself. In the same sense that avians are dinosaurs (since they evolved from dinosaurs), humans are fish (since we evolved from them).
-
Birds are considered dinosaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)
Just like humans are considered fish. So do you have a point?
Evidence? Please point me to a site where humans are considered a type of fish.
I've already posted a link to that. Please read what I post before asking me to repeat myself. In the same sense that avians are dinosaurs (since they evolved from dinosaurs), humans are fish (since we evolved from them).
While from that point that is true, humans are not considered fish by taxonomy. Birds on the other hand, are considered dinosaurs through this.
By your same logic, humans are also microwaves, since microwaves are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons just like humans are.
-
Birds are considered dinosaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)
Just like humans are considered fish. So do you have a point?
Evidence? Please point me to a site where humans are considered a type of fish.
I've already posted a link to that. Please read what I post before asking me to repeat myself. In the same sense that avians are dinosaurs (since they evolved from dinosaurs), humans are fish (since we evolved from them).
While from that point that is true, humans are not considered fish by taxonomy. Birds on the other hand, are considered dinosaurs through this.
By your same logic, humans are also microwaves, since microwaves are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons just like humans are.
Only if microwaves evolved.
-
How fascinating though it is to step back and see that the bird hipped [nonavian] dinosaurs weren't the ones [of the two major pubis hip bone divisions within dinosaur classifications] that avian dinosaurs came from! It was actually the lizard hipped Saurischia! Imagine all of the possible lifestyle changes <3
-
Why would modern dinosaurs need to build boats when they can fly? ???
They would have no motivation to, therefore they wouldn't.
Yet, apparently they still do:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/3796999866_cb68a093b0.jpg)
It takes a lot more energy to fly than to sail. That sounds like a valid incentive to me.
-
Why would modern dinosaurs need to build boats when they can fly? ???
They would have no motivation to, therefore they wouldn't.
Yet, apparently they still do:
It takes a lot more energy to fly than to sail. That sounds like a valid incentive to me.
Careful. If you tease him too much, he'll go to get his mommy.
-
I find it amusing that evolutionary globularists think it is plausible for a fish to start to walk on land and for a wolf to turn into a whale, yet they laugh at the notion of a reptillian relaxing in a floating nest for a few months.
-
for a wolf to turn into a whale
wat
Plus, evolution has evidence, dinosaurs building ocean-going boats does not.
-
Birds are considered dinosaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)
Just like humans are considered fish. So do you have a point?
Yes, that birds are dinosaurs.
Do your homework. As it is true if you want to be really pedantic and to use strict cladistical definition the common agreement is that in everyday language the term "dinosaurs" means only "non-avian" dinosaurs. And as I am not paleontologist I can quite freely say that if we talk about dinosaurs we don't talk about birds who live in these days. It's just confusing. As would be if I would start call birds the reptiles which is also true in cladistics point of view.
-
Birds are dinosaurs. Strange, but true.
-
Birds are dinosaurs. Strange, but true.
As it is true that the term "dinosaurs" in everyday language don't include birds. So its equally true that they are not dinosaurs.
-
Birds are dinosaurs. Strange, but true.
As it is true that the term "dinosaurs" in everyday language don't include birds. So its equally true that they are not dinosaurs.
I will concede that it is colloquially true that birds aren't included in the classification known as dinosaurs, while it's factually true that they are.
-
for a wolf to turn into a whale
wat
Plus, evolution has evidence, dinosaurs building ocean-going boats does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest_ancestors
-
Birds are considered dinosaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)
Just like humans are considered fish. So do you have a point?
Yes, that birds are dinosaurs.
Do your homework. As it is true if you want to be really pedantic and to use strict cladistical definition the common agreement is that in everyday language the term "dinosaurs" means only "non-avian" dinosaurs. And as I am not paleontologist I can quite freely say that if we talk about dinosaurs we don't talk about birds who live in these days. It's just confusing. As would be if I would start call birds the reptiles which is also true in cladistics point of view.
Are you saying we shouldn't be academic and accurate in the way we talk about things?
-
Are you saying we shouldn't be academic and accurate in the way we talk about things?
Are you an academic? If not then I don't see the point to dive in the sea of academic terms which are used only in specific scientific texts/talks. Maybe we should not talk about dinosaurs but about amniotes. Or Sauropsida. Or whatever else term we can find. I guess we can confuse the matter quite more and enjoy the mess.
-
for a wolf to turn into a whale
wat
Plus, evolution has evidence, dinosaurs building ocean-going boats does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest_ancestors
Unless early wolves had hoofs, that link does not support your claim that a wolves evolved into whales.
-
Are you saying we shouldn't be academic and accurate in the way we talk about things?
Are you academic? If not then I don't see the point to dive in the sea of academic terms which are used only in specific scientific texts/talks. Maybe we should not talk about dinosaurs but about amniotes. Or Sauropsida. Or whatever else term we can find. I guess we can confuse the matter quite more and enjoy the mess.
The correct term is Dinosauria. Sauropsida contains groups that are not dinosaurs.
Hence the most accurate way to describe what we are talking about is Dinosauria, or Dinosaur.
-
I find it amusing that evolutionary globularists think it is plausible for a fish to start to walk on land and for a wolf to turn into a whale, yet they laugh at the notion of a reptillian relaxing in a floating nest for a few months.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:rTBl0DRUsYRMMM:http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/DFL_ed_prelim/kinds/images_get_permission/african_lungfish.jpg&t=1)
Omg that fish is walking on land.
Also, no one claims that a wolf can "turn into a whale" at most it can pass altered genes to its children.
And no one has doubted a reptile's ability to "relax on a nest" what we are doubting is its ability to journey across an entire ocean in said nest.
-
Are you saying we shouldn't be academic and accurate in the way we talk about things?
Are you academic? If not then I don't see the point to dive in the sea of academic terms which are used only in specific scientific texts/talks. Maybe we should not talk about dinosaurs but about amniotes. Or Sauropsida. Or whatever else term we can find. I guess we can confuse the matter quite more and enjoy the mess.
The correct term is Dinosauria. Sauropsida contains groups that are not dinosaurs.
Hence the most accurate way to describe what we are talking about is Dinosauria, or Dinosaur.
If you talk who are the dinosaurs but as I see it the talk is also going in that way as what are the birds and birds are in the Sauropsida group. Wikipedia has nice picture with duck and tortoise who both are in the Sauropsida group. So I can talk also about Sauropsida's to confuse the matters more.
-
Are you saying we shouldn't be academic and accurate in the way we talk about things?
Are you academic? If not then I don't see the point to dive in the sea of academic terms which are used only in specific scientific texts/talks. Maybe we should not talk about dinosaurs but about amniotes. Or Sauropsida. Or whatever else term we can find. I guess we can confuse the matter quite more and enjoy the mess.
The correct term is Dinosauria. Sauropsida contains groups that are not dinosaurs.
Hence the most accurate way to describe what we are talking about is Dinosauria, or Dinosaur.
If you talk who are the dinosaurs but as I see it the talk is also going in that way as what are the birds and birds are in the Sauropsida group. Wikipedia has nice picture with duck and tortoise who both are in the Sauropsida group. So I can talk also about Sauropsida's to confuse the matters more.
We are talking about Dinosaurs so that is irrelevant. It is wrong to talk about Sauropsidas since not all Sauropsidas are dinosaurs.
-
for a wolf to turn into a whale
wat
Plus, evolution has evidence, dinosaurs building ocean-going boats does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest_ancestors
Unless early wolves had hoofs, that link does not support your claim that a wolves evolved into whales.
I am not making the claim that wolves evolved into whales.
-
Birds are dinosaurs? I wouldn't say yes to that, actually there are clearer examples if you want to think that dinosaurs didn't go extinct.
Sharks.
Crocodiles.
-
We are talking about Dinosaurs so that is irrelevant. It is wrong to talk about Sauropsidas since not all Sauropsidas are dinosaurs.
But all birds and dinosaurs are Sauropsidas. As the purpose is to confuse people(referring to the birds as dinosaurs) then why not talk about something else, like Sauropsidas or reptiles.
-
for a wolf to turn into a whale
wat
Plus, evolution has evidence, dinosaurs building ocean-going boats does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest_ancestors
Unless early wolves had hoofs, that link does not support your claim that a wolves evolved into whales.
I am not making the claim that wolves evolved into whales.
Then why did you bring it up?
-
for a wolf to turn into a whale
wat
Plus, evolution has evidence, dinosaurs building ocean-going boats does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest_ancestors
Unless early wolves had hoofs, that link does not support your claim that a wolves evolved into whales.
I am not making the claim that wolves evolved into whales.
Then why did you bring it up?
Because certain evolutionary biologists have proposed wolf-like (according to "science" wolves are recent) creatures evolved into whales.
-
for a wolf to turn into a whale
wat
Plus, evolution has evidence, dinosaurs building ocean-going boats does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest_ancestors
Unless early wolves had hoofs, that link does not support your claim that a wolves evolved into whales.
I am not making the claim that wolves evolved into whales.
Then why did you bring it up?
Because certain evolutionary biologists have proposed wolf-like (according to "science" wolves are recent) creatures evolved into whales.
But that isn't what you said. Please make up your mind and keep your story straight. ::)
-
Because certain evolutionary biologists have proposed wolf-like (according to "science" wolves are recent) creatures evolved into whales.
Those evolutionary biologists did not say "an animal just like a wolf". They probably said "a four legged animal the approximate size of a wolf".
Wolves and the whole "Canis" family is just about 6 to 8 million years old, while the last land based ancestor of the whales is about 55 million years old.
If you are going to say that the fossil record does not disprove whatever story you like to invent, the least you can do is accept this simple fact about the fossil record.
-
Have you considered the possibility that the essence of a wolf is in fact not phylogenetic, but based rather on its dimensions, appearance and behaviour?
-
Have you considered the possibility that the essence of a wolf is in fact not phylogenetic, but based rather on its dimensions, appearance and behaviour?
Gee, that's just what he said. I wonder what your problem is.
-
Have you considered the possibility that the essence of a wolf is in fact not phylogenetic, but based rather on its dimensions, appearance and behaviour?
If only the biological definition of a species requires the ability to interbreed in animals capable of sexual reproduction.
-
In what circumstances would it be possible to try and interbreed a prehistoric wolf with a modern one? It seems that we are in need of a Jurassic Park - or perhaps an Eocene Park for these two types of wolves to intermingle.
-
In what circumstances would it be possible to try and interbreed a prehistoric wolf with a modern one? It seems that we are in need of a Jurassic Park - or perhaps an Eocene Park for these two types of wolves to intermingle.
Your claim was that phylogeny doesn't matter, but by definition it does.
-
Oh, no, I think you misunderstood my point. I was just curious as to whether the possibility had been considered. I am happy that the variety of ways in which we use the word "wolf" is a loose cloud of applications with no single defining feature.
-
Oh, no, I think you misunderstood my point. I was just curious as to whether the possibility had been considered. I am happy that the variety of ways in which we use the word "wolf" is a loose cloud of applications with no single defining feature.
There are really few things less important than your opinion on the variety of ways in which the word "wolf" is used.
There is a real species which has been extensively studied, called "canis lupus", which has existed for about 6 to 8 million years. There is a real order, called Cetacea, which includes all whales. It has existed for about 50 million years. There is no relationship between them except for the fact that they are both mammals and their ancestors were land dwelling mammals.
All the other 'ways in which we use the word "wolf"' have little to do with the actual animals and a lot to do with the cheap philosophical arguments that FE'rs like so much.
-
Yes, and as I have hopefully communicated, the modern wolf is one of they ways in which we generally use the word wolf, and the ancient wolf, which evolved into the modern whale, is another!
-
Yes, and as I have hopefully communicated, the modern wolf is one of they ways in which we generally use the word wolf, and the ancient wolf, which evolved into the modern whale, is another!
Please show us any scientific article that claims wolf evolved into the modern whale. Oh is asking you for evidence even worth the trouble? You don't seem to care much for providing it.
-
Yes, and as I have hopefully communicated, the modern wolf is one of they ways in which we generally use the word wolf, and the ancient wolf, which evolved into the modern whale, is another!
Please be less vague, you just said wolf has no real meaning other than some vague concept.
-
Yes, and as I have hopefully communicated, the modern wolf is one of they ways in which we generally use the word wolf, and the ancient wolf, which evolved into the modern whale, is another!
Please show us any scientific article that claims wolf evolved into the modern whale. Oh is asking you for evidence even worth the trouble? You don't seem to care much for providing it.
And please let us all beg James to show us his time machine, which he apparently has used to transport the 8 million year old ancient wolves to the Paleocene, some 55 million years ago, so that they could become the ancestors of the whales.
Is James even going to acknowledge his blatant trolling ways?
-
Yes, and as I have hopefully communicated, the modern wolf is one of they ways in which we generally use the word wolf, and the ancient wolf, which evolved into the modern whale, is another!
Saying that wolves and whales had a common ancestor is one thing. Saying that wolves evolved into whales is quite different.
-
You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.
This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.
-
You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.
This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.
So can you provide any evidence that anyone else has ever said that "wolves evolved into whales" or not? Can we trust anything you say, or not?
-
Can we trust anything you say, or not?
You must be new here.
-
Can we trust anything you say, or not?
You must be new here.
Point taken.
-
You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.
This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.
So can you provide any evidence that anyone else has ever said that "wolves evolved into whales" or not? Can we trust anything you say, or not?
Yes, Johannes also said it on the previous page. As long as he does not delete his post, you are free to review it at any time!
-
You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.
This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.
So can you provide any evidence that anyone else has ever said that "wolves evolved into whales" or not? Can we trust anything you say, or not?
Yes, Johannes also said it on the previous page. As long as he does not delete his post, you are free to review it at any time!
LOL, Now seriously. Do you just make things up or do you have any evidence?
-
You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.
This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.
*sigh* I can't see how referring to the common ancestor of wolves and whales as a wolf is correct in any application.
-
You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.
This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.
So can you provide any evidence that anyone else has ever said that "wolves evolved into whales" or not? Can we trust anything you say, or not?
Yes, Johannes also said it on the previous page. As long as he does not delete his post, you are free to review it at any time!
Another lie.
I am not making the claim that wolves evolved into whales.
-
Yes, Johannes also said it on the previous page. As long as he does not delete his post, you are free to review it at any time!
This is hilarious. A troll quoting a FE'r who is most probably a troll too.
I am almost certain that the most prominent "FE'rs" decided a few months ago to throw in the towel and become blatant, unrepentant trolls. That is when Ichi became the world renowned injured plant expert, and another one (please remember me his name) decided that charcoal and ink are in on the conspiracy, just to name a few.
-
If you have a problem with what we're saying, nobody is forcing you to read what we publish on this website!
-
If you have a problem with what we're saying, nobody is forcing you to read what we publish on this website!
No one forces us to read what you publish on this website, regardless of any problem we might have with its accuracy.
No one forces you to face the reality of our questions or critiques either. You just look silly, posting about your dreams, for example.
-
You are the one posting about my dreams, not me. We should get back to the topic at hand, which is whether or not whales evolved from wolves.
-
I happened back into this thread and took a search of the wolf/whale issue. There does appear plenty of evidence that the ancient wolf was a precursor of the modern whale. I am just the messenger of this information. A search to each their own will prove this out.
-
Yes, I concur. We may rightly say that whales evolved from ancient wolves.
-
Agreed, surprisingly
-
You are the one posting about my dreams, not me. We should get back to the topic at hand, which is whether or not whales evolved from wolves.
Whales did not evolve from wolves. However, wolves and whales did have a common ancestor that was neither wolf nor whale.
-
You are the one posting about my dreams, not me. We should get back to the topic at hand, which is whether or not whales evolved from wolves.
You have posted about your dreams and used them as evidence. I've already challenged you to provide any support for your outlandish claim that whales evolved from ancient wolves. I renew the challenge. Perhaps you'll dream up an answer overnight.
-
I've noticed James ignored the part where I pointed out his lie.
-
I've noticed James ignored the part where I pointed out his lie.
True. He seems to shy away for such portents of reality, like a vampire from sunlight. I guess the Truth pains him.
-
Saying that dinosaurs exist is like saying unicorns exist just a bunch of hogwash
-
Saying that dinosaurs exist is like saying unicorns exist just a bunch of hogwash
I searched the internet on your unicorn claim and could not find evidence of contemporary examples but there are certain anomalies existent where that claim is made. There are, however, examples of contemporary dinosaurs (if you will) on the net and ITT.
-
Saying that dinosaurs exist is like saying unicorns exist just a bunch of hogwash
I searched the internet on your unicorn claim and could not find evidence of contemporary examples but there are certain anomalies existent where that claim is made. There are, however, examples of contemporary dinosaurs (if you will) on the net and ITT.
That's right. If you take the non-colloquial use of the term 'dinosaurs', you'll find that loophole. With the same loophole, I call gotham a lungfish. <yawn>
-
That's right. If you take the non-colloquial use of the term 'dinosaurs', you'll find that loophole.
God forbid we are scientific at the FES.
-
"Contemporary dinosaurs"?
-
"Contemporary dinosaurs"?
Contemporary dinosaurs (if you will)...only to differentiate them from extinct dinosaurs.
-
You realise 'dinosaur' is Latin for 'extinct lizard', right?
-
You realise 'dinosaur' is Latin for 'extinct lizard', right?
The Latin translation of extinct lizard becomes Lacerta extincta.
-
You realise 'dinosaur' is Latin for 'extinct lizard', right?
No, 'dinosaur' is Greek for 'terrible (dire) lizard'.
-
It doesn't matter what the etymology of the word is; all the dinosaurs are extinct. Reptiles today may be related to dinosaurs, but that doesn't make them dinosaurs. Is a house cat a "contemporary sabre-toothed tiger"? Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
-
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.
-
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.
That is a ridiculous theory.
-
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.
That is a ridiculous theory.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
-
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.
That is a ridiculous theory.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
Damn it! I hate being proven wrong.
-
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.
That is a ridiculous theory.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
Damn it! I hate being proven wrong.
That's cause you're dumb and you post dumb things.
-
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.
That is a ridiculous theory.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
Damn it! I hate being proven wrong.
I don't think anything has been proven, still just a strong theory.
-
They told me the exact opposite when I was in school. Damn these new theories.
-
It doesn't matter what the etymology of the word is; all the dinosaurs are extinct. Reptiles today may be related to dinosaurs, but that doesn't make them dinosaurs. Is a house cat a "contemporary sabre-toothed tiger"? Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
Nobody is claiming that modern reptiles are dinosaurs - they aren't. Modern birds are dinosaurs.
Saying that dinosaurs exist is like saying unicorns exist just a bunch of hogwash
A rhinoceros is a species of unicorn. Do you claim that the rhinoceros does not exist?
-
Nobody is claiming that modern reptiles are dinosaurs - they aren't. Modern birds are dinosaurs.
The tree of life that gives itself a reach around?
Tell us more James/
-
Avians are direct descendants of dromaeosaurids. There is no genealogical "reach around".
-
Wait, rhinos are a breed of unicorn? Please explain more. Also, check your facts when it comes to whales evolving from wolves, I think you'll find yourself wrong. I believe it was a "wolf sized carnivore" with a skull similar to a whale that they found. You should spend more time on the anti-moon and the sun putting fires out.
-
Avians are direct descendants of dromaeosaurids. There is no genealogical "reach around".
Direct descendent /= the same.
Even for you James this fail is epic. Any more?
-
Question:
As far as I know, and I might be wrong, White sharks and Crocodiles haven't evolved much in the last thousand years, could we say that at least crocodiles are dinosaurs?
-
No, they are crocodiles and sharks! Why would they be dinosaurs?
-
No, they are crocodiles and sharks! Why would they be dinosaurs?
I'm going to go with the claim that James evolved from crocodiles and sharks.
-
No, they are crocodiles and sharks! Why would they be dinosaurs?
K, forget the sharks, let's keep with the crocodiles, they have been existing since the time of the dinosaurs as we all understand it, only that they were bigger, or had larger mouths, and during all this time, they have just shrinked, but their anatomy is the same that back then. And they are reptiles, cold blood, carnivores... So I think that they are dinosaurs that have survived until our days.
Or do they just don't fit into the definition of "dinosaur"? I think they do. If not I'd like to read why.
I would look for it myself, but it's 3:50 in the night, I just came from a party and I'm going to sleep, so I'll be glad to read about it tomorrow. Good night!
-
Actually Kira-SY, is commonly know that birds are more direct desendents of dinosaurs than crocodiles.
-
Aye aye, I know, but those are the dinos that evolved, Crocodiles didn't.
-
Aye aye, I know, but those are the dinos that evolved, Crocodiles didn't.
They did too.
-
Aye aye, I know, but those are the dinos that evolved, Crocodiles didn't.
Sure they did. Are you suggesting that the exact same species of crocodile lives today as did millions of years ago?
-
Aye aye, I know, but those are the dinos that evolved, Crocodiles didn't.
Sure they did. Are you suggesting that the exact same species of crocodile lives today as did millions of years ago?
Please provide evidence to support your outlandish claim. Surely you haven't personally attempted to interbred every single crocodile of millions of years ago with every live crocodile. (I only make this claim based on your challenge about asking everyone whether they believe that the Earth is round before saying that the majority believe it so.)
-
(I only make this claim based on your challenge about asking everyone whether they believe that the Earth is round before saying that the majority believe it so.)
I challenged his claim because in many third world countries, many people are such horrid conditions, i seriously doubt they have considered the shape of the Earth, or have any clue why it should be a certain shape.
They have other things that they are thinking about, like, where their next meal is going to come from, or how not tot get shot be the local warlord. I seriously doubt many of these people have even considered the shape of the Earth, so to say the majority of the world thinks a certain way is ludicrous when part of the world doesn't even get the luxury to sit around and thing about such things.
-
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms
-
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms
Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.
Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
All organisms evolve.
-
I see your point. Thanks.
-
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
Mutating /= evolving.
-
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms
Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.
Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.
-
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
Mutating /= evolving.
Actually, it is (or can be). Although relatively uncommon, occasionally mutations will produce a competitive advantage in an organism. The ability for humans to digest lactose in cow's milk is an example of such a mutation.
-
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
Mutating /= evolving.
if it is passed on it does.
-
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms
Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.
Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.
Lol, a terminal species?
An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
-
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
Mutating /= evolving.
if it is passed on it does.
Conditional is not equivalence.
-
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms
Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.
Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.
Lol, a terminal species?
An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?
Reference: terminal species usage (http://books.google.com/books?id=I-RgojcDyWYC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=evolution+'terminal+species'&source=bl&ots=iJZyBec50e&sig=gl9NjRaLrDNesCHF8HiKk_2TMrM&hl=en&ei=QyrgTI24HMPflgeopOCvAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=evolution%20'terminal%20species'&f=false),
-
Since the book you quoted did not use it in any meaningful context, and I do not remember this term, I'd appreciate it if you'd enlighten me on species that do not evolve.
-
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms
Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.
Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.
Lol, a terminal species?
An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?
Reference: terminal species usage (http://books.google.com/books?id=I-RgojcDyWYC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=evolution+'terminal+species'&source=bl&ots=iJZyBec50e&sig=gl9NjRaLrDNesCHF8HiKk_2TMrM&hl=en&ei=QyrgTI24HMPflgeopOCvAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=evolution%20'terminal%20species'&f=false),
lol, nice fail Clocktower. Now perhaps you could actually provide a link that explains what a "terminal species" is, because that one provides absolutely no relevant information, and a google search seems to come up empty in terms of actually providing a definition of the term.
-
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms
Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.
Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.
Lol, a terminal species?
An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?
Reference: terminal species usage (http://books.google.com/books?id=I-RgojcDyWYC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=evolution+'terminal+species'&source=bl&ots=iJZyBec50e&sig=gl9NjRaLrDNesCHF8HiKk_2TMrM&hl=en&ei=QyrgTI24HMPflgeopOCvAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=evolution%20'terminal%20species'&f=false),
lol, nice fail Clocktower. Now perhaps you could actually provide a link that explains what a "terminal species" is, because that one provides absolutely no relevant information, and a google search seems to come up empty in terms of actually providing a definition of the term.
Since you know how to use Google, I'll leave it to you to educate yourself. Did you remember to put "terminal species" in quotes in the Google search parameters? Enjoy your journey of discovery.
-
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms
Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.
Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.
All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.
Lol, a terminal species?
An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?
Reference: terminal species usage (http://books.google.com/books?id=I-RgojcDyWYC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=evolution+'terminal+species'&source=bl&ots=iJZyBec50e&sig=gl9NjRaLrDNesCHF8HiKk_2TMrM&hl=en&ei=QyrgTI24HMPflgeopOCvAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=evolution%20'terminal%20species'&f=false),
lol, nice fail Clocktower. Now perhaps you could actually provide a link that explains what a "terminal species" is, because that one provides absolutely no relevant information, and a google search seems to come up empty in terms of actually providing a definition of the term.
Since you know how to use Google, I'll leave it to you to educate yourself. Did you remember to put "terminal species" in quotes in the Google search parameters? Enjoy your journey of discovery.
I tried this and got nothing. :( Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
-
I tried this and got nothing. :( Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.
-
I tried this and got nothing. :( Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.
You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate. Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
-
I tried this and got nothing. :( Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.
You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate. Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?
-
I tried this and got nothing. :( Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.
You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate. Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?
Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
-
I tried this and got nothing. :( Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.
You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate. Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?
Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.
-
I tried this and got nothing. :( Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.
You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate. Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?
Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.
Just show me which one I can link to that will show me the definition of terminal species.
-
I tried this and got nothing. :( Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.
You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate. Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?
Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.
Just show me which one I can link to that will show me the definition of terminal species.
Sorry Roundy, but I'm going to have to go with ClockTower on this one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lzXiyPbJ594C&lpg=PA126&ots=JhKFFxMO-n&dq=%22terminal%20species%22&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q=%22terminal%20species%22&f=false
-
Sorry Roundy, but I'm going to have to go with ClockTower on this one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lzXiyPbJ594C&lpg=PA126&ots=JhKFFxMO-n&dq=%22terminal%20species%22&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q=%22terminal%20species%22&f=false
Notice the definite article in the beginning of the sentence.
-
I tried this and got nothing. :( Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.
You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate. Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?
Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.
Just show me which one I can link to that will show me the definition of terminal species.
Sorry Roundy, but I'm going to have to go with ClockTower on this one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lzXiyPbJ594C&lpg=PA126&ots=JhKFFxMO-n&dq=%22terminal%20species%22&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q=%22terminal%20species%22&f=false
markjo, I'm sorry, but fail. That link has nothing to do with evolution.
-
There are families of organisms and even genus that have remained almost unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
Case in point, Limulidae, the horseshoe crabs
-
I type in ""Terminal species" evolution" and " "Terminal species"biology" and the most I got was references to amino acids.
It seems Clocktower completely made something up. For shame!
-
I type in ""Terminal species" evolution" and " "Terminal species"biology" and the most I got was references to amino acids.
It seems Clocktower completely made something up. For shame!
Reference: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf (http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf) p. 6.
-
markjo, I'm sorry, but fail. That link has nothing to do with evolution.
Are you suggesting that genetics, and the associated chemical reactions, have nothing to do with evolution? ???
-
markjo, I'm sorry, but fail. That link has nothing to do with evolution.
Are you suggesting that genetics, and the associated chemical reactions, have nothing to do with evolution? ???
Why do I not get any results when I search for the word "genetics?"
-
markjo, I'm sorry, but fail. That link has nothing to do with evolution.
Are you suggesting that genetics, and the associated chemical reactions, have nothing to do with evolution? ???
Why do I not get any results when I search for the word "genetics?"
That isn't what I asked you.
-
markjo, look:
All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.
Clocktower was clearly stating that there are organisms that don't evolve referred to as "terminal species". This link discusses no such thing. So even if this article is about genetics and its associated chemical reactions (I'll be the first to admit that I'm no biologist, and the language is frankly giving me a headache), it's irrelevant.
-
So... you can't enlighten me on the issue clocktower?
If you can't understand your own statements, how can I?
-
I'm pretty sure he has stopped responding because he has realized how wrong he was.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ENGLSHGENTLEMAN/ROUNDY/PARSEC!!!!
-
omg, you are stupid :)
-
So... you can't enlighten me on the issue clocktower?
If you can't understand your own statements, how can I?
What don't you understand about the existence of terminal species? Do you doubt that they exist? Do you believe that they have evolved into a new species?
I really can't help your ignorance unless you can tell me what your difficulty is.
-
So... you can't enlighten me on the issue clocktower?
If you can't understand your own statements, how can I?
What don't you understand about the existence of terminal species? Do you doubt that they exist? Do you believe that they have evolved into a new species?
I really can't help your ignorance unless you can tell me what your difficulty is.
Whoah whoah whoah. We were talking about evolution, not speciation.
Please explain what you mean by terminal species though.
-
So... you can't enlighten me on the issue clocktower?
If you can't understand your own statements, how can I?
What don't you understand about the existence of terminal species? Do you doubt that they exist? Do you believe that they have evolved into a new species?
I really can't help your ignorance unless you can tell me what your difficulty is.
Whoah whoah whoah. We were talking about evolution, not speciation.
Please explain what you mean by terminal species though.
Tell me what you mean by "All organisms evolve" then. Do you mean that every individual organism evolves? I took your statement that way. Perhaps you meant "All species, given time, will evolve."?
I've already provide a link to a good explanation about terminal species. Did you have a question about it?
I type in ""Terminal species" evolution" and " "Terminal species"biology" and the most I got was references to amino acids.
It seems Clocktower completely made something up. For shame!
Reference: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf (http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf) p. 6.
-
So... you can't enlighten me on the issue clocktower?
If you can't understand your own statements, how can I?
What don't you understand about the existence of terminal species? Do you doubt that they exist? Do you believe that they have evolved into a new species?
I really can't help your ignorance unless you can tell me what your difficulty is.
Whoah whoah whoah. We were talking about evolution, not speciation.
Please explain what you mean by terminal species though.
Tell me what you mean by "All organisms evolve" then. Do you mean that every individual organism evolves? I took your statement that way. Perhaps you meant "All species, given time, will evolve."?
I've already provide a link to a good explanation about terminal species. Did you have a question about it?
I type in ""Terminal species" evolution" and " "Terminal species"biology" and the most I got was references to amino acids.
It seems Clocktower completely made something up. For shame!
Reference: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf (http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf) p. 6.
I'm not asking for a link, I'm asking for a definition. Your link had no meaningful context for the word.
Also, don't be silly, a single organism can't evolve. How exactly does one pass on traits to themselves?
I meant that all species given time will have a change in genotype providing with at minimum a slightly changed phenotype.
-
So... you can't enlighten me on the issue clocktower?
If you can't understand your own statements, how can I?
What don't you understand about the existence of terminal species? Do you doubt that they exist? Do you believe that they have evolved into a new species?
I really can't help your ignorance unless you can tell me what your difficulty is.
Whoah whoah whoah. We were talking about evolution, not speciation.
Please explain what you mean by terminal species though.
Tell me what you mean by "All organisms evolve" then. Do you mean that every individual organism evolves? I took your statement that way. Perhaps you meant "All species, given time, will evolve."?
I've already provide a link to a good explanation about terminal species. Did you have a question about it?
I type in ""Terminal species" evolution" and " "Terminal species"biology" and the most I got was references to amino acids.
It seems Clocktower completely made something up. For shame!
Reference: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf (http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf) p. 6.
I'm not asking for a link, I'm asking for a definition. Your link had no meaningful context for the word.
Also, don't be silly, a single organism can't evolve. How exactly does one pass on traits to themselves?
I meant that all species given time will have a change in genotype providing with at minimum a slightly changed phenotype.
So you're changing your statement. Thanks for admitting that you were wrong. I wonder why you took so long to correct your statement.
Here's the definition from the link (maybe your browser is broken?):
An extant (i.e. terminal) species may be regarded as a time-extended historical individual, but I see no need to call a terminal species monophyletic by convention. An ancestral (i.e. non-terminal) species is obviously non-monophyletic, but little is gained from calling it monophyletic by convention.
-
Clocktower, I don't think I agree with you on this one. I do agree that if conditions never change that a species would never have to evolve, but how often does that happen? In an example, if a desert remained a desert for hundreds of millions of years, the species living within the desert wouldn't need to change. Now, if the Earth's environment changed, and that desert suddenly got 50 inches of rain a year, those cactus and other various living organisms had better change quickly or face extinction. A cactus with that much rain would have so many problems. One of them being the fact that cactus like the Saguaro have roots that extend much farthe under the Earth than other plants, absorbing as much water as possible. Another would be the thorns, which not only act as a defense mechanism but they don't release water as much as a leaf would. So the cactus, which is used to about 5 inches of rain a year is now getting 10 times that. It would have to adapt or face extinction. If the cactus did in fact go extinct, now you have a slew of animals that have evolved to rely on the cactus for home and food. Once again, adapt or face extinction. So I don't believe there is a species "perfect enough" to not be part of evolution, nor will there ever be. Everything evolves.
-
Clocktower, I don't think I agree with you on this one. I do agree that if conditions never change that a species would never have to evolve, but how often does that happen? In an example, if a desert remained a desert for hundreds of millions of years, the species living within the desert wouldn't need to change. Now, if the Earth's environment changed, and that desert suddenly got 50 inches of rain a year, those cactus and other various living organisms had better change quickly or face extinction. A cactus with that much rain would have so many problems. One of them being the fact that cactus like the Saguaro have roots that extend much farthe under the Earth than other plants, absorbing as much water as possible. Another would be the thorns, which not only act as a defense mechanism but they don't release water as much as a leaf would. So the cactus, which is used to about 5 inches of rain a year is now getting 10 times that. It would have to adapt or face extinction. If the cactus did in fact go extinct, now you have a slew of animals that have evolved to rely on the cactus for home and food. Once again, adapt or face extinction. So I don't believe there is a species "perfect enough" to not be part of evolution, nor will there ever be. Everything evolves.
I appreciate your position, but extant species certainly exist, though they are much smaller in number than non-terminal ones. There are 'dead-ends', species that died off before they evolved. There are persistent, still living species that haven't evolved in thousands of years.
However, I offer that all this is now moot. Raist has recanted his claim that "All organisms evolve.".
-
Correct, but thousands of years isn't exactly enough time for a species to evolve unless needed. I mean, humans who live in higher elevations are born with a higher number of red blood cells than those living in lower ones, but humans haven't exactly evolved a lot over the last few thousand years. Also, why would a species evolve if they don't need to at the time? A crocodile living in a hot, humid, swampy area that has been that way for thousands of years doesn't need to evolve anymore until their habitat changes drastically.
-
Correct, but thousands of years isn't exactly enough time for a species to evolve unless needed. I mean, humans who live in higher elevations are born with a higher number of red blood cells than those living in lower ones, but humans haven't exactly evolved a lot over the last few thousand years. Also, why would a species evolve if they don't need to at the time? A crocodile living in a hot, humid, swampy area that has been that way for thousands of years doesn't need to evolve anymore until their habitat changes drastically.
And Raist's post did not require that a species survive for that long, and thus was wrong. That's my point.
-
So... you can't enlighten me on the issue clocktower?
If you can't understand your own statements, how can I?
What don't you understand about the existence of terminal species? Do you doubt that they exist? Do you believe that they have evolved into a new species?
I really can't help your ignorance unless you can tell me what your difficulty is.
Whoah whoah whoah. We were talking about evolution, not speciation.
Please explain what you mean by terminal species though.
Tell me what you mean by "All organisms evolve" then. Do you mean that every individual organism evolves? I took your statement that way. Perhaps you meant "All species, given time, will evolve."?
I've already provide a link to a good explanation about terminal species. Did you have a question about it?
I type in ""Terminal species" evolution" and " "Terminal species"biology" and the most I got was references to amino acids.
It seems Clocktower completely made something up. For shame!
Reference: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf (http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf) p. 6.
I'm not asking for a link, I'm asking for a definition. Your link had no meaningful context for the word.
Also, don't be silly, a single organism can't evolve. How exactly does one pass on traits to themselves?
I meant that all species given time will have a change in genotype providing with at minimum a slightly changed phenotype.
So you're changing your statement. Thanks for admitting that you were wrong. I wonder why you took so long to correct your statement.
Here's the definition from the link (maybe your browser is broken?):
An extant (i.e. terminal) species may be regarded as a time-extended historical individual, but I see no need to call a terminal species monophyletic by convention. An ancestral (i.e. non-terminal) species is obviously non-monophyletic, but little is gained from calling it monophyletic by convention.
So you were wrong? Got it.
And no, I wasn't wrong, I didn't say a single organism evolves, I said all of them do.
There's a large difference.
-
So you were wrong? Got it.
And no, I wasn't wrong, I didn't say a single organism evolves, I said all of them do.
There's a large difference.
1) Where was I wrong?
2) Do tell us about this large difference. If all organisms (Let's number them 1 to 10^20) evolve, which single organism doesn't (Please provide a number not in the set of all organisms.)? Thanks.
-
Clocktower, I don't think I agree with you on this one. I do agree that if conditions never change that a species would never have to evolve, but how often does that happen? In an example, if a desert remained a desert for hundreds of millions of years, the species living within the desert wouldn't need to change. Now, if the Earth's environment changed, and that desert suddenly got 50 inches of rain a year, those cactus and other various living organisms had better change quickly or face extinction. A cactus with that much rain would have so many problems. One of them being the fact that cactus like the Saguaro have roots that extend much farthe under the Earth than other plants, absorbing as much water as possible. Another would be the thorns, which not only act as a defense mechanism but they don't release water as much as a leaf would. So the cactus, which is used to about 5 inches of rain a year is now getting 10 times that. It would have to adapt or face extinction. If the cactus did in fact go extinct, now you have a slew of animals that have evolved to rely on the cactus for home and food. Once again, adapt or face extinction. So I don't believe there is a species "perfect enough" to not be part of evolution, nor will there ever be. Everything evolves.
Being from the Southwest, I can tell you what happens to Cacti when they get seriously excess water.
1. They swell up like balloons and eventually topple over because their root systems can't support them, thus crashing through you front wall of your house into your living room. (Happened to a neighbor)
2. They swell up like balloons and rupture. (Not as cool looking as it would sound)
-
We could move the cacti to higher ground. That way, they would be safe from the water.
-
We could move the cacti to higher ground. That way, they would be safe from the water.
Thanks for contributing James.
-
Clocktower, I don't think I agree with you on this one. I do agree that if conditions never change that a species would never have to evolve, but how often does that happen? In an example, if a desert remained a desert for hundreds of millions of years, the species living within the desert wouldn't need to change. Now, if the Earth's environment changed, and that desert suddenly got 50 inches of rain a year, those cactus and other various living organisms had better change quickly or face extinction. A cactus with that much rain would have so many problems. One of them being the fact that cactus like the Saguaro have roots that extend much farthe under the Earth than other plants, absorbing as much water as possible. Another would be the thorns, which not only act as a defense mechanism but they don't release water as much as a leaf would. So the cactus, which is used to about 5 inches of rain a year is now getting 10 times that. It would have to adapt or face extinction. If the cactus did in fact go extinct, now you have a slew of animals that have evolved to rely on the cactus for home and food. Once again, adapt or face extinction. So I don't believe there is a species "perfect enough" to not be part of evolution, nor will there ever be. Everything evolves.
Being from the Southwest, I can tell you what happens to Cacti when they get seriously excess water.
1. They swell up like balloons and eventually topple over because their root systems can't support them, thus crashing through you front wall of your house into your living room. (Happened to a neighbor)
2. They swell up like balloons and rupture. (Not as cool looking as it would sound)
LOL I live in Arizona I'm aware.
-
Is sillyrob my alt? ???
-
Is sillyrob my alt? ???
Am I?
-
This thread seems to be drifting off topic. I think there are a few issues which need to be cleared up, and some gross misunderstandings by the globularists which must be corrected.
Firstly, there is the matter of fossil evidence. Fossilization itself is an extremely rare occurrence, requiring the body to be fossilized to be reasonably rapidly buried in order to prevent animal scavengers from taking it. The fact that some softer tissues such as dinosaur skin and scales are preserved indicates that much fossilization is as a result of rapid burial and permineralisation. This is why, as mentioned earlier, fossil wood is often found in the form of whole petrified forests rather than small pieces. This is because a local natural disaster is the best way of providing the rapid burial required for fossilization. Things like flash floods, mudslides etc. would achieve this. Given that these are fairly isolated occurrences, it is entirely possible that whole species may evolve and disappear, never being preserved in the fossil record. The fossil record of the evolution of life on earth absolutely and indisputably supports this fact. Archaeopteryx, for example, is cited as a transitional species between dinosaurs and modern birds. However I guarantee you, and anyone with any understanding of genetics will back me up, that no small dinosaur like compsognathus just laid an egg and an archaeopteryx magically hatched from it. It would have been a slow process involving many species, perhaps with the dinosaurs first developing downy feathers for insulation, followed by feathers on the arms becoming longer and stiffer to allow for short glides from trees, then perhaps increasing arm strength to allow for wing flapping and increased flight distances etc. The point is we do not have fossils of these many transitional species that would be necessary. Nor do we have the transitional species between archaeopteryx and modern birds showing it’s toothed beak becoming like those of today’s birds, or anything like that. Many more examples can be listed, but the point is that not every species that every walked the earth would be preserved in the fossil record, and furthermore there is much of the earth’s surface that has not been investigated by archeologists. There could well have been a species of dinosaur perfectly suitable to a basic form of civilization, whose remains have not yet, and may never be, discovered. To expect fossilized “dinosaur boats” is ludicrous, if they did exist the odds against discovering one would be astronomical. They would have most likely been wood, which is harder to fossilize than bone since it rots more easily, not to mention that they may not have looked like a conventional boat. A fossilized raft which had broken up upon being buried could easily be mistaken for some ordinary petrified logs.
Secondly, there is the matter of dinosaur intelligence. Much talk has been made about EQs etc but the fact is this is not a completely accurate measure of intelligence. Mice would exceed human intelligence if this were true. Furthermore we know nothing about the soft tissue of the brain itself. It may have functioned differently to those in modern animals, and were perhaps more advanced than their size would indicate. The point is we can’t know for sure, so let’s not rule anything out.
Thirdly there is the general idea of “if they were so smart how come they died out lolz”. This is frankly a ridiculous sentiment, human civilization has only just reached a point where we could have a modest chance of surviving the asteroid impact which is thought to have caused their extinction. Humans 500 years ago were crossing oceans with ease and there is no way they could have stopped such a catastrophe.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the matter of how advanced this dinosaur civilization would need to be. The round earthers on this board are having a good laugh at the very thought of dinosaurs in vast armadas of 17th century style galleons, heroically conquering new lands. Hell, they may have even developed some sophisticated metallurgy, science, language, and even had their own dino-parliament and everything. It is easy to mock this view if we take the dinosaurs as being unintelligent, but as shown above this is not necessarily the case. The main point however is that with the continents in their current positions, every continent except Antarctica / the ice wall can be accessed by crossing minimal distances of ocean. Crossing the Bering Strait links the Americas with all of Europe, Asia and Africa, and it is less than 100km wide. One need only build a simple raft and paddle for a few days to cross it. We are not talking the sort of grand 15,000km cross pacific journey that takes months to complete and needs mountains of supplies. This is the sort of thing a person can do in a few days with no more supplies than can fit in a backpack. Even a dinosaur paddling on a large floating log could manage it. There is no need for massive armadas, galleons, etc. Even the scale of communication needed to cross it is minimal. To bring others across would need only a simple “follow me” signal, not some elaborate language and physics capable of calculating buoyancy. Think simple things here. This is supported by real world evidence, as terrestrial species made it to the Galapagos Islands somehow, which is a much greater distance. Another thing that must be considered is erosion - it is entirely possible that a chain of small islands or even a land bridge existed to connect Asia and North America across what is now the Bering Strait. Countless millennia of erosion by the elements could have easily destroyed it so what looks like a tough challenge for today’s animals was (almost literally) a walk in the park back in those times. Additionally, the earth was warmer in those times so the conditions in the straight would not have been nearly as harsh as they are today.
All things considered, I think it is not unlikely that dinosaurs were able to populate other continents without any continental drift necessary.
-
This thread seems to be drifting off topic. I think there are a few issues which need to be cleared up, and some gross misunderstandings by the globularists which must be corrected.
Firstly, there is the matter of fossil evidence. Fossilization itself is an extremely rare occurrence, requiring the body to be fossilized to be reasonably rapidly buried in order to prevent animal scavengers from taking it. The fact that some softer tissues such as dinosaur skin and scales are preserved indicates that much fossilization is as a result of rapid burial and permineralisation. This is why, as mentioned earlier, fossil wood is often found in the form of whole petrified forests rather than small pieces. This is because a local natural disaster is the best way of providing the rapid burial required for fossilization. Things like flash floods, mudslides etc. would achieve this. Given that these are fairly isolated occurrences, it is entirely possible that whole species may evolve and disappear, never being preserved in the fossil record. The fossil record of the evolution of life on earth absolutely and indisputably supports this fact. Archaeopteryx, for example, is cited as a transitional species between dinosaurs and modern birds. However I guarantee you, and anyone with any understanding of genetics will back me up, that no small dinosaur like compsognathus just laid an egg and an archaeopteryx magically hatched from it. It would have been a slow process involving many species, perhaps with the dinosaurs first developing downy feathers for insulation, followed by feathers on the arms becoming longer and stiffer to allow for short glides from trees, then perhaps increasing arm strength to allow for wing flapping and increased flight distances etc. The point is we do not have fossils of these many transitional species that would be necessary. Nor do we have the transitional species between archaeopteryx and modern birds showing it’s toothed beak becoming like those of today’s birds, or anything like that. Many more examples can be listed, but the point is that not every species that every walked the earth would be preserved in the fossil record, and furthermore there is much of the earth’s surface that has not been investigated by archeologists. There could well have been a species of dinosaur perfectly suitable to a basic form of civilization, whose remains have not yet, and may never be, discovered. To expect fossilized “dinosaur boats” is ludicrous, if they did exist the odds against discovering one would be astronomical. They would have most likely been wood, which is harder to fossilize than bone since it rots more easily, not to mention that they may not have looked like a conventional boat. A fossilized raft which had broken up upon being buried could easily be mistaken for some ordinary petrified logs.
Secondly, there is the matter of dinosaur intelligence. Much talk has been made about EQs etc but the fact is this is not a completely accurate measure of intelligence. Mice would exceed human intelligence if this were true. Furthermore we know nothing about the soft tissue of the brain itself. It may have functioned differently to those in modern animals, and were perhaps more advanced than their size would indicate. The point is we can’t know for sure, so let’s not rule anything out.
Thirdly there is the general idea of “if they were so smart how come they died out lolz”. This is frankly a ridiculous sentiment, human civilization has only just reached a point where we could have a modest chance of surviving the asteroid impact which is thought to have caused their extinction. Humans 500 years ago were crossing oceans with ease and there is no way they could have stopped such a catastrophe.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the matter of how advanced this dinosaur civilization would need to be. The round earthers on this board are having a good laugh at the very thought of dinosaurs in vast armadas of 17th century style galleons, heroically conquering new lands. Hell, they may have even developed some sophisticated metallurgy, science, language, and even had their own dino-parliament and everything. It is easy to mock this view if we take the dinosaurs as being unintelligent, but as shown above this is not necessarily the case. The main point however is that with the continents in their current positions, every continent except Antarctica / the ice wall can be accessed by crossing minimal distances of ocean. Crossing the Bering Strait links the Americas with all of Europe, Asia and Africa, and it is less than 100km wide. One need only build a simple raft and paddle for a few days to cross it. We are not talking the sort of grand 15,000km cross pacific journey that takes months to complete and needs mountains of supplies. This is the sort of thing a person can do in a few days with no more supplies than can fit in a backpack. Even a dinosaur paddling on a large floating log could manage it. There is no need for massive armadas, galleons, etc. Even the scale of communication needed to cross it is minimal. To bring others across would need only a simple “follow me” signal, not some elaborate language and physics capable of calculating buoyancy. Think simple things here. This is supported by real world evidence, as terrestrial species made it to the Galapagos Islands somehow, which is a much greater distance. Another thing that must be considered is erosion - it is entirely possible that a chain of small islands or even a land bridge existed to connect Asia and North America across what is now the Bering Strait. Countless millennia of erosion by the elements could have easily destroyed it so what looks like a tough challenge for today’s animals was (almost literally) a walk in the park back in those times. Additionally, the earth was warmer in those times so the conditions in the straight would not have been nearly as harsh as they are today.
All things considered, I think it is not unlikely that dinosaurs were able to populate other continents without any continental drift necessary.
None of this constitutes evidence that dinosaurs were an advanced civilization which was capable of crossing the oceans and colonizing other continents. In fact, no such evidence has yet been presented here.
-
None of this constitutes evidence that dinosaurs were an advanced civilization which was capable of crossing the oceans and colonizing other continents. In fact, no such evidence has yet been presented here.
I know this is not evidence in itself, the main points i was making are:
1 - They wouldn't have had to have been very advanced at all. Again, think less of a dinosaur themed Napoleonic navy and more of a herd of buffalo fording a river, albeit on a grander scale
2 - Crossing an entire ocean is not necessary, as mentioned the Bering strait is less than 100km wide and it may have containted islands or a land bridge when dinosaurs existed, which have since eroded
3 - If it did happen, finding fossil evidence is very unlikely. You can't realistically rule out this theory due to lack of evidence any more than you can rule out the entire works of Darwin and all modern theories of evolution just because there isn't a transitional fossil between another known dinosaur and archaeopteryx.
Nobody can prove it did or didn't happen. I'm just saying we can't rule it out, especially considering the massive number of unknowns we are dealing with here. I for one support the theory and commend James on his research. It makes for a very interesting read!
-
None of this constitutes evidence that dinosaurs were an advanced civilization which was capable of crossing the oceans and colonizing other continents. In fact, no such evidence has yet been presented here.
I know this is not evidence in itself, the main points i was making are:
1 - They wouldn't have had to have been very advanced at all. Again, think less of a dinosaur themed Napoleonic navy and more of a herd of buffalo fording a river, albeit on a grander scale
2 - Crossing an entire ocean is not necessary, as mentioned the Bering strait is less than 100km wide and it may have containted islands or a land bridge when dinosaurs existed, which have since eroded
3 - If it did happen, finding fossil evidence is very unlikely. You can't realistically rule out this theory due to lack of evidence any more than you can rule out the entire works of Darwin and all modern theories of evolution just because there isn't a transitional fossil between another known dinosaur and archaeopteryx.
Nobody can prove it did or didn't happen. I'm just saying we can't rule it out, especially considering the massive number of unknowns we are dealing with here. I for one support the theory and commend James on his research. It makes for a very interesting read!
Like the typical FEer, you forget that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-
None of this constitutes evidence that dinosaurs were an advanced civilization which was capable of crossing the oceans and colonizing other continents. In fact, no such evidence has yet been presented here.
I know this is not evidence in itself, the main points i was making are:
1 - They wouldn't have had to have been very advanced at all. Again, think less of a dinosaur themed Napoleonic navy and more of a herd of buffalo fording a river, albeit on a grander scale
2 - Crossing an entire ocean is not necessary, as mentioned the Bering strait is less than 100km wide and it may have containted islands or a land bridge when dinosaurs existed, which have since eroded
3 - If it did happen, finding fossil evidence is very unlikely. You can't realistically rule out this theory due to lack of evidence any more than you can rule out the entire works of Darwin and all modern theories of evolution just because there isn't a transitional fossil between another known dinosaur and archaeopteryx.
Nobody can prove it did or didn't happen. I'm just saying we can't rule it out, especially considering the massive number of unknowns we are dealing with here. I for one support the theory and commend James on his research. It makes for a very interesting read!
How do you suppose that there can be any research about that if you state that Nobody can prove it did or didn't happen. I think the better wording is that you support his fantasizing.
-
How do you suppose that there can be any research about that if you state that Nobody can prove it did or didn't happen. I think the better wording is that you support his fantasizing.
My bad, I was trying to be too diplomatic by saying nobody could prove anything. In hindsight, I should have said it would be difficult to prove and impossible to disprove. It may seem unscientific, since a proper scientific theory must have a criterion for failure, but this is the ultimate result of a lot of theories about the prehistoric earth. Since we can't go back in time and witness these things it eventually comes down to people debating which is more likely and which is less likely. James' research is indeed helpful, as the evolution of Deinonychus into smaller dinosaurs with smaller claws could be explained by the fact that they had at least formed primitive social structures. This would allow them to forgo the more difficult life of a solitary predator, instead focusing on teamwork and communication to bring down prey, like modern day pack animals. This of course requires moderate communicative skills and at least a reasonably organized social structure.
In fact the more I think about James' research the more sense it makes. Modern day ants are known to farm a species of fungus for food, even going so far as to cut pieces from leaves specifically for the purpose of cultivating it. If ants can do this there is no logical reason why a highly social dinosaur species might not do something similar, such as cultivating a species of plant which was a known favorite food of their Saurolophus prey. Before you dismiss this idea there are a few points to consider:
1) - Think about this from the point of view of small changes, that's how evolution works. If a Dromaeosaur were to hatch with a mutated sense of smell that made it more attracted to the plants that Saurolophus ate, that would make it more likely to hang around areas with these plants -> more likely to catch prey. This mutation would be advantageous and over time it would spread throught he population. The one hatches which has a mutation causing it to become more territorial, driving out other species from this area of Saurolophus plants, establishing a semi-permanent home. The rest of their pack / tribal society follows suit. Through small steps like these it is entirely possible that a basic (and i stress the word basic here) agrarian society could have developed, with Dromaeosaurs cultivating the plants to feed wandering livestock.
2) - We can witness similar things happening today. Nature is filled with species which manipulate other species, species with symbiotic relationships with one another, etc. Symbitoic relationships such as the fungi - leaf cutter ant mirror the relationship of the plants and Dromaeosaurs discussed above, with one species cultivating and controlling the other for the benefit of both. In fact evolutionary biologists have theorized that symbiosis may have played a much more important role in the development of life on earth than was originally thought, for example the theory that the organelles inside cells were once separate basic organisms in the primordial soup which were then incorporated inside a larger host cell, for the benefit of both.
All in all, given modern day examples of symbiosis, advanced communicative skills and social structures, I find James' theories very intriguing and quite possible. I think the mockery he has received from the round earthers, is unwarranted, and many of them are simply not thinking about this from an evolutionary perspective. They just think "dinosaur navy lolololol wat a n00b" and respond with ridicule, but when you think about these things in small, logical, evolutionary steps you begin to see the possibility, even the likeliness, of the theory.
-
I understood that the question was if the dinosaurs had the civilization not the primitive society like the ants. If there is civilization then there is always remnants of tools and other products of civilization. There is dinosaurs bones and fossilized dinosaurs. How come there isn't any signs of their civilization?
-
I understood that the question was if the dinosaurs had the civilization not the primitive society like the ants. If there is civilization then there is always remnants of tools and other products of civilization. There is dinosaurs bones and fossilized dinosaurs. How come there isn't any signs of their civilization?
We've been over this time and time again. The fossil record of dinosaurs is patchy at best. For example, around 30 specimens of Tyrannosaurus have been found, and this is considered a relatively huge number. The odds of us finding wooden boats etc. from the era are miniscule. Brand new species of dinosaur are regularly discovered, yet your shocked we haven't found boats or rafts from hundreds of millions of years ago?
-
I understood that the question was if the dinosaurs had the civilization not the primitive society like the ants. If there is civilization then there is always remnants of tools and other products of civilization. There is dinosaurs bones and fossilized dinosaurs. How come there isn't any signs of their civilization?
We've been over this time and time again. The fossil record of dinosaurs is patchy at best. For example, around 30 specimens of Tyrannosaurus have been found, and this is considered a relatively huge number. The odds of us finding wooden boats etc. from the era are miniscule. Brand new species of dinosaur are regularly discovered, yet your shocked we haven't found boats or rafts from hundreds of millions of years ago?
More shocked that anyone considers it to be true without any supporting evidence.
-
More shocked that anyone considers it to be true without any supporting evidence.
Do you have any supporting evidence that more than 30 Tyrannosaurs existed?
-
More shocked that anyone considers it to be true without any supporting evidence.
Do you have any supporting evidence that more than 30 Tyrannosaurs existed?
No, but we have evidence that Tyrannosaurs existed.
-
And that they had feathery heads ;D ahaha
-
And that they had feathery heads ;D ahaha
I'm sorry, but dinosaurs do have feathers on their heads. Please look out your window for confirmation.
-
I understood that the question was if the dinosaurs had the civilization not the primitive society like the ants. If there is civilization then there is always remnants of tools and other products of civilization. There is dinosaurs bones and fossilized dinosaurs. How come there isn't any signs of their civilization?
We've been over this time and time again. The fossil record of dinosaurs is patchy at best. For example, around 30 specimens of Tyrannosaurus have been found, and this is considered a relatively huge number. The odds of us finding wooden boats etc. from the era are miniscule. Brand new species of dinosaur are regularly discovered, yet your shocked we haven't found boats or rafts from hundreds of millions of years ago?
Yes, I am. There are misc remnants from of stone age even when there were no human civilizations in that time. If there was dinosaur civilization and they supposedly built whatever they built then they had tools which were done from something other than wood. From something that didn't break or perish so easily. Or maybe you really didn't speculate about civilization but just dinosaurs building boats with their teeth and claws. But that is no civilization built by intelligent being. That is... I don't know, some stupid animal scratching trees with teeth and claws.
-
Please look out your window
All I see is a flat disc. your point?
-
Please look out your window
All I see is a flat disc. your point?
Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.
-
I understood that the question was if the dinosaurs had the civilization not the primitive society like the ants. If there is civilization then there is always remnants of tools and other products of civilization. There is dinosaurs bones and fossilized dinosaurs. How come there isn't any signs of their civilization?
We've been over this time and time again. The fossil record of dinosaurs is patchy at best. For example, around 30 specimens of Tyrannosaurus have been found, and this is considered a relatively huge number. The odds of us finding wooden boats etc. from the era are miniscule. Brand new species of dinosaur are regularly discovered, yet your shocked we haven't found boats or rafts from hundreds of millions of years ago?
Yes, I am. There are misc remnants from of stone age even when there were no human civilizations in that time. If there was dinosaur civilization and they supposedly built whatever they built then they had tools which were done from something other than wood. From something that didn't break or perish so easily. Or maybe you really didn't speculate about civilization but just dinosaurs building boats with their teeth and claws. But that is no civilization built by intelligent being. That is... I don't know, some stupid animal scratching trees with teeth and claws.
Firstly, the stone age was far more recent than the dinosaurs. That's like saying "I have leftovers in my fridge from yesterday, but I don't have any from before 3 days ago, therefore I must not have eaten anything, ever, up until 3 days ago." The evidence of tool use may not have been preserved or it may simply have yet to be discovered.
Secondly, as was mentioned earlier, not all evidence is preserved in the fossil record, in fact next to none of it is, not to mention the fact that we have yet to conduct archaeological digs everywhere on earth. discounting this theory because of the lack of evidence for tool usage is like discounting the theory of evolution because we don't have a steady chain of fossils connecting the dinosaurs to archaeopteryx.
And finally, while I greatly respect James' work, I am in favor of a less technologically focused society. I'm not talking about a dino ancient Greece or anything, I'm thinking more along the lines of a dino australian-aboriginal type of society. Nomadic or with simple permanent residences such as caves. Simple boats made from hollowed out logs. That sort of thing.
-
I understood that the question was if the dinosaurs had the civilization not the primitive society like the ants. If there is civilization then there is always remnants of tools and other products of civilization. There is dinosaurs bones and fossilized dinosaurs. How come there isn't any signs of their civilization?
We've been over this time and time again. The fossil record of dinosaurs is patchy at best. For example, around 30 specimens of Tyrannosaurus have been found, and this is considered a relatively huge number. The odds of us finding wooden boats etc. from the era are miniscule. Brand new species of dinosaur are regularly discovered, yet your shocked we haven't found boats or rafts from hundreds of millions of years ago?
Yes, I am. There are misc remnants from of stone age even when there were no human civilizations in that time. If there was dinosaur civilization and they supposedly built whatever they built then they had tools which were done from something other than wood. From something that didn't break or perish so easily. Or maybe you really didn't speculate about civilization but just dinosaurs building boats with their teeth and claws. But that is no civilization built by intelligent being. That is... I don't know, some stupid animal scratching trees with teeth and claws.
Firstly, the stone age was far more recent than the dinosaurs. That's like saying "I have leftovers in my fridge from yesterday, but I don't have any from before 3 days ago, therefore I must not have eaten anything, ever, up until 3 days ago." The evidence of tool use may not have been preserved or it may simply have yet to be discovered.
Secondly, as was mentioned earlier, not all evidence is preserved in the fossil record, in fact next to none of it is, not to mention the fact that we have yet to conduct archaeological digs everywhere on earth. discounting this theory because of the lack of evidence for tool usage is like discounting the theory of evolution because we don't have a steady chain of fossils connecting the dinosaurs to archaeopteryx.
And finally, while I greatly respect James' work, I am in favor of a less technologically focused society. I'm not talking about a dino ancient Greece or anything, I'm thinking more along the lines of a dino australian-aboriginal type of society. Nomadic or with simple permanent residences such as caves. Simple boats made from hollowed out logs. That sort of thing.
Please explain the reason that you believe in sea-faring land-dwelling dinosaurs. In particular, list all evidence that you've seen and demonstrate that a conspiracy did not fake that evidence.
-
I'm sure the only reason James came up with such a wild idea is because the continents cannot move on a Flat Earth like to do on a Round Earth. Since continents would have been conjoined hundreds of millions of years ago, dinosaurs fossils can end up on different continents because it wouldn't be far fetched for that area to have been one land mass, instead of having a sea or ocean between them.
-
Firstly, the stone age was far more recent than the dinosaurs. That's like saying "I have leftovers in my fridge from yesterday, but I don't have any from before 3 days ago, therefore I must not have eaten anything, ever, up until 3 days ago." The evidence of tool use may not have been preserved or it may simply have yet to be discovered.
Time is irrelevant. We have fossilized dinosaurs and their bones. If these are preserved then other things must also. We are talking about civilization here which always leaves the signs and to hollow something big out of log you have to have some tools made from stones or metal.
But as you still push forward the idea of society then this is based on what? Give me a hint what physical findings from history gives you a hint that there might have been something society like with dinosaurs.
-
There's also petrified wood. It would be possible to have fossils of dino boats if the existed.
-
Please look out your window
All I see is a flat disc. your point?
Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.
How could you tell whether a dinosaur had feathers on its head from so far away? This is ridiculous, dinosaurs fly far too fast and are far to small to be reliably examined in this manner. Somebody will have to catch one in order to adequately demonstrate the veracity of this hypothesis.
-
Please look out your window
All I see is a flat disc. your point?
Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.
How could you tell whether a dinosaur had feathers on its head from so far away? This is ridiculous, dinosaurs fly far too fast and are far to small to be reliably examined in this manner. Somebody will have to catch one in order to adequately demonstrate the veracity of this hypothesis.
How can you tell they had boats?
-
Please look out your window
All I see is a flat disc. your point?
Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.
How could you tell whether a dinosaur had feathers on its head from so far away? This is ridiculous, dinosaurs fly far too fast and are far to small to be reliably examined in this manner. Somebody will have to catch one in order to adequately demonstrate the veracity of this hypothesis.
They are not so far away. I have small feeding house behind my window and every winter they come for a food.
-
Please look out your window
All I see is a flat disc. your point?
Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.
How could you tell whether a dinosaur had feathers on its head from so far away? This is ridiculous., dDinosaurs fly far too fast and are far totoo small to be reliably examined in this manner. Somebody will have to catch one in order to adequately demonstrate the veracity of this hypothesis.
I suggest that you're mistaken. I regularly watch dinosaur out my window stalking their prey on the lawn. I can see their feather easily, even without binoculars. Of course, some dinosaurs are raised in captivity, so a visit to the zoo or the pet shop would resolve the issue as well.
-
Please look out your window
All I see is a flat disc. your point?
Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.
How could you tell whether a dinosaur had feathers on its head from so far away? This is ridiculous, dinosaurs fly far too fast and are far to small to be reliably examined in this manner. Somebody will have to catch one in order to adequately demonstrate the veracity of this hypothesis.
Wait, we need to catch a dinosaur? You are too far gone for help!
-
No, but we have evidence that Tyrannosaurs existed.
But paleontologists make much larger claims based on those few skeletons. They claim that this was a huge and populace species, despite only having 30 specimins. Where is the fossil evidence for all the other Tyrannosaurs?
Time is irrelevant. We have fossilized dinosaurs and their bones. If these are preserved then other things must also. We are talking about civilization here which always leaves the signs and to hollow something big out of log you have to have some tools made from stones or metal.
But as you still push forward the idea of society then this is based on what? Give me a hint what physical findings from history gives you a hint that there might have been something society like with dinosaurs.
What do you mean "time is irrelevant"? In archeology? ???
We actually have very few dinosaur fossils given the number that supposedly existed. As I have said, to expect evidence of tools over that period of time and with such a sketchy fossil record is ridiculous.
And finally, while I greatly respect James' work, I am in favor of a less technologically focused society. I'm not talking about a dino ancient Greece or anything, I'm thinking more along the lines of a dino australian-aboriginal type of society. Nomadic or with simple permanent residences such as caves. Simple boats made from hollowed out logs. That sort of thing.
Agreed. I think we're talking log boats, or at most large ocean-going rafts.
-
Time is irrelevant. We have fossilized dinosaurs and their bones. If these are preserved then other things must also. We are talking about civilization here which always leaves the signs and to hollow something big out of log you have to have some tools made from stones or metal.
But as you still push forward the idea of society then this is based on what? Give me a hint what physical findings from history gives you a hint that there might have been something society like with dinosaurs.
What do you mean "time is irrelevant"? In archeology? ???
We actually have very few dinosaur fossils given the number that supposedly existed. As I have said, to expect evidence of tools over that period of time and with such a sketchy fossil record is ridiculous.
What direct sensorial evidence do you have of prehistoric dinosaurs making tools? Are you concluding something again in violation of first principles?
-
What direct sensorial evidence do you have of prehistoric dinosaurs making tools? Are you concluding something again in violation of first principles?
Irrelevant to this thread. I have always made the scope and application of that line of reasoning clear. Please do not derail every thread with discussions about it.
-
What direct sensorial evidence do you have of prehistoric dinosaurs making tools? Are you concluding something again in violation of first principles?
Irrelevant to this thread. I have always made the scope and application of that line of reasoning clear. Please do not derail every thread with discussions about it.
Quite relevant to the thread. How do we know, based on your own reasoning, that prehistoric dinosaurs made tools? Should we not hold you to your own principles when you join a debate like you hold me when I join a debate. Please explain. Thanks.
-
So does this only apply when concluding the shape of the earth:
You guys keep bringing up abstract reasoning, models, and thought experiments, but they are not valid in this context. Here is the rule, and it is very simple:
Direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen!
???
You seem to be arguing in favor of several things you do not have direct sensorial evidence for, such as a dino civilization, the sun not being where it appears to be, etc.
-
Time is irrelevant. We have fossilized dinosaurs and their bones. If these are preserved then other things must also. We are talking about civilization here which always leaves the signs and to hollow something big out of log you have to have some tools made from stones or metal.
But as you still push forward the idea of society then this is based on what? Give me a hint what physical findings from history gives you a hint that there might have been something society like with dinosaurs.
What do you mean "time is irrelevant"? In archeology? ???
We actually have very few dinosaur fossils given the number that supposedly existed. As I have said, to expect evidence of tools over that period of time and with such a sketchy fossil record is ridiculous.
Time is irrelevant in this context. And to expect signs of civilization if there are signs of the persons who build civilizations isn't ridiculous. To have fossils and bones but not signs of tools or something other if they had civilization is ridiculous.
I have no problem with their civilization or your fantasizing about it but right now I just want to know to what this "dinosaur civilization" opinion is based. You all just say that there is absolutely nothing but still claim that they may had civilization. And that opinion is based on... what? Elaborate a little.
-
Quite relevant to the thread. How do we know, based on your own reasoning, that prehistoric dinosaurs made tools? Should we not hold you to your own principles when you join a debate like you hold me when I join a debate. Please explain. Thanks.
So does this only apply when concluding the shape of the earth:
You guys keep bringing up abstract reasoning, models, and thought experiments, but they are not valid in this context. Here is the rule, and it is very simple:
Direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen!
???
You seem to be arguing in favor of several things you do not have direct sensorial evidence for, such as a dino civilization, the sun not being where it appears to be, etc.
Ahem:
You guys keep bringing up abstract reasoning, models, and thought experiments, but they are not valid in this context.
I have always made the scope and application of that line of reasoning clear. Please do not derail every thread with discussions about it.
www.rif.org
Time is irrelevant in this context.
No it isn't, and that is a ridiculous statement to make.
And to expect signs of civilization if there are signs of the persons who build civilizations isn't ridiculous. To have fossils and bones but not signs of tools or something other if they had civilization is ridiculous.
So wait, all human/pre-human remains should have tools or signs of civilisation present around them? ???
I have no problem with their civilization or your fantasizing about it but right now I just want to know to what this "dinosaur civilization" opinion is based. You all just say that there is absolutely nothing but still claim that they may had civilization. And that opinion is based on... what? Elaborate a little.
The distribution of fossils. Please read James' work if you're going to comment on it.
-
It's your rule, not mine, I'm just trying to understand why you abide by it in some circumstances and not others.
-
It's your rule, not mine, I'm just trying to understand why you abide by it in some circumstances and not others.
-
It's your rule, not mine, I'm just trying to understand why you abide by it in some circumstances and not others.
There is a very simple way to understand, which is by reading my posts:
I have always made the scope and application of that line of reasoning clear.
-
It's your rule, not mine, I'm just trying to understand why you abide by it in some circumstances and not others.
There is a very simple way to understand, which is by reading my posts:
I have always made the scope and application of that line of reasoning clear.
Please stop the senseless dodges. Explain the reason that you don't hold to the same values in all debates.
-
Read my original post on this line of reasoning. I've re-posted it many times (and in recent days/weeks too), so to be honest if you haven't already read it then you have business debating with me about it.
-
Read my original post on this line of reasoning. I've re-posted it many times (and in recent days/weeks too), so to be honest if you haven't already read it then you have business debating with me about it.
I didn't think you'd respond. I guess we'll just have to keep pointing out to you when you violate first principles--unless you can provide a reason that you shouldn't apply first principles consistently.
-
Read my original post on this line of reasoning. I've re-posted it many times (and in recent days/weeks too), so to be honest if you haven't already read it then you have business debating with me about it.
I didn't think you'd respond. I guess we'll just have to keep pointing out to you when you violate first principles--unless you can provide a reason that you shouldn't apply first principles consistently.
I have responded as I can without derailing this thread. If you want to discuss this further, create another thread or ask in an existing thread. Posting off-topic is a no-no in Flat Earth Debate, and this issue has nothing to do with Brother James and his beliefs concerning dinosaur civilisation.
-
Time is irrelevant in this context.
No it isn't, and that is a ridiculous statement to make.
Yes, it is and it's ridiculous for you to emphasize it.
And to expect signs of civilization if there are signs of the persons who build civilizations isn't ridiculous. To have fossils and bones but not signs of tools or something other if they had civilization is ridiculous.
So wait, all human/pre-human remains should have tools or signs of civilisation present around them? ???
So, wait there is absolutely no evidence of pre-human having any tools? Or cave paintings and use of the fire? Don't you twist my words. I didn't say that all remains must have something with them. But there is absolutely nothing. Zero signs of evidence. That is ridiculous.
I have no problem with their civilization or your fantasizing about it but right now I just want to know to what this "dinosaur civilization" opinion is based. You all just say that there is absolutely nothing but still claim that they may had civilization. And that opinion is based on... what? Elaborate a little.
The distribution of fossils. Please read James' work if you're going to comment on it.
There is no such thing as "James' work". There are only some messages in this forum where he fantasizes about dinosaurs having civilization. And the distribution of the fossils doesn't say anything about civilization. Only that the dinosaurs were here and there. There is still absolutely no direct sensorial evidence about civilizations. I quite can't understand why you are even in this thread.
-
Time is irrelevant in this context.
No it isn't, and that is a ridiculous statement to make.
Yes, it is and it's ridiculous for you to emphasize it.
Uh, glad you agree... ???
So, wait there is absolutely no evidence of pre-human having any tools? Or cave paintings and use of the fire? Don't you twist my words. I didn't say that all remains must have something with them. But there is absolutely nothing. Zero signs of evidence. That is ridiculous.
No it isn't! By comparison with dinosaurs the amount pre-historic human remains is amazing. It is in no way statistically surprising therefore that we have some evidence of pre-historic tool use etc. among humans, given the infinitely superior 'fossil' record and much shorter timespan between now and human pre-history. Such evidence among dinosaur fossils would be remarkable, especially as James only believes that certain species used tools.
There is no such thing as "James' work". There are only some messages in this forum where he fantasizes about dinosaurs having civilization. And the distribution of the fossils doesn't say anything about civilization. Only that the dinosaurs were here and there. There is still absolutely no direct sensorial evidence about civilizations. I quite can't understand why you are even in this thread.
If you don't think James has any 'work', why are you in here debating it? I acknowledge his work, which is why I am in here defending it.
-
I also don't see how nonsensical theories with absolutely zero supporting evidence counts as "work". Either he has you completely fooled into thinking he believes the world is flat, or you are all in on the same gag and are having a laugh at us debating them.
-
Time is irrelevant in this context.
No it isn't, and that is a ridiculous statement to make.
Yes, it is and it's ridiculous for you to emphasize it.
Uh, glad you agree... ???
Yes, it is - that means Yes, time is irrelevant. And it's ridiculous for you to emphasize that it is relevant.
So, wait there is absolutely no evidence of pre-human having any tools? Or cave paintings and use of the fire? Don't you twist my words. I didn't say that all remains must have something with them. But there is absolutely nothing. Zero signs of evidence. That is ridiculous.
No it isn't! By comparison with dinosaurs the amount pre-historic human remains is amazing. It is in no way statistically surprising therefore that we have some evidence of pre-historic tool use etc. among humans, given the infinitely superior 'fossil' record and much shorter timespan between now and human pre-history. Such evidence among dinosaur fossils would be remarkable, especially as James only believes that certain species used tools.
If they used tools, lived in one place, built something then it's totally ridiculous to have their remnants but not any of their work. Totally ridiculous.
There is no such thing as "James' work". There are only some messages in this forum where he fantasizes about dinosaurs having civilization. And the distribution of the fossils doesn't say anything about civilization. Only that the dinosaurs were here and there. There is still absolutely no direct sensorial evidence about civilizations. I quite can't understand why you are even in this thread.
If you don't think James has any 'work', why are you in here debating it? I acknowledge his work, which is why I am in here defending it.
Okay. Where is his work? Link please. But not these messages from debate, general forum where he just fantasizes about things. Is there any on Flat Earth Believers section or Information repository?
-
I think we need to discuss how James is going to capture a dinosaur more.
-
If you don't think James has any 'work', why are you in here debating it? I acknowledge his work, which is why I am in here defending it.
I also ask: where is this work? The three unsubstantiated thoughts of James are not even a large enough amount of "work" to call it so.
The many other hypothesis, like "the martians did it", "a man with a time machine went back and did it", "dinosaurs grew gills and swimmed across the oceans", "tornadoes and hurricanes lifted the dinosaurs across the ocean" and a million other "hypothesis" have just the same evidence as James' idea. Why choose James' instead of any of the above?
-
Yes, it is - that means Yes, time is irrelevant. And it's ridiculous for you to emphasize that it is relevant.
How can time possibly be irrelevant when discussing the fossil record?
If they used tools, lived in one place, built something then it's totally ridiculous to have their remnants but not any of their work. Totally ridiculous.
Okay, well you tell that to all the archaeologists who have found pre-historic human remains without finding evidence of tool-use, habitation etc. nearby. It is not ridiculous, it is extremely common, and you are making a fool of yourself by suggesting otherwise.
Okay. Where is his work? Link please. But not these messages from debate, general forum where he just fantasizes about things. Is there any on Flat Earth Believers section or Information repository?
I believe James has posted at least two threads on the subject. It is no easier for you to search for them than it is for me, and I believe they have even been brought up and linked elsewhere in this thread. If you haven't read them you really have no business debating his work.
-
Yes, it is - that means Yes, time is irrelevant. And it's ridiculous for you to emphasize that it is relevant.
How can time possibly be irrelevant when discussing the fossil record?
Because there are remnants. And it doesn't matter how old they are it just matters that they are.
If they used tools, lived in one place, built something then it's totally ridiculous to have their remnants but not any of their work. Totally ridiculous.
Okay, well you tell that to all the archaeologists who have found pre-historic human remains without finding evidence of tool-use, habitation etc. nearby. It is not ridiculous, it is extremely common, and you are making a fool of yourself by suggesting otherwise.
You twist the meaning again. Please, stop that. You surely agree that there are quite many places where archaeologists have found the evidence of tool-use, habitation etc for pre-historic human. I only say that the case of dinosaurs must be similar. There surely must be some findings about evidence of tool-use, habitation etc. in some places where they lived and died. I only say that the claim of civilization, preservation of the remnants of the creators of the civilization and zero evidence about their work, tools etc. is ridiculous. And please, don't twist it again in that way like I am claiming that the signs must be in every place where there is findings about remnants of dinosaurs. I don't.
Okay. Where is his work? Link please. But not these messages from debate, general forum where he just fantasizes about things. Is there any on Flat Earth Believers section or Information repository?
I believe James has posted at least two threads on the subject. It is no easier for you to search for them than it is for me, and I believe they have even been brought up and linked elsewhere in this thread. If you haven't read them you really have no business debating his work.
I asked for his work. Not his speculations, dreams or fantasies in general, Q&A, debate forum. I see that you don't have his work either. So, what is this thing that you are defending here then?
-
Because there are remnants. And it doesn't matter how old they are it just matters that they are.
What remains is inextricably linked with how long it has been there.
You twist the meaning again. Please, stop that. You surely agree that there are quite many places where archaeologists have found the evidence of tool-use, habitation etc for pre-historic human. I only say that the case of dinosaurs must be similar.
But is isn't similar, because the fossil record is totally different! The number of pre-historic human remains we have discovered is huge compared with the number of specimens of particular species of dinosaur. For that reason the two situations are not comparable.
I asked for his work. Not his speculations, dreams or fantasies in general, Q&A, debate forum. I see that you don't have his work either. So, what is this thing that you are defending here then?
His work has been posted on this forum and linked to in this topic. If you're not willing to read it, stop posting in a thread about it.
-
Because there are remnants. And it doesn't matter how old they are it just matters that they are.
What remains is inextricably linked with how long it has been there.
And remnants of dinosaur are in no way more durable than any of their work would be if they had the civilization.
You twist the meaning again. Please, stop that. You surely agree that there are quite many places where archaeologists have found the evidence of tool-use, habitation etc for pre-historic human. I only say that the case of dinosaurs must be similar.
But is isn't similar, because the fossil record is totally different! The number of pre-historic human remains we have discovered is huge compared with the number of specimens of particular species of dinosaur. For that reason the two situations are not comparable.
Don't play with percentage. In the last two hundred years there are hundreds of places where dinosaurs fossils were found and findings of thousands and thousands dinosaur fossils around the world. China dug up some seven and half thousands fossils just from one place. It's a population of a small city. In what why it is totally normal that there are hundreds of finding places and thousands and thousands dinosaur fossils around the world and not one sign of their civilization. The only conclusion is that they didn't have a civilization. I don't have a problem if you theorize about primitive social communities but civilization... it is way too way overboard.
I asked for his work. Not his speculations, dreams or fantasies in general, Q&A, debate forum. I see that you don't have his work either. So, what is this thing that you are defending here then?
His work has been posted on this forum and linked to in this topic. If you're not willing to read it, stop posting in a thread about it.
I am totally willing to read his work if you only point out where it is. His messages in general forums don't qualify in any way as a work. If you are not able to point out his work then stop hinting to me that he actually has something.
-
And remnants of dinosaur are in no way more durable than any of their work would be if they had the civilization.
Yes, and most of the fossils we collect are partially or largely incomplete. What's more, stone tools probably are less durable than dinosaur remains, and harder to identify even if they are present.
Don't play with percentage. In the last two hundred years there are hundreds of places where dinosaurs fossils were found and findings of thousands and thousands dinosaur fossils around the world. China dug up some seven and half thousands fossils just from one place. It's a population of a small city. In what why it is totally normal that there are hundreds of finding places and thousands and thousands dinosaur fossils around the world and not one sign of their civilization. The only conclusion is that they didn't have a civilization. I don't have a problem if you theorize about primitive social communities but civilization... it is way too way overboard.
I am not "play[ing] with percentage" [sic]. Here is a passage from Wikipedia:
More than 30 specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex have been identified, some of which are nearly complete skeletons. Soft tissue and proteins have been reported in at least one of these specimens. The abundance of fossil material has allowed significant research into many aspects of its biology, including life history and biomechanics.
30 specimens of this species is considered an "abundance of fossil material". With many other species the fossil record is far less complete. This includes that of Deinonychus, the dinosaur James considers to be the most likely candidate for such a maritime civilisation. To date just a couple of specimens have been identified.
I am not playing with numbers, but the fact is that the fossil record is extremely sketchy for these species. When you can count the number of (incomplete!) fossils on one hand with fingers to spare, it is unreasonable to expect that tools etc. should have survived if they existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus#Discovery_and_naming
I am totally willing to read his work if you only point out where it is. His messages in general forums don't qualify in any way as a work. If you are not able to point out his work then stop hinting to me that he actually has something.
[/quote]
Why don't his posts constitute work? Again, if you haven't read his work and have no interest in doing so, shut up and get out. Whining because you can't be bothered to use the search function is noobish and pathetic.
-
And remnants of dinosaur are in no way more durable than any of their work would be if they had the civilization.
Yes, and most of the fossils we collect are partially or largely incomplete. What's more, stone tools probably are less durable than dinosaur remains, and harder to identify even if they are present.
Excuses, only excuses. What you claim here is that dinosaurs never-ever carried any tools. There are quite many dinosaurs who were buried in the mud, were buried under landslides and so on. And not one ever carried something that could even hint a civilization. Even the primitive society. And stone age isn't civilization yet. Tools and such may be harder to identify but that is not the problem. Problem is that there is zero such evidence. You are going into circular reasoning if you are gonna say that your evidence for civilization is the distribution of fossils
I am not "play[ing] with percentage" [sic]. Here is a passage from Wikipedia:
More than 30 specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex have been identified, some of which are nearly complete skeletons. Soft tissue and proteins have been reported in at least one of these specimens. The abundance of fossil material has allowed significant research into many aspects of its biology, including life history and biomechanics.
30 specimens of this species is considered an "abundance of fossil material". With many other species the fossil record is far less complete.
You are going against your "fossil distribution" evidence here. Your quote is about Tyrannosaurus rex who lived in the western North America. Quite specific area. You either argue about the fossils throughout the entire world if you want to preserve your "fossil distribution" evidence or you drop that and try to find some other evidence for civilization.
This includes that of Deinonychus, the dinosaur James considers to be the most likely candidate for such a maritime civilisation. To date just a couple of specimens have been identified.
Nice one. As your only and only argument is fossil distribution then were these couple specimens distributed throughout the world in different places?
Why don't his posts constitute work? Again, if you haven't read his work and have no interest in doing so, shut up and get out. Whining because you can't be bothered to use the search function is noobish and pathetic.
Because the messages are not the work. They are just messages. And again, if you are not able to provide any links to his work then please, stop referring to the thing which doesn't exist. Boosting up some persons messages as some work which other people can take seriously makes you look like a snake-oil salesman.
-
Excuses, only excuses. What you claim here is that dinosaurs never-ever carried any tools.
Zork, how many early primates have we found as fossils holding tools? Yet we still know they used them.
-
Excuses, only excuses. What you claim here is that dinosaurs never-ever carried any tools. There are quite many dinosaurs who were buried in the mud, were buried under landslides and so on. And not one ever carried something that could even hint a civilization. Even the primitive society. And stone age isn't civilization yet. Tools and such may be harder to identify but that is not the problem. Problem is that there is zero such evidence. You are going into circular reasoning if you are gonna say that your evidence for civilization is the distribution of fossils
I'm not claiming any such thing. I am claiming that it is extremely unlikely that the two (incomplete!) Deinonychus fossils we have discovered (to my knowledge) would be found with tools. After all, pre-historic human remains are far more common, yet only rarely found with tools. Given such a limited fossil record, it is absurd to suggest that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
You are going against your "fossil distribution" evidence here. Your quote is about Tyrannosaurus rex who lived in the western North America. Quite specific area. You either argue about the fossils throughout the entire world if you want to preserve your "fossil distribution" evidence or you drop that and try to find some other evidence for civilization.
I have no idea what you're on about here. I raised Tyrannosaurus rex because it is a species of dinosaur for which we have a (relatively) excellent fossil record. Yet we still only have 30 specimens of it. I was not suggesting that Tyrannosaurs used tools, just that your expectation that we should have found tools by now is absurd.
We have "an abundance of fossil material" related to this species. Apparently 30 incomplete specimens equates to an abundance of fossil material in this field. My aim was to demonstrate that comparing the fossil record of dinosaurs to that of humans is ridiculous. This is especially obvious when you consider that we only claim that some species to have had a maritime civilisation. Indeed, we only have two (incomplete!) specimens of the species in question, and the odds of either being found with intact or identifiable tools are extremely low.
Nice one. As your only and only argument is fossil distribution then were these couple specimens distributed throughout the world in different places?
This has become tiresome. Please read James' original thread. I am not going to re-hash and re-state the same arguments to someone who is simply too lazy to search for them himself.
Because the messages are not the work. They are just messages.
What exactly is the difference? James' writings on dinosaurs are lengthy and well presented. That they are posted here makes absolutely no differences. Please, stop debating like a petty child.
-
it is absurd to suggest that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
If only you followed this philosophy in the rest of your discussions here. However, in matters where it is convenient for you to argue so, you said it best:
The rule is simple: direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen. When you introduce anything else in an attempt to disprove my argument, you lose.
-
The rule is simple: direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen. When you introduce anything else in an attempt to disprove my argument, you lose.
I have bolded what is relevant, but please do not derail this thread with irrelevant arguments.
-
The rule is simple: direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen. When you introduce anything else in an attempt to disprove my argument, you lose.
I have bolded what is relevant, but please do not derail this thread with irrelevant arguments.
Dinosaurs did not have an advanced civilization capable of building ocean-crossing boats. Prove me wrong.
-
The rule is simple: direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen. When you introduce anything else in an attempt to disprove my argument, you lose.
I have bolded what is relevant, but please do not derail this thread with irrelevant arguments.
Dinosaurs did not have an advanced civilization capable of building ocean-crossing boats. Prove me wrong.
Please stay on topic with James' theory on dinosaurs.
If you want to promote a new theory of your own, start a new thread. Stop derailing.
-
Excuses, only excuses. What you claim here is that dinosaurs never-ever carried any tools.
Zork, how many early primates have we found as fossils holding tools? Yet we still know they used them.
Who said anything about holding them? I said carried and that doesn't mean that we must find them clutching the tools in their hands. It means that there should be something in their vicinity that resembles the tools. But there is nothing. And they don't even have to be near vicinity. There is no findings of anything that resembles a tool at that we can place in the relevant time-frame.
Excuses, only excuses. What you claim here is that dinosaurs never-ever carried any tools. There are quite many dinosaurs who were buried in the mud, were buried under landslides and so on. And not one ever carried something that could even hint a civilization. Even the primitive society. And stone age isn't civilization yet. Tools and such may be harder to identify but that is not the problem. Problem is that there is zero such evidence. You are going into circular reasoning if you are gonna say that your evidence for civilization is the distribution of fossils
I'm not claiming any such thing. I am claiming that it is extremely unlikely that the two (incomplete!) Deinonychus fossils we have discovered (to my knowledge) would be found with tools. After all, pre-historic human remains are far more common, yet only rarely found with tools. Given such a limited fossil record, it is absurd to suggest that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
And I am claiming that it is even super-hyper-extremely unlikely that Deinonychus may have some sort of civilization. Given such limited info it is totally absurd to suggest that there was some sort of advanced tool usage and society built by Deinonychus. It is absurd to say that absence of evidence for civilization means that there was a civilization.
You are going against your "fossil distribution" evidence here. Your quote is about Tyrannosaurus rex who lived in the western North America. Quite specific area. You either argue about the fossils throughout the entire world if you want to preserve your "fossil distribution" evidence or you drop that and try to find some other evidence for civilization.
I have no idea what you're on about here. I raised Tyrannosaurus rex because it is a species of dinosaur for which we have a (relatively) excellent fossil record. Yet we still only have 30 specimens of it. I was not suggesting that Tyrannosaurs used tools, just that your expectation that we should have found tools by now is absurd.
We have "an abundance of fossil material" related to this species. Apparently 30 incomplete specimens equates to an abundance of fossil material in this field. My aim was to demonstrate that comparing the fossil record of dinosaurs to that of humans is ridiculous. This is especially obvious when you consider that we only claim that some species to have had a maritime civilisation. Indeed, we only have two (incomplete!) specimens of the species in question, and the odds of either being found with intact or identifiable tools are extremely low.
What I am about here? Your only argument for the dinosaur civilization was the fossil distribution around the world and then you bring for the showcase the specimen who live in some local area. I have no idea what you're on about here. And the number of fossil records of one specimen have no relation for the tools and their remnants and preservation. I still don't understand any of your claims that there may have been a civilization. For the further clarification please define the 'civilization' and in what evidence you base your conclusion that dinosaurs may have had it. And something else than fossil distribution, because it isn't in any way evidence for the civilization, it is only evidence for the fact that dinosaurs moved around, traveled.
Nice one. As your only and only argument is fossil distribution then were these couple specimens distributed throughout the world in different places?
This has become tiresome. Please read James' original thread. I am not going to re-hash and re-state the same arguments to someone who is simply too lazy to search for them himself.
Sure, it's tiresome when you go by some vague memory or hearsay and even can't point out your sources. Fossil distribution is the only argument for dinosaurs civilization and I surely don't get how in the hell you can deduce civilization from the two fossil remnants.
Because the messages are not the work. They are just messages.
What exactly is the difference? James' writings on dinosaurs are lengthy and well presented. That they are posted here makes absolutely no differences. Please, stop debating like a petty child.
They are fantasies and speculations which base only on the fact of the fossil distribution. Don't think that I haven't browsed through James's messages and that is exactly why I say that these don't have any resemblance to some serious work. I dare you to show me some "lengthy and well presented" messages from James which qualify as decent work on your eyes. I hope to get some insight about what you qualify as serious work and what is your acceptance level for that. If you provide me that information(links to these works) then I think I can present some lengthy and well presented works to you in future instead of these messages I write right now.
-
Who said anything about holding them? I said carried and that doesn't mean that we must find them clutching the tools in their hands. It means that there should be something in their vicinity that resembles the tools. But there is nothing. And they don't even have to be near vicinity. There is no findings of anything that resembles a tool at that we can place in the relevant time-frame.
The verb used is irrelevant zork. His point stands either way. Plenty of early primates have been found without tools nearby, probably a lot more than have been found with tools.
And I am claiming that it is even super-hyper-extremely unlikely that Deinonychus may have some sort of civilization. Given such limited info it is totally absurd to suggest that there was some sort of advanced tool usage and society built by Deinonychus. It is absurd to say that absence of evidence for civilization means that there was a civilization.
I have never claimed that absence of evidence equals evidence, simply that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (which is what you have claimed).
What I am about here? Your only argument for the dinosaur civilization was the fossil distribution around the world and then you bring for the showcase the specimen who live in some local area.
No, I did not:
I have no idea what you're on about here. I raised Tyrannosaurus rex because it is a species of dinosaur for which we have a (relatively) excellent fossil record. Yet we still only have 30 specimens of it. I was not suggesting that Tyrannosaurs used tools, just that your expectation that we should have found tools by now is absurd.
If you have reading difficulties zork, consult a professional. If not, then I suggest you take your strawman arguments elsewhere. I have been perfectly clear about why I brought Tyrannosaurus into this thread, and pretending that I made a different point when it's there in black & white is a shoddy debating tactic.
I have no idea what you're on about here. And the number of fossil records of one specimen have no relation for the tools and their remnants and preservation.
Yes it does, don't be so ridiculous. Here are some posts James made in an earlier thread (which you would already have encountered had you bothered to look for it):
Of all the dinosaurs, who existed ever, what percentage have been found in fossilised remains? Tools made of wood or anything remotely biodegradable, papers, parchments, wood carvings, fabrics, etc. would be incredibly unlikely to survive into the fossilisation stage, based on the tiny percentage of ANYTHING which does. Of the literal billions of dromaeosaurs which would have existed throughout their history, the number of ones which have been preserved probably scarcely pushes one hundred.
How many dinosaur fossils have been found in total, compared with the number of dinosaurs that actually existed?
Just for illustrative purposes, if we estimate that 10000 specimens have been found in total (it's probably far fewer), compared with the number of total dinosaurs which ever existed (if for the sake of argument we estimate that maybe on average a million individual dinosaurs were born each year - it's probably many times more than that, but you can alter the numbers however you want if you feel there were fewer or more dinosaurs - the result will still illustrate my point), over the 160 million years in which dinosaurs covered the Earth.
These numbers would result in 160000000000000 dinosaurs ever existing (this seems pretty conservative as an estimate really) which would mean that 1/16000000000 dinosaurs which existed have been found. 0.00000000625% of the dinosaurs which existed have actually fossilised and been discovered if these numbers are anywhere near accurate.
By the same token, if fewer than 16000000000 boats were built by the dinosaurs, we would be lucky to find a single specimen, even if bone and wood had equivalent candidacy for fossilisation (they don't quite, though both can become fossilised). Of course, the dinosaurs would have built far fewer than 16000000000 boats.
If anybody has any disagreement with these figures and processes, provide me with new variables. If you believe that either of the following:
Total number of dinosaur specimens discovered by humanity
Total number of dinosaurs, on average, born every year during the 160 million years in which they existed
ought to be different, please provide your own variables. I assure you that any reasonable estimates will yield the result that a miniscule percentage of the total dinosaurs which have existed have actually been found, and that the same would be true of the boats they built.
To suggest that the number of fossils discovered has no bearing on the probability of discovering tools or boats is demonstrably absurd.
I still don't understand any of your claims that there may have been a civilization. For the further clarification please define the 'civilization' and in what evidence you base your conclusion that dinosaurs may have had it. And something else than fossil distribution, because it isn't in any way evidence for the civilization, it is only evidence for the fact that dinosaurs moved around, traveled.
The construction of boats or rafts for the purposes of group-travel strongly suggests the existence of a Dromaeosaur civilisation/culture.
Sure, it's tiresome when you go by some vague memory or hearsay and even can't point out your sources. Fossil distribution is the only argument for dinosaurs civilization and I surely don't get how in the hell you can deduce civilization from the two fossil remnants.
It's very simple:
Here are some images of the dromaeosaur races Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, and their common ancestor, Deinonychus:
Adasaurus, pictured gingerly cradling its young in its nimble clawed hands.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/adasauro.jpg)
Dromaeosaurus, a cousin of the Adasaurus, who would have existed during the same period as the Adasaurus (the late cretacious), but on different continents.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Avian_Dromaeosaurus_03_10.jpg)
Deinonychus, the ancestor of the Dromaeosauruses and the Adasauruses.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/walters_deinonychus.jpg)
The natural history of the dromaeosaurs is a good example of the kinds of developments which the dinosaurs as a whole would have undergone. Fossil evidence indicates that Deinonychus originated in North America during the early cretacious period.
Deinonychus are thought to have been highly social, organising themselves into complex communities in order to work together. During their development, Deinonychus evolved an iconic five-inch claw on the foot, which was highly dexterous, and could be retracted and moved back and forth. Initially, this would have served a purpose in hunting and combat, though it would later have been useful in the performance of complex motor skills such as puncturing fabrics, making written inscriptions and so on. The special success of this early dromaeosaur is partly explicable by its long tail, which acting as a counterbalance allowed the use of both the hands and feet in dexterous activity.
The distribution of Deinonychus' descendants, the Adasuruses and Dromaeosauruses, suggests that one or more colonial expeditions sailed from the West Coast of North America and colonised the far East, probably landing in Japan and China and then spreading across the eastern part of Eurasia.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/npo.jpg)
Above: The Pacific Ocean
Travel between the colonies during this period seems to have been very limited, because the two previously homogenous groups of dromaeosaur began to evolve minor racial adaptions which distinguished them from one another, though they retained all of the major characteristics of the dromaeosaur species. The fact that these groups proceeded to evolve on the micro scale along different lines despite their immediate proximity in the faulty "pangea" model is testament to the fact that ocean seperated them, much as it does today.
The colonist Deinonychuses who reached the far east adapted in a number of ways. Adasauruses, probably due to massively increased tool usage and the removal of the necessity to be involved in violence as their civilisation progressed, developed much smaller foot-claws than their ancestors. A smaller claw would have been much more suitable for precision tasks like inscription, manipulation of cloth and fine materials and so on, and marks the transition from its role as a mechanism of hunting and combat to its role as an additional dexterous digit. In the absence of the selection pressures brought on by the development of a civilisation, and the mastery of the surrounding wildlife and other hazards, Adasauruses' bodies became smaller than those of their Deinonychus ancestors, who had needed to be larger because their lifestyle was primarily one based around hunting and conflict. Fossil evidence suggests that the Saurolophus, a herbiverous, docile grazing dinosaur, originating in North America, also appeared in the far East at roughly the same time, making it likely that the first Deinonychian colonists brought specimens with them on the transcontinental voyage, and probably began to farm them for food (they would have previous been hunted by tribes of Deinonychus living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the American continent). The advent of an agrarian society based on the pasturing of Saurolophus would remove the necessity for the brutalities of hunting. In order to bring down a wild Saurolophus, tribal warriors would have needed considerable bulk and might as well as cunning, but their agrarian descendants needed no such unneccessary brawn, which explains their shrinking - the average Adasaurus living during the late cretacious was around 8 feet long, whereas a North American Deinonychus of the early cretacious period, who would have had to hunt the large wild Saurolophus and Tenontosaurus (probably hunted to extinction by early Deinonychian hunters, explaining why it was not exported to the far east along with Saurolophus) would have measured 11 feet long.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/pacific_ocean_image_t1677.jpg)
Above: The west coast of North America. Groups of pioneering Deinonychus, who would later microevolve into the Asasauruses, would have set sail from shores such as these.
The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines. The Dromaeosaurus, from which the species derives its name, were Deinonychus who remained in North America. Their adaption did not include such an acute reduction in claw size as the the Adasaurus, but their body size decreased significantly, to around 6 feet long. Again, this is attributable to the development of farming, primarily of the tamed Saurolophus. That the Dromaeosauruses did not develop the highly precise small-claw of the Adasauruses suggests that they may not have involved themselves so heavily in activities such as writing. Dromaeosauruses developed a coat of downy feathers, which might suggest that colder climates prevailed in North America at this time. Their smaller size than the Adasaurus could also be indicative of evolutionary adaption in order to conserve heat. If temperatures did drop for the Dromaeosaurs entering the Late Cretacious, perhaps their society was a more rugged one, and the harsh realities of surviving the cold winters precluded such an extensive focus on writing, hence the lack of precision small-foot-claw adaption shown in the Adasaurus. The evolution of their tails gave greater flexibility and may have been indicative of adaption in favour of some civilised activity, since the balancing capability of the tail enables enhanced use not only of the forelimbs but also the foot claw.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/saurolophusC.jpg)
Above: Saurolophus. These gentle giants were probably first hunted by the North American Deinonychus, and later herded and grazed by them when farming entered their culture just prior to the colonisation era, and splitting of Asasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, the two Deinonychus descendant races.
So, fossil remains suggest that as intelligent Deinonychus became highly successful hunter-gatherers during the Early Cretacious, conquering the entire North American continent with such rampant success that they drove one of their main prey animals, the Tenontosaurus, to extinction. It is likely that the advent of Saurolophus domestication roughly coincided with, or just preceded, the maritime renaissance and colonisation period. The tendency of agrarian societies to promote massive population growth is clear, and in this scenario, facing scarcity of land and dropping temperatures, some of the Deinonychus would have begun their colonisation of China and the far East, taking with them livestock as well as elements of the budding culture of North America. Fossil evidence suggests that the Adasaurus society was massively successful, placing some of their near relatives as far afield as Denmark. An empire the size of Alexander the Great's would no doubt have been underpinned by careful organisation and a culture steeped in the written word and refinements of erudition. Meanwhile, as the Late Cretacious brought colder climates in North America, the remaining American Deinonychus grew smaller, hairier and more rugged as they faced the elements as best they could, thought they still retained their agriculture and some vestements of civilisation.
They are fantasies and speculations which base only on the fact of the fossil distribution. Don't think that I haven't browsed through James's messages and that is exactly why I say that these don't have any resemblance to some serious work. I dare you to show me some "lengthy and well presented" messages from James which qualify as decent work on your eyes. I hope to get some insight about what you qualify as serious work and what is your acceptance level for that. If you provide me that information(links to these works) then I think I can present some lengthy and well presented works to you in future instead of these messages I write right now.
You cannot simultaneously demand sources and dismiss them in advance. It makes you look inconsistent at best and petulant at worst. You being awkward for the sake of it, raising imaginary obstacles and setting arbitrary standards in whatever way suits you best. This is not the first time you have done this, nor do I expect it to be the last. It's one of your worst habits zork.
If James' work is so trivial, so unimportant, so lacking in 'seriousness', then you should have no trouble engaging with it and critiquing it. Instead you seek to have it deemed 'impermissable as evidence' because it fails to satisfy some obscure definition of 'work' held by you alone. I think the reason you're trying to avoid discussing his work is because you cannot find any problems with it.
-
That "evidence" is circumstantial at best.
-
That "evidence" is circumstantial at best.
So you agree that it is evidence? zork finds himself in an ever dwindling minority.
Also, I don't think it's any more circumstantial than other palaeontological speculation regarding Dromaeosaurs.
-
All we know for certain about dinosaurs is what we have physical evidence for, mainly that they existed and had bones. We can infer some things and have a pretty good chance of being correct (such as the configuration of those bones). Anything beyond that is speculation until evidence is presented which specifically supports the claim (the claim in this case being that dinosaurs built boats and crossed oceans). No such evidence has been presented here, only speculation that it may have been possible.
For the record, do you believe that ancient dinosaurs built boats for the purpose of crossing the oceans?
-
All we know for certain about dinosaurs is what we have physical evidence for, mainly that they existed and had bones. We can infer some things and have a pretty good chance of being correct (such as the configuration of those bones). Anything beyond that is speculation until evidence is presented which specifically supports the claim (the claim in this case being that dinosaurs built boats and crossed oceans). No such evidence has been presented here, only speculation that it may have been possible.
I'm glad we agree that James' work is as valid as any other palaeontological work.
For the record, do you believe that ancient dinosaurs built boats for the purpose of crossing the oceans?
Eventually, yes, but not initially.
-
So you believe something without direct senatorial.evidence for it.
-
So you believe something without direct senatorial.evidence for it.
I am not a big fan of the U.S. or indeed any other Senate. Such bodies are largely useless in their current form, and where useful, often bloated or even dangerous. After all, Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator, and much of the evidence placed before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was extremely dubious. This is reason alone not to trust such evidence, never mind that it is neither direct nor sensorial in nature.
-
The verb used is irrelevant zork. His point stands either way. Plenty of early primates have been found without tools nearby, probably a lot more than have been found with tools.
But there is plenty of them with tools near them and there are plenty of tools without them in their time-line. But there is no findings of anything that resembles a tool at that we can place in the relevant time-frame for dinosaurs. There isn't even any hints about the civilization. So, you can fantasize all you want but it is only a fantasy, nothing more.
And I am claiming that it is even super-hyper-extremely unlikely that Deinonychus may have some sort of civilization. Given such limited info it is totally absurd to suggest that there was some sort of advanced tool usage and society built by Deinonychus. It is absurd to say that absence of evidence for civilization means that there was a civilization.
I have never claimed that absence of evidence equals evidence, simply that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (which is what you have claimed).
There is absence of evidence for civilization and you still claim that there was civilization. What else this is if not claiming that absence of evidence equals evidence.
What I am about here? Your only argument for the dinosaur civilization was the fossil distribution around the world and then you bring for the showcase the specimen who live in some local area.
No, I did not:
I have no idea what you're on about here. I raised Tyrannosaurus rex because it is a species of dinosaur for which we have a (relatively) excellent fossil record. Yet we still only have 30 specimens of it. I was not suggesting that Tyrannosaurs used tools, just that your expectation that we should have found tools by now is absurd.
If you have reading difficulties zork, consult a professional. If not, then I suggest you take your strawman arguments elsewhere. I have been perfectly clear about why I brought Tyrannosaurus into this thread, and pretending that I made a different point when it's there in black & white is a shoddy debating tactic.
So, you take a irrelevant specimen and try to make a point. If Tyranosaurs didn't have civilization and were scattered around area then there isn't anything to find. Now bring me a relevant example for a large area civilization developing some tens of millions years and from what we have only speculation and zero findings.
I have no idea what you're on about here. And the number of fossil records of one specimen have no relation for the tools and their remnants and preservation.
Yes it does, don't be so ridiculous. Here are some posts James made in an earlier thread (which you would already have encountered had you bothered to look for it):
...
To suggest that the number of fossils discovered has no bearing on the probability of discovering tools or boats is demonstrably absurd.
Not it isn't. You are just being deliberately stubborn. There are fossil findings down to 2.7 billion years ago and thousands of findings for organisms/animals from 600 million to 60 million years. The percentages displayed are just a demagogy. If there was a civilization built during tens of millions of years(just look where the humans got with some 100 000 years) with tools and buildings then the possibility of them disappearing without leaving any signs is zero. The signs about the creators of such civilizations are disappering first and the signs about the civilization remain longer. I say again, define your civilization or there is nothing to talk about because you and James talk about some very primitive social community at least but nothing more. And that is definitely not civilization.
I still don't understand any of your claims that there may have been a civilization. For the further clarification please define the 'civilization' and in what evidence you base your conclusion that dinosaurs may have had it. And something else than fossil distribution, because it isn't in any way evidence for the civilization, it is only evidence for the fact that dinosaurs moved around, traveled.
The construction of boats or rafts for the purposes of group-travel strongly suggests the existence of a Dromaeosaur civilisation/culture.
There is no evidence for the boat or even raft buildings. So, there isn't anything that suggest the existence of civilization. You are just making things up.
His theory is also based only on assumption that the continents were unchangeable for the last 200 or more million years. That notion is absurd even if the plate tectonic theory isn't right. And the place he uses is the Bering Strait which is covered with ice in the winter and offers a possibility to cross over without any boats. There is also very great possibility that it was considerably narrower 200 million years ago or the continents were connected with land. In addition, only the construction of rafts and boats won't let you cruise over the Pacific Ocean. You need navigation skills also.
Sure, it's tiresome when you go by some vague memory or hearsay and even can't point out your sources. Fossil distribution is the only argument for dinosaurs civilization and I surely don't get how in the hell you can deduce civilization from the two fossil remnants.
It's very simple:
...
Short summary - nice pictures and some facts mixed with fantasies. But at least it seems that there is some effort put in it. I guess I come back for it after some time. For now I want to say that, was it so hard to provide your source? Search won't give this message up so easy so I guess you must know the exact right keywords for the search.
You cannot simultaneously demand sources and dismiss them in advance. It makes you look inconsistent at best and petulant at worst. You being awkward for the sake of it, raising imaginary obstacles and setting arbitrary standards in whatever way suits you best. This is not the first time you have done this, nor do I expect it to be the last. It's one of your worst habits zork.
If James' work is so trivial, so unimportant, so lacking in 'seriousness', then you should have no trouble engaging with it and critiquing it. Instead you seek to have it deemed 'impermissable as evidence' because it fails to satisfy some obscure definition of 'work' held by you alone. I think the reason you're trying to avoid discussing his work is because you cannot find any problems with it.
I don't dismiss sources in advance. They are just not easy to find ad you playing kindergarten child play "I know but I don't tell you" won't make things easier. You refusing to disclose your sources makes you seem equally inconsistent and petulant. I can very well describe you with the same words as you did. You are no better.
As for James "work" then it is in no way serious. I have no problem to come back to it later when I have some time but the main faults in his theory is that he just fantasizes without any supportive real findings and discards the known facts that the continents weren't as they are now 200-100 hundred millions years ago. Also the overall time-line which is tens of millions of years. That is plenty of time to develop something more in addition to primitive raft building.
-
But there is plenty of them with tools near them and there are plenty of tools without them in their time-line. But there is no findings of anything that resembles a tool at that we can place in the relevant time-frame for dinosaurs. There isn't even any hints about the civilization. So, you can fantasize all you want but it is only a fantasy, nothing more.
Yes, but we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of specimens of early primates. Also please say what you mean by 'plenty', and provide sources to back up your claim.
There is absence of evidence for civilization and you still claim that there was civilization. What else this is if not claiming that absence of evidence equals evidence.
I claim that a maritime civilisation was probable given the fossil record.
So, you take a irrelevant specimen and try to make a point. If Tyranosaurs didn't have civilization and were scattered around area then there isn't anything to find. Now bring me a relevant example for a large area civilization developing some tens of millions years and from what we have only speculation and zero findings.
zork, if you're not going to read my posts, don't reply to them. You are exposing yourself as either stupid or dishonest. Your argument is a total straw man, and is only exceptional because it is so obvious.
Not it isn't. You are just being deliberately stubborn. There are fossil findings down to 2.7 billion years ago and thousands of findings for organisms/animals from 600 million to 60 million years. The percentages displayed are just a demagogy.
Yes, but we are not suggesting that all creatures used tools! We are suggesting that a certain species of dinosaur (and possibly some of its ancestors) used tools. Please show us the "thousands" of findings for these species, or else accept that comparison with humans is ridiculous. Also, as James himself said:
If anybody has any disagreement with these figures and processes, provide me with new variables. If you believe that either of the following:
Total number of dinosaur specimens discovered by humanity
Total number of dinosaurs, on average, born every year during the 160 million years in which they existed
ought to be different, please provide your own variables. I assure you that any reasonable estimates will yield the result that a miniscule percentage of the total dinosaurs which have existed have actually been found, and that the same would be true of the boats they built.
If there was a civilization built during tens of millions of years(just look where the humans got with some 100 000 years) with tools and buildings then the possibility of them disappearing without leaving any signs is zero. The signs about the creators of such civilizations are disappering first and the signs about the civilization remain longer. I say again, define your civilization or there is nothing to talk about because you and James talk about some very primitive social community at least but nothing more. And that is definitely not civilization.
Semantics, and a comment which shows you are totally unaware of the huge amount of debate and discourse surrounding the term 'civilisation'. It is anything but fixed or clearly defined. Moreover, the precise term is irrelevant. I am happy to describe it as a primitive, ocean-faring social community if you like. It doesn't make a bit of difference.
There is no evidence for the boat or even raft buildings. So, there isn't anything that suggest the existence of civilization. You are just making things up.
The distribution of fossils suggests a maritime culture.
His theory is also based only on assumption that the continents were unchangeable for the last 200 or more million years. That notion is absurd even if the plate tectonic theory isn't right.
What?
And the place he uses is the Bering Strait which is covered with ice in the winter and offers a possibility to cross over without any boats. There is also very great possibility that it was considerably narrower 200 million years ago or the continents were connected with land. In addition, only the construction of rafts and boats won't let you cruise over the Pacific Ocean. You need navigation skills also.
1) The distribution of fossil evidence, which is our only source of evidence, does ot yet suggest crossings cia the Bering Strait.
2) Plenty of nomadic human cultures crossed oceans without advanced navigation tools. As for navigation 'skills', plenty of animals possess this, both at sea and on land (notably avian dinosaurs).
Short summary - nice pictures and some facts mixed with fantasies. But at least it seems that there is some effort put in it. I guess I come back for it after some time. For now I want to say that, was it so hard to provide your source? Search won't give this message up so easy so I guess you must know the exact right keywords for the search.
It isn't hard at all. I searched for posts by James containing the word 'dinosaur'. That topic is one of the first results. I'm sure more specific searches (e.g. You've been here long enough, so I don't see why I should present links to arrogant RE'ers who simply can't be bothered to look themselves.
I don't dismiss sources in advance. They are just not easy to find ad you playing kindergarten child play "I know but I don't tell you" won't make things easier. You refusing to disclose your sources makes you seem equally inconsistent and petulant. I can very well describe you with the same words as you did. You are no better.
Earlier you specifically stated you would not accept his posts/messages as work. How easy or difficult they are to find, or how reluctant I am to satisfy the lazy and arrogant, is irrelevant.
As for James "work" then it is in no way serious. I have no problem to come back to it later when I have some time but the main faults in his theory is that he just fantasizes without any supportive real findings and discards the known facts that the continents weren't as they are now 200-100 hundred millions years ago. Also the overall time-line which is tens of millions of years. That is plenty of time to develop something more in addition to primitive raft building.
zork, you have presented no contrary evidence whatsoever. People in glass houses...
-
So you believe something without direct senatorial.evidence for it.
I think Lord Wilmore's reasoning is fine in this context and in the thread where he discussed the sun's movements. It is fair enough demanding direct sensorial evidence for present day phenomena, after all these experiments are repeatable. The dinosaurs are a totally different matter, they are separated from us by millions of years and we have only a very sparse fossil record. No direct sensorial evidence can possibly be offered here because we don't have a time machine. We are forced to use only the few fossils we have, and fill the rest in with hypotheses which are largely untestable and always will be.
We can argue which hypotheses are more probable based on which have more supporting data but it will ultimately be impossible to prove either way. I argue for the existence of a primitive dinosaur civilization because it would explain both the distribution of dinosaur fossils all over the world, evolution of the deinonychus to smaller dinosaurs with smaller claws. This evolution of deinonychus would be explained perfectly if they were a largely social race with rudimentary agricultural skills, as they would no longer have the need for such large, combat oriented bodies.
I know that this is only hypothesizing and cannot prove anything either way, but as mentioned we will never know these things for sure. I am simply trying to demonstrate that dinosaur civilization is certainly possible and that the distribution of dinosaur fossils record poses no problems for FET.
-
Terra Plana is correct. Ultimately we are only speculating and discussing the probability of each theory. It would be wrong of us (or anyone) to make absolute declarations of truth or validity based on the very limited evidence we have.
-
Terra Plana is correct. Ultimately we are only speculating and discussing the probability of each theory. It would be wrong of us (or anyone) to make absolute declarations of truth or validity based on the very limited evidence we have.
Therefore you should not absolutely declare that the earth is flat based on the very limited evidence you have.
-
So you believe something without direct senatorial.evidence for it.
So you believe things which require you to take a leap of faith?
-
So you believe something without direct senatorial.evidence for it.
So you believe things which require you to take a leap of faith?
No.
-
Terra Plana is correct. Ultimately we are only speculating and discussing the probability of each theory. It would be wrong of us (or anyone) to make absolute declarations of truth or validity based on the very limited evidence we have.
Therefore you should not absolutely declare that the earth is flat based on the very limited evidence you have.
There is plenty of direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is flat. I was talking about evidence for the behaviour patterns and lifestyles of prehistoric dinosaurs.
-
Yes, but we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of specimens of early primates. Also please say what you mean by 'plenty', and provide sources to back up your claim.
Plenty is enough to see that there were tools and they were used by humanoids. Read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool for example.
I claim that a maritime civilisation was probable given the fossil record.
Finding a bunch of bones from somewhere don't indicate any civilization. Even not the probability.
Yes, but we are not suggesting that all creatures used tools! We are suggesting that a certain species of dinosaur (and possibly some of its ancestors) used tools.
Sure, and you do that without any evidence. It's kind of absurd because in that logic I may claim that the dinosaurs built the rockets and they didn't go extinct but they fly away to another planets. You may suggest anything but to really show that they did it there must be some evidence which you totally lack.
His theory is also based only on assumption that the continents were unchangeable for the last 200 or more million years. That notion is absurd even if the plate tectonic theory isn't right.
What?
Plate tectonics doesn't ring any bell? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/tectonics/intro.html for example? That means that the continents weren't in same places as they are right now but in different places. James theory relies completely on the fact that the continents were in dinosaurs time exactly like they are now. And my point is that even if there isn't tectonic plates and there wasn't pangea and continents don't move event then the continents can't stay unchangeable in the hundreds of millions of years.
It isn't hard at all. I searched for posts by James containing the word 'dinosaur'. That topic is one of the first results. I'm sure more specific searches
Topic! Not the message. To me the search gives result which has the James message at the page 20 and your quoted message was on 3 page. That means that you expect others to go through the who know how many pages to find something. I expect to use Search function to find the mesage I want not the N page long topic from where there may or may not be the relevant message. I quite see you as the arrogant one here.
zork, you have presented no contrary evidence whatsoever. People in glass houses...
Lord Wilmore, you have presented no evidence whatsoever for the civilization case. So, we are even.
I was talking about evidence for the behaviour patterns and lifestyles of prehistoric dinosaurs.
Your sources please. Where do we have such kind of evidence for their behaviour patterns and lifestyles?
-
Yes, but we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of specimens of early primates. Also please say what you mean by 'plenty', and provide sources to back up your claim.
Plenty is enough to see that there were tools and they were used by humanoids. Read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool for example.
I'm not sure how we can deduce that all of the stone tools found were used by humanoids and not dexterous dinosaurs. Perhaps some of the crude tools found were crafted and used by dinosaurs. They may even have been re-used by later human settlements.
I have no beef with continental drift. I don't see why that could not account for fossil distribution, but Mr. McIntyre's theory is at least plausible. Certainly not as impossible as you make it sound.
-
Yes, but we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of specimens of early primates. Also please say what you mean by 'plenty', and provide sources to back up your claim.
Plenty is enough to see that there were tools and they were used by humanoids. Read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool for example.
I'm not sure how we can deduce that all of the stone tools found were used by humanoids and not dexterous dinosaurs. Perhaps some of the crude tools found were crafted and used by dinosaurs. They may even have been re-used by later human settlements.
I have no beef with continental drift. I don't see why that could not account for fossil distribution, but Mr. McIntyre's theory is at least plausible. Certainly not as impossible as you make it sound.
I think it highly unlikely that two species separately started using similar tools while having very different ergonomic needs. While it is possible dinosaurs had tools, it is a rather rash assumption to say they would look like ours.
-
Perhaps this is true of the instruments themselves, but the axe heads, boring heads, etc would of necessity be similar. The handles and mountings of these instruments do not survive, of course.
-
I wonder if previously discovered stone tool cores have been examined with the possibility of non humanoid crafters? I've been told that right and left-handedness can be deduced if these are expertly studied. Could other clues come to light with Mr. McIntyre's theory in mind?
-
I'm sure the possibility is rarely, if ever, entertained while studying lithic artifacts. It's not a wonder that no stone tools have been attributed to dinosaurs, as one generally finds what one is looking for.
-
I know one such expert. As I'll be seeing her during Christmas, I'll ask and see what she might be able to lend to the theory.
-
I'm not sure how we can deduce that all of the stone tools found were used by humanoids and not dexterous dinosaurs. Perhaps some of the crude tools found were crafted and used by dinosaurs. They may even have been re-used by later human settlements.
There is no way to determine that. You may theorize about it but what methods you can hope to use to attribute the tools making time to the 60 or more million years later? And it is not very probable that the tools just lied around on the ground some 60 million or more years for the stone age humans to find. Things lying around so many years have tendency to be buried quite deep underground.
-
I'm not suggesting humans didn't form tools or stole them from dinosaurs. I'm simply saying that we do find tools, and I'm not sure how one could conclude they were not pre-human or dinosauric.
-
One can get a rough idea of the age of the artifacts by knowing how deep they were buried.
-
Like this?
http://weirdsciences.net/2009/12/19/does-human-existed-before-current-thoughts-or-something-else/
-
One can get a rough idea of the age of the artifacts by knowing how deep they were buried.
-
Like this?
http://weirdsciences.net/2009/12/19/does-human-existed-before-current-thoughts-or-something-else/
If someone can unlock secrets that are hidden from us by the government or some other unknown entity, they should hire someone to check their work for grammar.
Just saying.
-
Plenty is enough to see that there were tools and they were used by humanoids. Read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool for example.
Okay, so we don't have plenty of relevant fossils then, do we?
Finding a bunch of bones from somewhere don't indicate any civilization. Even not the probability.
Making wild, unsupported (and unsupportable) statements doesn't help your argument.
Sure, and you do that without any evidence. It's kind of absurd because in that logic I may claim that the dinosaurs built the rockets and they didn't go extinct but they fly away to another planets. You may suggest anything but to really show that they did it there must be some evidence which you totally lack.
This is not a good analogy. If we had found dinosaur fossils on Mars, it would be.
Plate tectonics doesn't ring any bell? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/tectonics/intro.html for example? That means that the continents weren't in same places as they are right now but in different places. James theory relies completely on the fact that the continents were in dinosaurs time exactly like they are now. And my point is that even if there isn't tectonic plates and there wasn't pangea and continents don't move event then the continents can't stay unchangeable in the hundreds of millions of years.
This is what I don't understand. Please justify that statement.
Topic! Not the message. To me the search gives result which has the James message at the page 20 and your quoted message was on 3 page. That means that you expect others to go through the who know how many pages to find something. I expect to use Search function to find the mesage I want not the N page long topic from where there may or may not be the relevant message. I quite see you as the arrogant one here.
Listen, the search function works the same way for everyone. You know what I did when I got you that link? I looked through each page of that topic. I didn't know where the post was, or even remember it that well, I just looked. Basically, you're just admitting what I've already contended, which is that you are simply too lazy to search for yourself and expect others to do it for you.
Lord Wilmore, you have presented no evidence whatsoever for the civilization case. So, we are even.
Not so. We have presented evidence, you simply do not wish to acknowledge it as such. This is not my problem.
Your sources please. Where do we have such kind of evidence for their behaviour patterns and lifestyles?
Please read my posts or do not bother responding to them. My point was that nobody has evidence of such things. Nonetheless, it is still considered legitimate to speculate about such things.
-
Lord Wilmore, you have presented no evidence whatsoever for the civilization case. So, we are even.
Not so. We have presented evidence, you simply do not wish to acknowledge it as such. This is not my problem.
Sorry Wilmore, but speculation does not count as evidence.
-
Who is to say that dinosaurs were not a civilized people?
Who is to say that they were?
(I found this over in another thread and wanted to respond so I thought I would move and respond to it here to not progress a different topic in that thread?)
I was recently greeted with a cordial welcome by a dinosaur in the home of a friend. It has been accepted into their family in a kind way like one of their own.
Whether this behavior is indicative of past dinosaurs I can not claim, but of the current type I was quite impressed with the behavior.
-
Who is to say that dinosaurs were not a civilized people?
Who is to say that they were?
(I found this over in another thread and wanted to respond so I thought I would move and respond to it here to not progress a different topic in that thread?)
I was recently greeted with a cordial welcome by a dinosaur in the home of a friend. It has been accepted into their family in a kind way like one of their own.
Whether this behavior is indicative of past dinosaurs I can not claim, but of the current type I was quite impressed with the behavior.
Perhaps some dinosaurs kept other, small dinosaurs as companions?
-
Who is to say that dinosaurs were not a civilized people?
Who is to say that they were?
(I found this over in another thread and wanted to respond so I thought I would move and respond to it here to not progress a different topic in that thread?)
I was recently greeted with a cordial welcome by a dinosaur in the home of a friend. It has been accepted into their family in a kind way like one of their own.
Whether this behavior is indicative of past dinosaurs I can not claim, but of the current type I was quite impressed with the behavior.
Perhaps some dinosaurs kept other, small dinosaurs as companions?
Brilliant! I had never thought of that? Very worthy of consideration.
-
And larger dinosaurs too. My scientific studies have indicated that certain large dinosaur species were used as pack-animals for smaller ones.
-
And larger dinosaurs too. My scientific studies have indicated that certain large dinosaur species were used as pack-animals for smaller ones.
Please post this evidence. Preferably in pencil sketch format. You may use pencils B to 4B.
-
Recently, I was walking past a dinosaur and just for fun addressed it as "chopper" even though that is not its real name. The dinosaur did a double take and then responded with exuberant laughter exhibiting a well developed sense of humor.
This led me to think that if dinosaurs have a sense of humor then they could also have in them other traits that represent the building blocks of an even more advanced civilization than we now give them credit for. It has already been discussed that they do have a history of building, travel and social abilities.
What if they had developed to a level where their community interests and capacity included what we now know as theater?
Could they not have constructed amphitheaters for purposes of staging dramatic performances or perhaps used natural amphitheaters that exist even to this day to facilitate such dramatic performances?
It would not be such a stretch to consider this potential if they were really that socially advanced.
-
What if the sky was orange?
-
I cannot decide which group is more damaging to FET: its genuine adherents or false ones.
-
I cannot decide which group is more damaging to FET: its genuine adherents or false ones.
It is not all that far fetched considering what has already been established regarding dinosaurs. You may want to spend a little more time reviewing this thread.
-
I cannot decide which group is more damaging to FET: its genuine adherents or false ones.
It is not all that far fetched considering what has already been established regarding dinosaurs. You may want to spend a little more time reviewing this thread.
Birds are generally referred to as "modern dinosaurs" in order to avoid confusion with the more familiar prehistoric dinosaurs. That is unless your intention is to cause confusion.
-
I cannot decide which group is more damaging to FET: its genuine adherents or false ones.
It is not all that far fetched considering what has already been established regarding dinosaurs. You may want to spend a little more time reviewing this thread.
Hmm, yeah...or I may not. Good luck on your search for the truth though, or whatever.
-
I cannot decide which group is more damaging to FET: its genuine adherents or false ones.
Wise words indeed.
-
Recently, I was walking past a dinosaur and just for fun addressed it as "chopper" even though that is not its real name. The dinosaur did a double take and then responded with exuberant laughter exhibiting a well developed sense of humor.
It seems you are placing a heavy burden on the response of the dinosaur. In fact it is much more probable that the dinosaur in question heard "chomper", a common ribbing among dinosaurs. The rest of your post is baseless specualtion.
-
Recently, I was walking past a dinosaur and just for fun addressed it as "chopper" even though that is not its real name. The dinosaur did a double take and then responded with exuberant laughter exhibiting a well developed sense of humor.
It seems you are placing a heavy burden on the response of the dinosaur. In fact it is much more probable that the dinosaur in question heard "chomper", a common ribbing among dinosaurs. The rest of your post is baseless specualtion.
Fascinating. I was not aware of that common ribbing factor and am pleased to now know about it. I had previously spent a great deal of time mulling over the intrinsic nature of my post based on what I thought I had heard so I will now have to take a closer look at my conclusions.
-
The reason is that much of dinosaurs "intelligence" was oppressed when the mammals took power. All records showing their witty repartee have been destroyed.
-
Actually, I saw something on the History channel that said that nearly all traces of human existence will disappear 50 million years after humans do.
-
But will our wit survive us, as it failed to do with the ancient dinosaurs?
-
But will our wit survive us, as it failed to do with the ancient dinosaurs?
With all due respect James, the dinosaurs wit did not fail to survive. Despite humans efforts to eradicate evidence we still have many works from the Greater Pangean Library, including all 6 volumes of Diplodocus Aurelius' "Nature and The Natural", which I find hilarious in places, but you really have to understand the context it was written in and who he was writing for.
-
Do not mock me, I am one of the leading scientists of our time. My theories are of the most profound importance!
-
Do not mock me, I am one of the leading scientists of our time. My theories are of the most profound importance!
James. Science can only make progress by challenging the theories that have existed before. This is what the dinosaurs failed to recognise when they built Azilaar.
-
James, I have a great deal of respect for your theories and knowledge.
Interesting where the impetus for research can spring from. Recently, I was searching locally for an area to work on replicating some experiments in ENAG and look who was looking out in the direction where the solution may be?
(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/6403/birdtx.jpg)
The canal goes for a distance of about 20 miles in that direction so it was lucky I was walking by right then.
-
James, I have a great deal of respect for your theories and knowledge.
Interesting where the impetus for research can spring from. Recently, I was searching locally for an area to work on replicating some experiments in ENAG and look who was looking out in the direction where the solution may be?
(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/6403/birdtx.jpg)
The canal goes for a distance of about 20 miles in that direction so it was lucky I was walking by right then.
That is a very nice picture, I can see the rajasaurus in the sky very clearly.
-
That picture is obviously faked.
-
That picture is obviously faked.
Justify this statement.
-
By the standards of FET, if pictures can be faked, then they are faked. No similar claim by FE'ers has been justified further, so I see no need to justify this further.
-
It clearly is a doctored image, but it's very pretty all the same.
-
Point taken on the claim that photos can be doctored. In this case between me, myself and I, I know that it is all original and I must accept the compliment about doctoring skills that I lack.
-
Dinosaurs are naturally contemplative and stoic; it does not surprise me in the slightest to see a large dinosaur gazing wistfully out at the waters on which its ancestors made their great voyages. It warms my heart to see such an image, thank you Gotham for your lovely picture.
-
Perhaps dinosaurs have collective consciousness. Yes. I believe that is the case.
-
When I see a flock of dinosaurs diving and swerving together in large number in the sky, I am often struck by the extent to which they seem to move with single-minded coordination and purpose, but so too do men when they march about or dance. I conceive that the minds of dinosaurs are linked to the same extent as those of men, that as Jung mentioned they have a cultural collective consciousness, that they have minds of their own but that on occassion these minds may link by way of their mental pathways or their cultural convergences.
-
When I see a flock of dinosaurs diving and swerving together in large number in the sky, I am often struck by the extent to which they seem to move with single-minded coordination and purpose, but so too do men when they march about or dance. I conceive that the minds of dinosaurs are linked to the same extent as those of men, that as Jung mentioned they have a cultural collective consciousness, that they have minds of their own but that on occassion these minds may link by way of their mental pathways or their cultural convergences.
Parsec already explained your mindlink with ichimaru, and it involved a penis and a butt. I haven't seen that with the dinosaurs, so if their minds link it must be in a different way.
-
Dinosaurs are naturally contemplative and stoic; it does not surprise me in the slightest to see a large dinosaur gazing wistfully out at the waters on which its ancestors made their great voyages. It warms my heart to see such an image, thank you Gotham for your lovely picture.
Unfortunately it is not natural for dinosaurs to stand on fences or rails. I must therefore conclude that the picture is fake.
-
Dinosaurs are naturally contemplative and stoic; it does not surprise me in the slightest to see a large dinosaur gazing wistfully out at the waters on which its ancestors made their great voyages. It warms my heart to see such an image, thank you Gotham for your lovely picture.
Unfortunately it is not natural for dinosaurs to stand on fences or rails. I must therefore conclude that the picture is fake.
Modern dinosaurs are highly adaptable to their environment.
-
When I see a flock of dinosaurs diving and swerving together in large number in the sky, I am often struck by the extent to which they seem to move with single-minded coordination and purpose, but so too do men when they march about or dance. I conceive that the minds of dinosaurs are linked to the same extent as those of men, that as Jung mentioned they have a cultural collective consciousness, that they have minds of their own but that on occassion these minds may link by way of their mental pathways or their cultural convergences.
Parsec already explained your mindlink with ichimaru, and it involved a penis and a butt. I haven't seen that with the dinosaurs, so if their minds link it must be in a different way.
Please don't make low content posts in the upper fora. If you want to explore our close intellectual admiration for each other, then please start a thread in the Lounge or RM.
-
Perhaps dinosaurs have collective consciousness. Yes. I believe that is the case.
Thats quite a jump to make within the span of one post. Why do you think this is the case?
-
Perhaps dinosaurs have collective consciousness. Yes. I believe that is the case.
....
So you now propose something then instantly believe it? Thank you for showing your complete lack of zetetic method in one post.
-
Perhaps dinosaurs have collective consciousness. Yes. I believe that is the case.
....
So you now propose something then instantly believe it? Thank you for showing your complete lack of zetetic method in one post.
I rather think of it as a good demonstration of how the "zetetic method" is practiced on this site.
-
Raist is posting back up in the upper foras?
-
I propose he probably should stick to the lower fora. Yes. Now I instantly believe that is the case as well.
-
I propose he probably should stick to the lower fora. Yes. Now I instantly believe that is the case as well.
Ichi, your posting in the upper fora has slowly become a disgrace to FE theory. I say this in the most serious manner. Your suggestion of ridiculous ideas without any real evidence harms FE theory in a way that I can no longer tolerate. I will not have a debate with you because I know your methods and know that your insincerity makes you as hard headed as CR90, but I will put forth that you need to reconsider what you are doing. Either return to serious debate or leave the upper fora to people that have something to contribute.
I have abandoned the upper fora simply because the debate has moved from factual to conjecture, and ridiculous conjecture is not my strong suit. I know you are a bit new here, but at a time I was a firm contributor to the upper fora.
As a moderator I would suggest you stop ridiculing me and address my point directly. I suggest you follow your own advice and stick to the lower fora. Being a moderator does not give you the right to spam the upper fora under the guise of sincerity.
Edit: As I recall when you joined this site you mostly stuck to the lower forum, aside from a few debates where you were strictly asking questions you stayed out of the upper fora. The only contribution you have made sense then is to make baseless untestable claims. Please stick to the lower fora with your spam.
-
Perhaps dinosaurs have collective consciousness. Yes. I believe that is the case.
Thats quite a jump to make within the span of one post. Why do you think this is the case?
We know for a fact that dinosaurs worked together in building of boats and castles. How could they do so? It is pretty clear that they employed some form of tele-cerebral-communication (TCC) which is beyond our understanding.
-
When I see a flock of dinosaurs diving and swerving together in large number in the sky, I am often struck by the extent to which they seem to move with single-minded coordination and purpose, but so too do men when they march about or dance. I conceive that the minds of dinosaurs are linked to the same extent as those of men, that as Jung mentioned they have a cultural collective consciousness, that they have minds of their own but that on occassion these minds may link by way of their mental pathways or their cultural convergences.
I agree James. Even more curious is the social structures and concepts they uphold. Though there may be no physical distinction of territory on a tree, they are still able to recognize ownership of a region up to the inch. This is true across species, new members of the area, and newborn avian dinosaurs. Curious since they are surely not present at 'home' all the time.
-
Being a moderator does not give you the right to spam the upper fora under the guise of sincerity.
You are right.
Being a member of the Zetetic Council allows him to do that.
-
When I see a flock of dinosaurs diving and swerving together in large number in the sky, I am often struck by the extent to which they seem to move with single-minded coordination and purpose, but so too do men when they march about or dance. I conceive that the minds of dinosaurs are linked to the same extent as those of men, that as Jung mentioned they have a cultural collective consciousness, that they have minds of their own but that on occassion these minds may link by way of their mental pathways or their cultural convergences.
I agree James. Even more curious is the social structures and concepts they uphold. Though there may be no physical distinction of territory on a tree, they are still able to recognize ownership of a region up to the inch. This is true across species, new members of the area, and newborn avian dinosaurs. Curious since they are surely not present at 'home' all the time.
Using a computer model with a few simple rules allows us to model perfectly avian flocking behavior.
Remember kids, just because you are too stupid to realize how something works, doesn't mean it is done by mind linking.
-
Actually no computer model has perfectly modeled avian dinosaur behavior.
-
Actually no computer model has perfectly modeled avian dinosaur behavior.
Considering that has nothing to do with what I just said, please stay on topic.
-
avian dinosaur flocking behavior*
-
avian dinosaur flocking behavior*
Alright, please prove that no one has ever modeled it.
-
avian dinosaur flocking behavior*
Alright, please prove that no one has ever modeled it.
That has nothing to do with what I have said, please stay on topic.
-
avian dinosaur flocking behavior*
Alright, please prove that no one has ever perfectly modeled it.
Fix'd
-
avian dinosaur flocking behavior*
Alright, please prove that no one has ever modeled it.
That has nothing to do with what I have said, please stay on topic.
Ah I misread your earlier post my bad.
To clarify, I said a human modeled the behavior on a computer, not that a computer modeled the behavior. Computers don't even understand the concept of bird so that would be ridiculous.
I agree, no computer has modeled the behavior but we understand the basic rules governing their behavior leading to the flocking instinct, or at minimum a set of rules that leads to the same result.
-
avian dinosaur flocking behavior*
Alright, please prove that no one has ever perfectly modeled it.
Fix'd
I never mentioned perfectly modeled it. That is something he brought up for no reason.
-
When I see a flock of dinosaurs diving and swerving together in large number in the sky, I am often struck by the extent to which they seem to move with single-minded coordination and purpose, but so too do men when they march about or dance. I conceive that the minds of dinosaurs are linked to the same extent as those of men, that as Jung mentioned they have a cultural collective consciousness, that they have minds of their own but that on occassion these minds may link by way of their mental pathways or their cultural convergences.
I agree James. Even more curious is the social structures and concepts they uphold. Though there may be no physical distinction of territory on a tree, they are still able to recognize ownership of a region up to the inch. This is true across species, new members of the area, and newborn avian dinosaurs. Curious since they are surely not present at 'home' all the time.
Using a computer model with a few simple rules allows us to model perfectly avian flocking behavior.
Remember kids, just because you are too stupid to realize how something works, doesn't mean it is done by mind linking.
-
Modeling avian flocking behavior is not the same as modeling avian behavior.
Either way, Ichi is being intentionally pedantic and obtuse right now.
-
When I see a flock of dinosaurs diving and swerving together in large number in the sky, I am often struck by the extent to which they seem to move with single-minded coordination and purpose, but so too do men when they march about or dance. I conceive that the minds of dinosaurs are linked to the same extent as those of men, that as Jung mentioned they have a cultural collective consciousness, that they have minds of their own but that on occassion these minds may link by way of their mental pathways or their cultural convergences.
I agree James. Even more curious is the social structures and concepts they uphold. Though there may be no physical distinction of territory on a tree, they are still able to recognize ownership of a region up to the inch. This is true across species, new members of the area, and newborn avian dinosaurs. Curious since they are surely not present at 'home' all the time.
Using a computer model with a few simple rules allows us to model perfectly avian flocking behavior.
Remember kids, just because you are too stupid to realize how something works, doesn't mean it is done by mind linking.
Oh yes, you also dropped out the whole "flocking" part of it.
You are now up to the level of parsifal on debating. Peace.
-
avian dinosaur flocking behavior*
hence my above change ::)
-
Allow me to point out yet again that no one has presented any evidence whatsoever that ancient dinosaurs were capable of building boats and crossing oceans, for the sake of moving this conversation back on topic.
-
Why did James propose this theory in the first place? I don't understand its relevance to FET.
-
Why did James propose this theory in the first place? I don't understand its relevance to FET.
It explained something about fossils of dinosaurs being found somewhere or something. Oh yeah the continents moving.
-
Why did James propose this theory in the first place? I don't understand its relevance to FET.
Why dinosaur fossils are found on separate land masses if they don't move.
-
Allow me to point out yet again that no one has presented any evidence whatsoever that ancient dinosaurs were capable of building boats and crossing oceans, for the sake of moving this conversation back on topic.
The evidence is the presence of like fossils in separate areas, much like the evidence for continental drift are the presence of like fossils in separate areas.
-
Allow me to point out yet again that no one has presented any evidence whatsoever that ancient dinosaurs were capable of building boats and crossing oceans, for the sake of moving this conversation back on topic.
The evidence is the presence of like fossils in separate areas, much like the evidence for continental drift are the presence of like fossils in separate areas.
The main difference, however, is that continental drift (plate tectonics) can be seen in action. I don't know of anyone who has ever seen a dinosaur build a ship to cross an ocean.
-
much like the evidence for continental drift are the presence of like fossils in separate areas.
Incorrect.
-
Allow me to point out yet again that no one has presented any evidence whatsoever that ancient dinosaurs were capable of building boats and crossing oceans, for the sake of moving this conversation back on topic.
The evidence is the presence of like fossils in separate areas, much like the evidence for continental drift are the presence of like fossils in separate areas.
Except continental drift is also supported by plate tectonics and paleomagnetism.
-
Allow me to point out yet again that no one has presented any evidence whatsoever that ancient dinosaurs were capable of building boats and crossing oceans, for the sake of moving this conversation back on topic.
The evidence is the presence of like fossils in separate areas, much like the evidence for continental drift are the presence of like fossils in separate areas.
Except continental drift is also supported by plate tectonics and paleomagnetism.
Indeed. They are competing theories. I for one hold plate tectonics and paleomagnetism (in a certain modified form) are a more likely than super intelligent dinosaurs, however there is nothing impossible about dinosaur boats; its just I would like to see a little more hardy evidence before I talk of it in the zeal others do.
-
I see no real cause of concern between FET and plate tectonics.
-
Allow me to point out yet again that no one has presented any evidence whatsoever that ancient dinosaurs were capable of building boats and crossing oceans, for the sake of moving this conversation back on topic.
The evidence is the presence of like fossils in separate areas, much like the evidence for continental drift are the presence of like fossils in separate areas.
Except continental drift is also supported by plate tectonics and paleomagnetism.
Indeed. They are competing theories. I for one hold plate tectonics and paleomagnetism (in a certain modified form) are a more likely than super intelligent dinosaurs, however there is nothing impossible about dinosaur boats; its just I would like to see a little more hardy evidence before I talk of it in the zeal others do.
I share your thoughts. There is nothing impossible about dinosaurs sailing around. However, the evidence for it is less than compelling, especially when compared to that of continental drift.
-
I see no real cause of concern between FET and plate tectonics.
The more I draw connections with my old work concerning fractal geography the more I am really seeing a strong connection between it and continental planar expansion.
-
Allow me to point out yet again that no one has presented any evidence whatsoever that ancient dinosaurs were capable of building boats and crossing oceans, for the sake of moving this conversation back on topic.
The evidence is the presence of like fossils in separate areas, much like the evidence for continental drift are the presence of like fossils in separate areas.
The main difference, however, is that continental drift (plate tectonics) can be seen in action. I don't know of anyone who has ever seen a dinosaur build a ship to cross an ocean.
Here is a photograph of a dinosaur in a boat which it has built, schooning easily across the water. There are many, many more such examples, and if you watch dinosaurs habitually as they congregate by the side of a body of water, you will no doubt see this occur yourself.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/3796999866_cb68a093b0.jpg)
-
Allow me to point out yet again that no one has presented any evidence whatsoever that ancient dinosaurs were capable of building boats and crossing oceans, for the sake of moving this conversation back on topic.
The evidence is the presence of like fossils in separate areas, much like the evidence for continental drift are the presence of like fossils in separate areas.
The main difference, however, is that continental drift (plate tectonics) can be seen in action. I don't know of anyone who has ever seen a dinosaur build a ship to cross an ocean.
Here is a photograph of a dinosaur in a boat which it has built, schooning easily across the water. There are many, many more such examples, and if you watch dinosaurs habitually as they congregate by the side of a body of water, you will no doubt see this occur yourself.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/3796999866_cb68a093b0.jpg)
Please provide evidence that the duck is actually traveling through the water, and instead didn't build his nest on an outcropping in the water.
-
Here is video footage of a similar craft under way:
-
Nobody is denying, James, that there is a nest on the water. What I am curious about is how we know that the bird did not just build his nest on that board in the water to protect it from predators, rather than the bird using the nest as a method of transportation.
-
Allow me to point out yet again that no one has presented any evidence whatsoever that ancient dinosaurs were capable of building boats and crossing oceans, for the sake of moving this conversation back on topic.
The evidence is the presence of like fossils in separate areas, much like the evidence for continental drift are the presence of like fossils in separate areas.
The main difference, however, is that continental drift (plate tectonics) can be seen in action. I don't know of anyone who has ever seen a dinosaur build a ship to cross an ocean.
Here is a photograph of a dinosaur in a boat which it has built, schooning easily across the water. There are many, many more such examples, and if you watch dinosaurs habitually as they congregate by the side of a body of water, you will no doubt see this occur yourself.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/3796999866_cb68a093b0.jpg)
Calm water. Hardly capable of crossing an ocean in that.
-
Hardly capable of crossing an ocean in that.
Why?
-
Hardly capable of crossing an ocean in that.
Why?
Do you seriously think that "craft" is capable of withstanding an ocean voyage?
-
Hardly capable of crossing an ocean in that.
Why?
Do you seriously think that "craft" is capable of withstanding an ocean voyage?
Well I imagine dinosaurs would have built larger floating nests, if that 'hypothesis' is valid. Its amazing some of the boats that supposedly have made oceanic voyages.
Even ignoring intelligence in dinosaurs, its not impossible that large nests near the water (or brought near the water) may make voyages that are beyond belief. Consider even those that travel by sail across the ocean in recent times or feats like easter island, etc:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ftsXAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA719&lpg=PA719&dq=small+boat+oceanic+voyages&source=bl&ots=JW43BE_iAP&sig=3ijONGl4hdrpN8n5bvlWW-Zyg94&hl=en&ei=SCl1TYOjJc2ztweEp4z8Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
-
I agree with John.
Even within our own history, time after time humans have crossed vast oceans in nothing more than canoes. Consider the natives of Hawaii, or Australia.
-
Allow me to point out yet again that no one has presented any evidence whatsoever that ancient dinosaurs were capable of building boats and crossing oceans, for the sake of moving this conversation back on topic.
-
If constructed, I don't know whether the ancient vessels would ever be able to found if they were constructed out of biodegradable materials?
In terms of the physical and mental capacity required, I recall discussions about dinosaurs having limbs and digits with the needed movement and dexterity requirements.
There is also a comparison of modern dinosaurs to ancient dinosaurs for such things as speech and reasoning abilities to support how they could have had a basic intellectual capacity for such tasks.
The span of time since the referenced era is so vast that, as has been stated, anything could have occurred and that all points made in this thread should remain a consideration as to what did occur.
-
Here is video footage of a similar craft under way:
Do dinosaurs often use sheets of plywood in their boat construction?
-
Dinosaurs are resourceful men, sometimes I think they will use all manner of things to build the things which they need and want. I don't see why a dinosaur couldn't use a sheet of plywood to build a boat for himself.
-
Nobody is denying, James, that there is a nest on the water. What I am curious about is how we know that the bird did not just build his nest on that board in the water to protect it from predators, rather than the bird using the nest as a method of transportation.
-
Very well, I will endeavour to find more video footage, of a dinosaur's boat whose hull is not made from plywood. It is little surprise that as I provide more and more conclusive evidence, that the demands of the globularist lobby should increase; nontheless I shall for now try and meet them.
-
If constructed, I don't know whether the ancient vessels would ever be able to found if they were constructed out of biodegradable materials?
In terms of the physical and mental capacity required, I recall discussions about dinosaurs having limbs and digits with the needed movement and dexterity requirements.
There is also a comparison of modern dinosaurs to ancient dinosaurs for such things as speech and reasoning abilities to support how they could have had a basic intellectual capacity for such tasks.
The span of time since the referenced era is so vast that, as has been stated, anything could have occurred and that all points made in this thread should remain a consideration as to what did occur.
NOPE.avi
could happen=/=did happen.
And nothing in modern birds/lizards suggests that they could. Also evolution. The fact that we can make computers doesn't imply that cavemen could
-
Why did James propose this theory in the first place? I don't understand its relevance to FET.
We know that dinosaurs were one of the first non conspiracy groups to discover the earth?s flatness.
-
Also,
Why wouldn't the dinosaurs have built monuments? Empirical evidence shows that human beings build all manner of great monumental constructions all about the place, it would be unreasonable to suppose that the dinosaurs did not do the same. Modern dinosaurs are quite capable of the most ingenious feats of building - of treehouses, boats and other municipal buildings. Why would the ancient dinosaurs be any different?
And now
"
Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"
A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more."
-
Nobody is denying, James, that there is a nest on the water. What I am curious about is how we know that the bird did not just build his nest on that board in the water to protect it from predators, rather than the bird using the nest as a method of transportation.
Does the intent of the dinosaurs really mater?
-
Nobody is denying, James, that there is a nest on the water. What I am curious about is how we know that the bird did not just build his nest on that board in the water to protect it from predators, rather than the bird using the nest as a method of transportation.
Does the intent of the dinosaurs really mater?
Yes. It could mean the difference between intelligence and dumb luck.
-
Nobody is denying, James, that there is a nest on the water. What I am curious about is how we know that the bird did not just build his nest on that board in the water to protect it from predators, rather than the bird using the nest as a method of transportation.
Does the intent of the dinosaurs really mater?
Considering James thinks Dinosaurs were super intelligent, had their own civilization, and perhaps even herded herbivores like cattle, I think it does.
More to the point though, James posted a picture of a duck sitting in its nest that is in water and there is no way to tell if the nest is actually going anywhere. There is a large difference between building a nest on water, and building a nest to cross water.
The difference is like that of the two objects in these photos.
(http://architecturelab.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/pl_home1_f.jpg)
(http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/boat-design/36157d1255424045-trimaran-motorboat-stabilized-monohull-whiterabbit.jpg)
-
Yes, but the same thing could have happened by "dumb luck". If dinos had often built floating nests of significant size, then it is feasible that some migrated through dumb luck.
Another idea to look at would be that dinos were frozen and simply floated across where they landed, later melted, and much later were fossilized.
-
Yes, but the same thing could have happened by "dumb luck". If dinos had often built floating nests of significant size, then it is feasible that some migrated through dumb luck.
Another idea to look at would be that dinos were frozen and simply floated across where they landed, later melted, and much later were fossilized.
However, this is not what James contends. James contends deliberate colonization by sea faring dinosaur civilizations.
-
The fact that we can make computers doesn't imply that cavemen could
yeah it does
-
Yes, but the same thing could have happened by "dumb luck". If dinos had often built floating nests of significant size, then it is feasible that some migrated through dumb luck.
Another idea to look at would be that dinos were frozen and simply floated across where they landed, later melted, and much later were fossilized.
However, this is not what James contends. James contends deliberate colonization by sea faring dinosaur civilizations.
I know but when you get to the base of the idea itself, it doesn't really matter; the important thing to note is that there is a possibility of this happen and we need to look for evidence of that; not evidence of dinosaur intelligence. Of course, there is the argument that James is wrong about intelligence, but that doesn't defeat the theory, just that mechanism of it.
-
Yes, but the same thing could have happened by "dumb luck". If dinos had often built floating nests of significant size, then it is feasible that some migrated through dumb luck.
Another idea to look at would be that dinos were frozen and simply floated across where they landed, later melted, and much later were fossilized.
However, this is not what James contends. James contends deliberate colonization by sea faring dinosaur civilizations.
I know but when you get to the base of the idea itself, it doesn't really matter; the important thing to note is that there is a possibility of this happen and we need to look for evidence of that; not evidence of dinosaur intelligence. Of course, there is the argument that James is wrong about intelligence, but that doesn't defeat the theory, just that mechanism of it.
James theory is that dinosaurs are intelligent. If dinosaurs weren't intelligent then the theory would be defeated.
-
Yes, but the same thing could have happened by "dumb luck". If dinos had often built floating nests of significant size, then it is feasible that some migrated through dumb luck.
Another idea to look at would be that dinos were frozen and simply floated across where they landed, later melted, and much later were fossilized.
However, this is not what James contends. James contends deliberate colonization by sea faring dinosaur civilizations.
I know but when you get to the base of the idea itself, it doesn't really matter; the important thing to note is that there is a possibility of this happen and we need to look for evidence of that; not evidence of dinosaur intelligence. Of course, there is the argument that James is wrong about intelligence, but that doesn't defeat the theory, just that mechanism of it.
James theory is that dinosaurs are intelligent. If dinosaurs weren't intelligent then the theory would be defeated.
James theory is that dinosaurs migrated due to intelligence. If they aren't intelligent, it is still possible they migrated.
-
That dinosaurs are intelligent is not seriously in doubt. How intelligent they were/are is another matter.
-
James theory is that dinosaurs migrated due to intelligence. If they aren't intelligent, it is still possible they migrated.
Protip: You don't need intelligence to migrate.
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kphcddqDRF1qzomcio1_400.jpg)
-
James theory is that dinosaurs migrated due to intelligence. If they aren't intelligent, it is still possible they migrated.
Protip: You don't need intelligence to migrate.
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kphcddqDRF1qzomcio1_400.jpg)
-
You do, in this case, need the ability to cross an ocean safely. It has not been established yet that ancient dinosaurs had this ability.
-
It need not be a matter of safety, just feasibility. That ninety-nine cruises ended in disaster would not matter if one was successful.
-
James theory is that dinosaurs migrated due to intelligence. If they aren't intelligent, it is still possible they migrated.
Protip: You don't need intelligence to migrate.
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kphcddqDRF1qzomcio1_400.jpg)
You do if you want to build a boat to migrate.
-
It need not be a matter of safety, just feasibility. That ninety-nine cruises ended in disaster would not matter if one was successful.
We aren't talking about just one dinosaur fossil being found either.
We are talking about thousands, even millions.
-
It need not be a matter of safety, just feasibility. That ninety-nine cruises ended in disaster would not matter if one was successful.
We aren't talking about just one dinosaur fossil being found either.
We are talking about thousands, even millions.
Dinosaurs, I assume, reproduce.
-
It need not be a matter of safety, just feasibility. That ninety-nine cruises ended in disaster would not matter if one was successful.
We aren't talking about just one dinosaur fossil being found either.
We are talking about thousands, even millions.
Dinosaurs, I assume, reproduce.
So they happen, by chance, to be washed away waywardly on the ocean in pairs?
-
Yes, but the same thing could have happened by "dumb luck". If dinos had often built floating nests of significant size, then it is feasible that some migrated through dumb luck.
Another idea to look at would be that dinos were frozen and simply floated across where they landed, later melted, and much later were fossilized.
And this is an idea that no one has argued with. The argument was over dinosaurs intentionally building seafaring vessels.
Another point of contention is the whole "mind link" thing ichy threw in which is ridiculous.
-
"collective consciousness"
Not a new idea in the least bit.
-
"collective consciousness"
Not a new idea in the least bit.
It's not a new idea, but it's not the most reasonable explanation, and you are only using it to explain a phenomena you've decided needs an explanation.
-
No I haven't. Where did I ever say it fulfills something I believe needs explaining?
-
No I haven't. Where did I ever say it fulfills something I believe needs explaining?
Where did I ever say that you said that?
-
you are only using it to explain a phenomena you've decided needs an explanation.
-
you are only using it to explain a phenomena you've decided needs an explanation.
I said decided not "said" or "claimed"
-
*Sigh. Your trolling has been really pathetic lately Raist.
It still is not the case.
-
*Sigh. Your trolling has been really pathetic lately Raist.
It still is not the case.
::) because you never do the exact same thing.
-
I do not make straw man arguments. Raist does.
I find it hard to understand why you would consider believing in collective cousciousness to be 'trolling' EG.
-
I find it hard to understand why you would consider believing in collective cousciousness to be 'trolling' EG.
When have I ever stated so?
-
Didn't mammals migrate to madagascar by clinging to logs?
-
It need not be a matter of safety, just feasibility. That ninety-nine cruises ended in disaster would not matter if one was successful.
We aren't talking about just one dinosaur fossil being found either.
We are talking about thousands, even millions.
Dinosaurs, I assume, reproduce.
So they happen, by chance, to be washed away waywardly on the ocean in pairs?
Its no coincidence that a nest full of eggs is likely to contain males and females.
-
This grouping I observed today and here they are focusing their attention on me. Before this picture they were congregating around and constructing the object below.
(http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/529/photo0452groupfin.jpg)
They fled this object to the position pictured above before I could know exactly what they were up to, but this is their creation via their own hands and consists of pieces of plywood and what appears to be bone of some sort?
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/113/photo0454smlfinfin.jpg)
-
Didn't mammals migrate to madagascar by clinging to logs?
I'm not so much concerned with finding evidence for this theory, as I think that most research into pre-historic dinosaurs is imperfect and largely speculative. I think that we have clearly established that it's a strong possibility that dinosaurs could build boats, and I've yet to see a see a significant counter argument.
-
I think that we have clearly established that it's a strong possibility that dinosaurs could build boats, and I've yet to see a see a significant counter argument.
How has anybody established that? I think a real argument needs to be constructed before a counter-argument can possibly be made. Perhaps I've simply missed it, this is quite a long thread.
-
Didn't mammals migrate to madagascar by clinging to logs?
I'm not so much concerned with finding evidence for this theory, as I think that most research into pre-historic dinosaurs is imperfect and largely speculative. I think that we have clearly established that it's a strong possibility that dinosaurs could build boats, and I've yet to see a see a significant counter argument.
I do not see how this has been established. All that has been proven is that small lightweight birds can make nests that can float on water.
It has not been proven that several ton dinosaurs would, or even could do such a thing. A "nest" large enough to carry such a ridiculously large dinosaur would have to be gigantic. Also, the dinosaurs would of had to bring food with them for the voyage, which shows premeditation, which would mean that would have to be intelligent.
All discovered nests have been minuscule, they weren't large enough for the entire T-Rex to sit in. There was only enough room for the eggs.
-
I think it's been established that it's a possibility. But a strong possibility? I think that's a little, well, strong.
Nobody has reasonably established that it's an implausible scenario.
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.
-
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.
This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.
-
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.
If you are referring to the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs known as continental drift, then I agree. It is quite reasonable from a FE or an RE perspective.
-
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.
This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.
They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.
Now of course, we don't know for sure that dinosaur brains worked anything like ones that are around today, but considering today has the modernized evolved forms of them, we can assume that they function similar.
-
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.
This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.
They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.
So elephants and whales should be several times more intelligent than humans then?
-
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.
This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.
They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.
So elephants and whales should be several times more intelligent than humans then?
I never said weight. I said shape. Many in the sculls of dinosaurs, the parts that contain the frontal lobes are extremely small, while parts that take care of more primal functions are larger.
-
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.
This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.
They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.
So elephants and whales should be several times more intelligent than humans then?
Rule of thumb is brain mass/body mass I once heard.
-
James theory is that dinosaurs migrated due to intelligence. If they aren't intelligent, it is still possible they migrated.
Protip: You don't need intelligence to migrate.
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kphcddqDRF1qzomcio1_400.jpg)
In conclusion: Things migrate.
I congratulate our bravve brother James in unveiling this revelation which has thus far evaded teh wit of all men including Einstien
-
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.
This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.
They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.
Now of course, we don't know for sure that dinosaur brains worked anything like ones that are around today, but considering today has the modernized evolved forms of them, we can assume that they function similar.
I don't know that we undrestand how brains generally work. I also don't know the accuracy of phrenology even in other species, let alone one so alien to us as dinosaurs.
-
I don't know that we understand how brains generally work.
So you deny neurology and neuroscience exist?
I also don't know the accuracy of phrenology even in other species, let alone one so alien to us as dinosaurs.
Just because you personally do not know it does not mean humanity as a whole does not. That is like the Krebs Cycle may or may not exist because you do not understand how it works.
-
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.
This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.
They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.
Now of course, we don't know for sure that dinosaur brains worked anything like ones that are around today, but considering today has the modernized evolved forms of them, we can assume that they function similar.
I don't know that we undrestand how brains generally work. I also don't know the accuracy of phrenology even in other species, let alone one so alien to us as dinosaurs.
Phrenology is the measurement of the outside of the skull, not the inside.
-
I don't know that we understand how brains generally work.
So you deny neurology and neuroscience exist?
I also don't know the accuracy of phrenology even in other species, let alone one so alien to us as dinosaurs.
Just because you personally do not know it does not mean humanity as a whole does not. That is like the Krebs Cycle may or may not exist because you do not understand how it works.
So you hold phrenology is valid? That is against what "humanity as a whole" knows. At best you can say phrenology is invalid but what we know about skulls of animals and the leaps of logic we make due to that is valid.
Surely neurology and neuroscience exist, but whether they understand "how brains basically work" has yet to be shown by you or the sciences involved.
Saying we understand ancient reptilian brains because we understand human brains is akin to saying dinosaurs could build boats because we can.
-
Saying we understand ancient reptilian brains because we understand human brains is akin to saying dinosaurs could build boats because we can.
Or that dinosaurs could build boats because some bird nests can float.
-
Saying we understand ancient reptilian brains because we understand human brains is akin to saying dinosaurs could build boats because we can.
How can you even attempt to draw that conclusion?
Saying we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology is akin is saying we understand how dinosaurs digested food because we understand gastroenterology.
We understand how evolution works, therefore, modern dinosaurs should resemble how the ancient ones work.
In order to make this one theory of migrating, boat making dinosaurs work, you have to pretty much deny a handful of other established theories and sciences.
-
Have you forgotten where you are?
-
Bear in mind, the "theories" which require dismissal in order to assent to the historical facts I have identified are those wild fantasies of the same geological elite which believe the Earth to be a spinning, whirling space ball.
If you deny the plain evidence regarding the history of ancient dinosaurs, you are required to pontificate in contravention of empirical fact and simple common sense.
-
Saying we understand ancient reptilian brains because we understand human brains is akin to saying dinosaurs could build boats because we can.
How can you even attempt to draw that conclusion?
Saying we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology is akin is saying we understand how dinosaurs digested food because we understand gastroenterology.
We understand how evolution works, therefore, modern dinosaurs should resemble how the ancient ones work.
In order to make this one theory of migrating, boat making dinosaurs work, you have to pretty much deny a handful of other established theories and sciences.
Except we only have a rudimentary understanding of neuroscience. And yes, the same holds true of gastoentrerology. We have no idea based off our evidence how dinosaurs digested food.
Heres a quote from wikipedia that highlites a few of the reasons neuroscience is still a young baby science:
For example, neuroscientists have yet to fully explain the neural basis of consciousness, learning, memory, perception, sensation, and sleep. Several questions regarding the development and evolution of the brain remain unsolved.
Development and evolution of the brain is certainly key here. As is the basic lack of a neural basis for consciousness, learning, memory, and other basic brain functions.
-
If you deny the plain evidence regarding the history of ancient dinosaurs, you are required to pontificate in contravention of empirical fact and simple common sense.
Please do let us know when you plan to present some of this evidence. I am quite eager to see it!
-
I don't know that we understand how brains generally work.
So you deny neurology and neuroscience exist?
I also don't know the accuracy of phrenology even in other species, let alone one so alien to us as dinosaurs.
Just because you personally do not know it does not mean humanity as a whole does not. That is like the Krebs Cycle may or may not exist because you do not understand how it works.
So you hold phrenology is valid? That is against what "humanity as a whole" knows. At best you can say phrenology is invalid but what we know about skulls of animals and the leaps of logic we make due to that is valid.
Surely neurology and neuroscience exist, but whether they understand "how brains basically work" has yet to be shown by you or the sciences involved.
Saying we understand ancient reptilian brains because we understand human brains is akin to saying dinosaurs could build boats because we can.
Who said they hold phrenology valid? It's safe to say that there are not 27 organs in the brain controlling random things like "can murder" and bumps on the skull show how much we use said organs.
-
Saying we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology is akin is saying we understand how dinosaurs digested food because we understand gastroenterology.
How many ancient dinosaur brains have we found again?
We understand how evolution works, therefore, modern dinosaurs should resemble how the ancient ones work.
First of all, that is not necessarily so. Secondly, why is it that this argument is valid when you want to say dinosaurs couldn't build boats because modern avian dinosaurs can't, but isn't valid when we want to say ancient dinosaurs may have been as or more intelligent than modern avian dinosaurs? You can't have your cake and eat it.
-
The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.
-
The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.
You have yet to prove that, though.
-
The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.
Even if modern dinosaurs can build boats (floating nests), that does not necessarily mean that ancient dinosaurs had the same ability.
-
The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.
Indeed; I avoid the word 'boat' myself as it seems to produce a great deal of consternation among our resident globularists. That avian dinosaurs can build river vessels (for example) is not in doubt:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Western_grebe_on_nest.jpg)
Indeed, some avian dinosaur cultures even exhibit an appreciation for purely aesthetic architecture.
-
Just because if floats, that doesn't make it a boat (or a vessel).
-
Also, something that floats on calm water such as a lake or river may not necessarily float on the ocean.
-
Even if modern dinosaurs can build boats (floating nests), that does not necessarily mean that ancient dinosaurs had the same ability.
Like I said, globularists need to make up their minds. Either you agree comparisons with modern avian dinosaurs are valid (in which case that is the subject that requires debate), or you think such comparisons aren't valid (in which case the debate is about the validity of such comparisons). You cannot simultaneously accept and reject modern avian dinosaurs as a valid basis for comparison and conjecture.
Just because if floats, that doesn't make it a boat (or a vessel).
And what would make it a boat? And putting that aside, even if it isn't a boat, surely the capacity required to build a floating structure is identical to the capacity required to build a boat, wouldn't you say?
Also, something that floats on calm water such as a lake or river may not necessarily float on the ocean.
What? I'm certain such structures would float on the ocean. Whether they would stay afloat for long in choppier waters is another question, but you could quite reasonably ask the same question of many human boats. Clearly these vessels are not designed for oceanic travel, and it would be a waste of the dinosaur's precious resources to 'over engineer' utterly redundant structural features into the vessel's design.
-
Even if modern dinosaurs can build boats (floating nests), that does not necessarily mean that ancient dinosaurs had the same ability.
Like I said, globularists need to make up their minds. Either you agree comparisons with modern avian dinosaurs are valid (in which case that is the subject that requires debate), or you think such comparisons aren't valid (in which case the debate is about the validity of such comparisons). You cannot simultaneously accept and reject modern avian dinosaurs as a valid basis for comparison and conjecture.
Modern avian dinosaurs may share some characteristics with ancient dinosaurs. I have yet to see any evidence that building floating nests is one of them.
Just because if floats, that doesn't make it a boat (or a vessel).
And what would make it a boat? And putting that aside, even if it isn't a boat, surely the capacity required to build a floating structure is identical to the capacity required to build a boat, wouldn't you say?
Boats are designed to travel in the water. Buoys, soccer balls and rubber duckies all float, but I doubt that anyone would reasonably consider any of them to be boats. In the same way, I doubt that any reasonable person would call a floating nest a boat, unless it was shown that the builder of said nest built it for the purpose of traveling by water.
-
Are there dinosaurs on Flat-Earth?
-
Are there dinosaurs on Flat-Earth?
FYI, modern avian dinosaurs = birds
-
Saying we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology is akin is saying we understand how dinosaurs digested food because we understand gastroenterology.
How many ancient dinosaur brains have we found again?
Irrelevant. Finding the actual brain is not required in brain allometry or rating a species EQ.
We understand how evolution works, therefore, modern dinosaurs should resemble how the ancient ones work.
First of all, that is not necessarily so. Secondly, why is it that this argument is valid when you want to say dinosaurs couldn't build boats because modern avian dinosaurs can't, but isn't valid when we want to say ancient dinosaurs may have been as or more intelligent than modern avian dinosaurs? You can't have your cake and eat it.
When have I stated they cannot be as intellegent as modern dinosaurs? I am saying that they most likely are not drastically more intellegent than the modern dinosaurs.
As Markjo has pointed out, it has yet to be proven that modern avian dinosaurs can build "boats". Just because it floats or looks like it is floating does not mean it can be used for transportation. I would like to see a picture of a dinosaur traveling down a river, or voyaging an ocean in such a boat, not a picture of one that is in a pond in which the nest could actually be just resting on something else.
-
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?
Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.
\
Just a quick Question since the above quote's is the first post in this thread where can I find and read about James's theory on Dino's???
-
As Markjo has pointed out, it has yet to be proven that modern avian dinosaurs can build "boats". Just because it floats or looks like it is floating does not mean it can be used for transportation. I would like to see a picture of a dinosaur traveling down a river, or voyaging an ocean in such a boat, not a picture of one that is in a pond in which the nest could actually be just resting on something else.
Not to mention the fact that the birds would need some way of tethering their "boats" so that they wouldn't float away while the bird is out looking for food.
-
Irrelevant. Finding the actual brain is not required in brain allometry or rating a species EQ.
we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology
Sorry, since when are either of those regarded as neurology?
When have I stated they cannot be as intellegent as modern dinosaurs? I am saying that they most likely are not drastically more intellegent than the modern dinosaurs.
Based on what? All I've seen are non sequiturs and poorly phrased conjecture. Furthermore, even if we assume that they aren't "drastically more intelligent than . . . modern dinosaurs", I don't see how that problematizes the theory. How about a cogent argument?
As Markjo has pointed out, it has yet to be proven that modern avian dinosaurs can build "boats".
I don't think anyone here claims to have proven anything, and I don't think anyone claims that definitive proof is possible.
Just because it floats or looks like it is floating does not mean it can be used for transportation. I would like to see a picture of a dinosaur traveling down a river, or voyaging an ocean in such a boat, not a picture of one that is in a pond in which the nest could actually be just resting on something else.
First of all, it's well established that the nests of Grebes and some other dinosaurs are free-floating, and that other water-nests are usually positioned on a foundation which is itself built by the dinosaurs.
Furthermore, contemporary dinosaurs do not need need boats, as they are the dinosauric embodiment of the Nietzschean ?bermensch; a race that has overcome itself, and acheived the synthesis of Apollonian and Dionysian being through contemplation and construction, song and dance. That they do not build boats does not indicate that they cannot build boats, but rather that they do not want or need to build boats. That they possess the capacity to build boat-like structures and far more complex architecture is clear, as is the existence of a dinosauric culture and aesthetic.
-
Irrelevant. Finding the actual brain is not required in brain allometry or rating a species EQ.
we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology
Sorry, since when are either of those regarded as neurology?
Really? Because neurology is study of how the brain functions?
When have I stated they cannot be as intellegent as modern dinosaurs? I am saying that they most likely are not drastically more intellegent than the modern dinosaurs.
Based on what? All I've seen are non sequiturs and poorly phrased conjecture. Furthermore, even if we assume that they aren't "drastically more intelligent than . . . modern dinosaurs", I don't see how that problematizes the theory. How about a cogent argument?
Do explain.
As Markjo has pointed out, it has yet to be proven that modern avian dinosaurs can build "boats".
I don't think anyone here claims to have proven anything, and I don't think anyone claims that definitive proof is possible.
::)
Yes, but you have not given any reason to think that dinosaurs building boats is even reasonably plausible. Your entire "evidence" as to justify migrating dinosaurs over continental drift is "because you cannot prove they didn't do it".
That is not a valid argument.
Furthermore, contemporary dinosaurs do not need need boats, as they are the dinosauric embodiment of the Nietzschean ?bermensch; a race that has overcome itself, and acheived the synthesis of Apollonian and Dionysian being through contemplation and construction, song and dance. That they do not build boats does not indicate that they cannot build boats, but rather that they do not want or need to build boats. That they possess the capacity to build boat-like structures and far more complex architecture is clear, as is the existence of a dinosauric culture and aesthetic.
What the hell?
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
Sorry, since when are either of those regarded as neurology?
Really? Because neurology is study of how the brain functions?
I'm not sure if this is an answer in the form of a question or just a question. In any event, neurology is not the study of how the brain functions (though that is an aspect of it), and studying how the brain functions is not the same as studying the size/allometry of brains, or (more to the point) the size of skulls.
Do explain.
Explain? Your arguments don't make sense. See above for an example.
Yes, but you have not given any reason to think that dinosaurs building boats is even reasonably plausible. Your entire "evidence" as to justify migrating dinosaurs over continental drift is "because you cannot prove they didn't do it".
That is not a valid argument.
We have also presented a wealth of evidence that dinosaurs possess the necessary faculties to engage in the building of complex structures, including many that are buoyant. Indeed, I imagine almost everyone here has observed the fruits of dinosauric labour at some point in their lives. Moreover, a range of studies have concluded that dinosaurs are amongst the most intelligent of all living creatures, and that they possess remarkable problem-solving ability. This makes it more than "remotely plausible" that they could build ocean-going vessels. Stop leaving out the bits you don't like.
Furthermore, contemporary dinosaurs do not need need boats, as they are the dinosauric embodiment of the Nietzschean ?bermensch; a race that has overcome itself, and acheived the synthesis of Apollonian and Dionysian being through contemplation and construction, song and dance. That they do not build boats does not indicate that they cannot build boats, but rather that they do not want or need to build boats. That they possess the capacity to build boat-like structures and far more complex architecture is clear, as is the existence of a dinosauric culture and aesthetic.
What the hell?
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
1. Read a book.
2. Look out your window.
3. Failing that, pick up a David Attenborough box-set.
-
We have also presented a wealth of evidence that dinosaurs possess the necessary faculties to engage in the building of complex structures...
I'm sorry, but I've missed this, could you link me to the wealth of evidence please?
-
Furthermore, contemporary dinosaurs do not need need boats, as they are the dinosauric embodiment of the Nietzschean ?bermensch; a race that has overcome itself, and acheived the synthesis of Apollonian and Dionysian being through contemplation and construction, song and dance. That they do not build boats does not indicate that they cannot build boats, but rather that they do not want or need to build boats. That they possess the capacity to build boat-like structures and far more complex architecture is clear, as is the existence of a dinosauric culture and aesthetic.
This is truly excellent.
-
After sixty pages, this thread is quite frankly laughable. You have done nothing but make baseless assumptions and wildly extrapolate.
There is not a single shred of reputable evidence that dinosaurs were anything but wild animals, and not a single qualified geologist who would support your claims.
Review the physical evidence, then come back and theorise.
-
We have also presented a wealth of evidence that dinosaurs possess the necessary faculties to engage in the building of complex structures, including many that are buoyant. Indeed, I imagine almost everyone here has observed the fruits of dinosauric labour at some point in their lives. Moreover, a range of studies have concluded that dinosaurs are amongst the most intelligent of all living creatures, and that they possess remarkable problem-solving ability. This makes it more than "remotely plausible" that they could build ocean-going vessels. Stop leaving out the bits you don't like.
Where did you represent such evidence? Do you have ancient fossilized crafts capable of carrying several ton dinosaurs?
So modern dinosaurs can build boat-like structures. How is that evidence that their ancestors could?
You are making completely baseless conclusions just because it supports your theory.
Your logic is tantamount to saying:
Humans can build helicopters, therefore, that must mean that Maelestes Gobiensis (A 70 million year old ancestor) must have been capable of doing this too. After all, us humans are really just modern shrew people! These shrews no doubt also had an advanced society, and had thinkers likened to Nietzsche and Socrates! It also conclusively appears to me that these shrews made mosaics of the people they venerated. These mosaics could have been crafted from stones, just like how we do today. I see no reason why you doubt the shrews could not have done these things, you have no evidence to the contrary!
-
After sixty pages, this thread is quite frankly laughable. You have done nothing but make baseless assumptions and wildly extrapolate.
There is not a single shred of reputable evidence that dinosaurs were anything but wild animals, and not a single qualified geologist who would support your claims.
Review the physical evidence, then come back and theorise.
You should bear in mind that this is, in fact, not serious business.
-
don't feed the trolls.
There's no way a sane individual could actually think that we have so much data on the thought power of dinos
-
don't feed the trolls.
Who's trolling?
There's no way a sane individual could actually think that we have so much data on the thought power of dinos
Oh. You're trolling.
-
don't feed the trolls.
Who's trolling?
There's no way a sane individual could actually think that we have so much data on the thought power of dinos
Oh. You're trolling.
So tell me, what evidence do you have that Dino's have that kind of intellect?
-
ITT: Data == evidence.
Only not really.
-
We have also presented a wealth of evidence that dinosaurs possess the necessary faculties to engage in the building of complex structures, including many that are buoyant.
Where did you represent such evidence? Do you have ancient fossilized crafts capable of carrying several ton dinosaurs?
Such evidence has been presented in this topic time and time again, including over the last few pages. You need to pay more attention.
So modern dinosaurs can build boat-like structures. How is that evidence that their ancestors could?
Here we go again! Suddenly it's not okay to draw comparisons between modern dinosaurs and ancient dinosaurs, even though you were doing just that only a few posts ago! Make up your mind!
shrews no doubt also had an advanced society, and had thinkers likened to Nietzsche and Socrates!
I have not suggested that they had such thinkers, though of course it is entirely possible. I was simply analysing Dinosauric culture from a Nietzschean perspective.
This is truly excellent.
I'm glad you approve Brother. It is my intention to write an essay concerning the Apollinian and Dionysian aspects of Dinosauric culture, and the extent to which Dinosauric evolution can be equated or compared with the Nietzschean concept of the 'Overman'. My working title for this essay is The Bird of Tragedy: Dionysian Dinosaurs and the Great Overcoming.
-
Twilight of the Dinos?
-
Wilmore, or James. Judging by the structure of the average dinosaur, how do you suppose they created crafts or machines?
Its not as if they have opposable thumbs.
-
Twilight of the Dinos?
This would tie in well with the section on the how the great calamity which befell the Dinosaurs ultimately validated the Ubersaur (seen today as the modern bird). Gone were the great 'idols' of Dinosauric life and culture like Tyrannosaurus. What remained was the artistic, creative and life-embracing dinosaur; the sysnthesis of Apollinian and Dionysian (or Dinoysian) impulses.
And given that tumultuous change and disaster may once more face our great plane, we must ask whether the Dinosaur will survive and prosper, or will a new Ubersaur be required for the Dinosaur to embrace and triumph over the coming ages? We humans have much to learn from the Dinosaur's great overcoming of adversity, and our very survival may depend on our ability to mirror their acheivements.
Wilmore, or James. Judging by the structure of the average dinosaur, how do you suppose they created crafts or machines?
Its not as if they have opposable thumbs.
Corvid Dinosaurs have been observed to create tools, and most species of Dinosaur display some capacity to build and construct using wood and stone. And all this despite not having forearms! Without wings, the ancient dinosaurs would have had much greater scope (not to mention need) for tools, craft and artisanship.
-
Corvid Dinosaurs have been observed to create tools, and most species of Dinosaur display some capacity to build and construct using wood and stone.
Wilmore, there is a huge difference between creating tools and using tools. Please show evidence of Corvid Dinosaurs actually creating tools as opposed to just using existing materials as tools.
-
Corvid Dinosaurs have been observed to create tools, and most species of Dinosaur display some capacity to build and construct using wood and stone.
Wilmore, there is a huge difference between creating tools and using tools. Please show evidence of Corvid Dinosaurs actually creating tools as opposed to just using existing materials as tools.
Well they don't manufacturer tools today do they? How is Wilmore supposed to provide evidence? They have diversified into other lines of work nowadays.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHxT8WntPvWcB8PtlO234s9oKk6PM70Rm6rTNLkoCYWginvit7hA)
(http://www.geekologie.com/2010/03/18/blockbuster-dinos.jpg)
(http://www.freecovers.net/preview/2/3e7b54c619c09bbe845b64a625cc8dfe/big.jpg)
You have a lot of explaining to do Markjo.
-
The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.
And modern humans can build electronic computers, that has no bearing on what ancient men really did build.
-
The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.
And modern humans can build electronic computers, that has no bearing on what ancient men really did build.
I already tried to say this. Wilmore pretty much ignored it.
-
The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.
And modern humans can build electronic computers, that has no bearing on what ancient men really did build.
I already tried to say this. Wilmore pretty much ignored it.
That's Wilmore for you, direct sensorial evidence unless it's inconvenient to his argument.
-
The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.
And modern humans can build electronic computers, that has no bearing on what ancient men really did build.
A boat is pretty different from a computer, Raist.
-
The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.
And modern humans can build electronic computers, that has no bearing on what ancient men really did build.
A boat is pretty different from a computer, Raist.
In theory.
-
The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.
And modern humans can build electronic computers, that has no bearing on what ancient men really did build.
A boat is pretty different from a computer, Raist.
In theory.
Also in practice.
-
Wilmore, there is a huge difference between creating tools and using tools. Please show evidence of Corvid Dinosaurs actually creating tools as opposed to just using existing materials as tools.
First of all, doesn't all tool use consist of using "existing materials" as tools? What exactly does this definition of tool creation mean, and on what basis do you make the distinction?
And modern humans can build electronic computers, that has no bearing on what ancient men really did build.
Yet it is quite common for scientists to assume that ancient man had similar faculties and capabilities to modern man. How now?
-
That's Wilmore for you, direct sensorial evidence unless it's inconvenient to his argument.
Nobody has presented any direct sensorial evidence that dinosaurs did not use tools or build boats, so I don't see what bearing this comment has on the discussion.
-
Well if nobody can provide direct sensorial evidence that dinosaurs didn't build boats, I guess we have no choice but to concede that they did. Well done, Lord Wilmore! Your victory is flawless.
By the way, why is this whole theory even necessary to begin with? Can't continental drift exist in FET?
-
Well if nobody can provide direct sensorial evidence that dinosaurs didn't build boats, I guess we have no choice but to concede that they did. Well done, Lord Wilmore! Your victory is flawless.
By the way, why is this whole theory even necessary to begin with? Can't continental drift exist in FET?
I don't believe so, but you'll have to ask James. He is the one who originally OD'd on acid and came up with the dinosaur societies.
-
Well if nobody can provide direct sensorial evidence that dinosaurs didn't build boats, I guess we have no choice but to concede that they did. Well done, Lord Wilmore! Your victory is flawless.
Wilmore is not asking for such concession. He wants you to concede that they could have built boats. I'm not sure how far James is presenting this, but just based on the last couple pages I'm quite certain that Wilmore isn't arguing that dinosaurs must have built boats.
By the way, why is this whole theory even necessary to begin with? Can't continental drift exist in FET?
James doesn't seem to think so; other FEers disagree.
-
And this is fine is it Roundy? You complete dick!
-
And this is fine is it Roundy? You complete dick!
Technically the dinosaur theory has something to do with FE because James claims that since there is no continental drift, the dinosaurs had to build boats and have colonies on other parts of the Earth. This is how he explains the same dinosaur bones in two different parts of the Earth. Stop crying.
-
And this is fine is it Roundy? You complete dick!
Technically the dinosaur theory has something to do with FE because James claims that since there is no continental drift, the dinosaurs had to build boats and have colonies on other parts of the Earth. This is how he explains the same dinosaur bones in two different parts of the Earth. Stop crying.
And Thork is explaining as to what happened to the dinos. Levee after all, would support the assertion that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
-
UH huh, well. I will concede the possibility that dinosaurs could have built boats when the theory's proponents concede the possibility that they could not have. Not that that would make for a very entertaining thread (but perhaps an uncharacteristically civil one). Then perhaps we can get back to the real topics, like Raindrop Mathematics.
-
Well if nobody can provide direct sensorial evidence that dinosaurs didn't build boats, I guess we have no choice but to concede that they did. Well done, Lord Wilmore! Your victory is flawless.
Wilmore is not asking for such concession. He wants you to concede that they could have built boats. I'm not sure how far James is presenting this, but just based on the last couple pages I'm quite certain that Wilmore isn't arguing that dinosaurs must have built boats.
Correct!
UH huh, well. I will concede the possibility that dinosaurs could have built boats when the theory's proponents concede the possibility that they could not have.
I will of course concede this; no attentive reader of Hume could deny it.
Of course, the evidence we have suggests that they did build boats.
-
Your concession was going so well until you muddled it with your repeated assertion that evidence relevant to your claim exists. But I'll take what I can get, and do even better: I concede the possibility that dinosaurs could have constructed boats and do not personally have any evidence to the contrary.
Ohh but I would love to hear more about Thork's new ideas, once he's settled down a bit.
-
That's Wilmore for you, direct sensorial evidence unless it's inconvenient to his argument.
Nobody has presented any direct sensorial evidence that dinosaurs did not use tools or build boats, so I don't see what bearing this comment has on the discussion.
Ok, present direct sensorial evidence that the moon isn't made of swiss cheese. You can't so it's true.
-
That's Wilmore for you, direct sensorial evidence unless it's inconvenient to his argument.
Nobody has presented any direct sensorial evidence that dinosaurs did not use tools or build boats, so I don't see what bearing this comment has on the discussion.
Ok, present direct sensorial evidence that the moon isn't made of swiss cheese. You can't so it's true.
Yes I can. By providing that the moon as actually moon shrimp, as it is, we can successfully conclude it is not cheese.
-
Ok, present direct sensorial evidence that the moon isn't made of swiss cheese. You can't so it's true.
This line of argument doesn't work in either case, and I never put it forward. I'm simply saying that your comment has nothing to do with anything that has been presented in this debate. Take your straw man elsewhere.
-
Ok, present direct sensorial evidence that the moon isn't made of swiss cheese. You can't so it's true.
This line of argument doesn't work in either case, and I never put it forward. I'm simply saying that your comment has nothing to do with anything that has been presented in this debate. Take your straw man elsewhere.
You're asking me to prove a negative when the theory itself has no evidence whatsoever in its favor. Do you not see a problem with advocating it?
-
Sorry, when did I ask you to prove negative again? You said:
That's Wilmore for you, direct sensorial evidence unless it's inconvenient to his argument.
Now I have neither suggested that I have direct sensorial evidence that dinosaurs built boats, nor has anyone else has presented direct sensorial evidence that they didn't (precisely because doing so is basically impossible). We are all engaged in speculation, and I freely admit that pretty much any and all discussion of dinosaurs lies within the realm of speculation and will in all probability remain there (bear in mind that this sword cuts both ways). So basically, I don't see what your comment has to do with the debate we've been having.
-
That's Wilmore for you, direct sensorial evidence unless it's inconvenient to his argument.
Nobody has presented any direct sensorial evidence that dinosaurs did not use tools or build boats, so I don't see what bearing this comment has on the discussion.
Can there be a rule against using logical fallacies in the upper forum?
-
Wilmore, there is a huge difference between creating tools and using tools. Please show evidence of Corvid Dinosaurs actually creating tools as opposed to just using existing materials as tools.
First of all, doesn't all tool use consist of using "existing materials" as tools? What exactly does this definition of tool creation mean, and on what basis do you make the distinction?
It's the difference between going to the store to buy a knife and chipping a stone to make a knife.
-
First of all, doesn't all tool use consist of using "existing materials" as tools? What exactly does this definition of tool creation mean, and on what basis do you make the distinction?
Consider a person picking up a stick and throwing it, compared to a person that finds a stick, heats it over a fire into a shape, then uses fat, bone, and sinew to make a string to attach to the stick, and then uses such contraption to launch another stick.
In the first situation a person is merely using an existing tool. In the second, the person is creating a tool. See the difference?
-
Wilmore, or James. Judging by the structure of the average dinosaur, how do you suppose they created crafts or machines?
Its not as if they have opposable thumbs.
Corvid Dinosaurs have been observed to create tools, and most species of Dinosaur display some capacity to build and construct using wood and stone. And all this despite not having forearms! Without wings, the ancient dinosaurs would have had much greater scope (not to mention need) for tools, craft and artisanship.
Evidence for this ability? and I assume you mean modern lizards/birds. I see no evidence for tools beyond the ability to use sticks to poke things. And dinosaur art?
-
Can there be a rule against using logical fallacies in the upper forum?
Listen, I don't like General Disarray's straw man arguments either, but we can't seriously start banning people for making suspect arguments.
It's the difference between going to the store to buy a knife and chipping a stone to make a knife.
Ah, well the former would be better described as using an existing tool than using existing materials. I think EnglshGentleman's phrasing was better. Anyway, here is the requested evidence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9125000/9125227.stm
Young New Caledonian crows learn to use tools by going to "tool-school", where they can observe their parents at work. These crows are renowned for their extraordinary intelligence and ability to fashion tools to solve problems.
. . .
Even among this group, New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) stand out: they make the most complex tools of any animal yet studied apart from humans. For example, they will evolve and improve the shape of their tools over time, and will fashion left handed or right handed tools.
. . .
"[Juveniles] closely follow and watch their parents' behaviour, are taken to tool using sites, and are 'allowed' to use the tools of their parents," says Dr Hunt. Structuring their education in this way may also help explain how the crows improve their tools over time, as young crows may learn from their parent's mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonian_Crow#Tool_making
The New Caledonian Crow is the only non-human species with a record of inventing new tools by modifying existing ones, then passing these innovations to other individuals in the cultural group. Gavin R. Hunt and colleagues at the University of Auckland studied tools the crows make out of pandanus (or screw pine) leaves:
Crows snip into the leaf edges and then tear out neat strips of vegetation with which they can probe insect-harboring crevices. These tools have been observed to come in three types: narrow strips, wide strips and multi-stepped strips?which are wide at one end and, via a manufacturing process that involves stepwise snips and tears, become narrow at the opposite end.[2]
Observations of the distribution of 5,500 leaf counterparts or stencils left behind by the cutting process suggest that the narrow and the stepped tools are more advanced versions of the wide tool type. "The geographical distribution of each tool type on the island suggests a unique origin, rather than multiple independent inventions". This implies that the inventions, which involve a delicate change in the manufacturing process, were being passed from one individual to another.[3]
The New Caledonian Crow also spontaneously makes tools from materials it does not encounter in the wild, the only non-human species known to do so. In 2002, researcher Kacelnik and colleagues at the University of Oxford observed of a couple of New Caledonian Crows called Betty and Abel:
Betty's toolmaking abilities came to light by accident during an experiment in which she and Abel had to choose between a hooked and a straight wire for retrieving small pieces of pig heart, their favorite food. When Abel made off with the hooked wire, Betty bent the straight wire into a hook and used the tool to lift a small bucket of food from a vertical pipe. This experiment was the first time the crows had been presented with wire.[4]
Subsequently, this ability was tested through a series of systematic experiments. Out of ten successful retrievals, Betty bent the wire into a hook nine times. Abel retrieved the food once, without bending the wire.[5] The process would usually start with Betty trying to get the food bucket with the straight wire, but then she would make a hook from it bending it in different ways, usually by snagging one end of the wire under something, and then using the bent hook to pick up the tray.
Clearly, Betty's creation of hooks cannot be attributed to the shaping or reinforcement of randomly generated behavior. In 2004, Gavin Hunt observed the crows in the wild also making hooks, but the adaptation to the new material of the wire was clearly novel, and also purposeful. This type of intentional tool-making, even if it is generalizing a prior experience to a completely new context, is almost unknown in the animal world. Chimpanzees have great difficulty in similar innovative tasks.
The use of direct human activity has been recorded as well. This involves the placing of nuts in front of a vehicle on a heavy trafficked street and waiting for the/a car to crush it open, and then waiting at pedestrian lights with other pedestrians in order to retrieve the crushed nut safely.
I've presented all of this several times before, so I really don't understand why I'm being asked to do so yet again.
-
I've presented all of this several times before, so I really don't understand why I'm being asked to do so yet again.
Not one mention of dinosaur in those articles? I have no problems with Crows using tools.
Berny
tick-tock
-
I've presented all of this several times before, so I really don't understand why I'm being asked to do so yet again.
Not one mention of dinosaur in those articles? I have no problems with Crows using tools.
Berny
tick-tock
Birds are dinosaurs.
-
I've presented all of this several times before, so I really don't understand why I'm being asked to do so yet again.
Not one mention of dinosaur in those articles? I have no problems with Crows using tools.
Berny
tick-tock
Birds are dinosaurs.
I checked the classification for crows and it didn't mention dinosaurs anywhere? ???
-
I've presented all of this several times before, so I really don't understand why I'm being asked to do so yet again.
Not one mention of dinosaur in those articles? I have no problems with Crows using tools.
Berny
tick-tock
Birds are dinosaurs.
Took longer than I thought.
Birds -> Dinosaurs is as equivalnet to Humans -> Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Just because they share common ancestry does make them - them.
Birds may use tools - does not equate to prior extinct species did.
Humans used tools - Sahelanthropus tchadensis did not.
Berny
Thinks Thorks LizardMen has more merit
-
Birds are dinosaurs is like humans are still primates. Think about it.
-
So Wilmore has completely thrown out his rule of "direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen" in favor of the logical fallacy "direct sensorial evidence or it didn't not happen".
-
So Wilmore has completely thrown out his rule of "direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen" in favor of the logical fallacy "direct sensorial evidence or it didn't not happen".
The obstinacy of your cluelessness is truly breathtaking.
-
I've presented all of this several times before, so I really don't understand why I'm being asked to do so yet again.
That's nice. Now, how is this evidence that ancient dinosaurs were able to make tools sophisticated to build a vast armada of ships so that they could migrate across an ocean?
-
Birds are dinosaurs is like humans are still primates. Think about it.
Hmm...I am thinking about it. I checked humans and was able to verify that, yes, we belong to the Primate order, but when I checked the order for crows all I saw was "Passeriformes". Passerines are apparently "perching birds", and that doesn't seem like a good comprehensive description of dinosaurs, so...how is your comparison accurate?
-
Avian
-
Birds are dinosaurs is like humans are still primates. Think about it.
Hmm...I am thinking about it. I checked humans and was able to verify that, yes, we belong to the Primate order, but when I checked the order for crows all I saw was "Passeriformes". Passerines are apparently "perching birds", and that doesn't seem like a good comprehensive description of dinosaurs, so...how is your comparison accurate?
I tried this already, he's going to repeat, "BIRDS ARE DINOSAURS!" over and over again until his keyboard breaks from overuse.
-
Birds are dinosaurs is like humans are still primates. Think about it.
Hmm...I am thinking about it. I checked humans and was able to verify that, yes, we belong to the Primate order, but when I checked the order for crows all I saw was "Passeriformes". Passerines are apparently "perching birds", and that doesn't seem like a good comprehensive description of dinosaurs, so...how is your comparison accurate?
Order MUST be the level of classification ::)
Just as humans belong to the broader primate classification (we didn't lose our characteristics of being a primate!), birds belong to the broader dinosaur classification (birds didn't lose their characteristics of being a dinosaur!). Hence humans are members of primates, and birds are members of dinosaurs.
-
That's nice. Now, how is this evidence that ancient dinosaurs were able to make tools sophisticated to build a vast armada of ships so that they could migrate across an ocean?
That isn't what you asked for, so please don't try to blur the distinction.
-
Birds are dinosaurs is like humans are still primates. Think about it.
Hmm...I am thinking about it. I checked humans and was able to verify that, yes, we belong to the Primate order, but when I checked the order for crows all I saw was "Passeriformes". Passerines are apparently "perching birds", and that doesn't seem like a good comprehensive description of dinosaurs, so...how is your comparison accurate?
Order MUST be the level of classification ::)
Just as humans belong to the broader primate classification (we didn't lose our characteristics of being a primate!), birds belong to the broader dinosaur classification (birds didn't lose their characteristics of being a dinosaur!). Hence humans are members of primates, and birds are members of dinosaurs.
Just because all birds are dinosaurs does not mean the reverse. You still have not given a reason as to why we should expect that dinosaurs share the same craft building capabilities as modern birds. To imply they can is to say that ancient shrews had built airplanes and the internet just like we humans have to day.
-
That's nice. Now, how is this evidence that ancient dinosaurs were able to make tools sophisticated to build a vast armada of ships so that they could migrate across an ocean?
That isn't what you asked for, so please don't try to blur the distinction.
Hasn't this discussion been going back and forth for the past 60 odd pages about how since modern avian dinosaurs can build floating nests and rudimentary tools, therefore it isn't unreasonable to assume that ancient, non-avian dinosaurs should have been able to construct vast armadas to migrate across oceans?
-
Birds are dinosaurs is like humans are still primates. Think about it.
Hmm...I am thinking about it. I checked humans and was able to verify that, yes, we belong to the Primate order, but when I checked the order for crows all I saw was "Passeriformes". Passerines are apparently "perching birds", and that doesn't seem like a good comprehensive description of dinosaurs, so...how is your comparison accurate?
Order MUST be the level of classification ::)
Just as humans belong to the broader primate classification (we didn't lose our characteristics of being a primate!), birds belong to the broader dinosaur classification (birds didn't lose their characteristics of being a dinosaur!). Hence humans are members of primates, and birds are members of dinosaurs.
Just because all birds are dinosaurs does not mean the reverse. You still have not given a reason as to why we should expect that dinosaurs share the same craft building capabilities as modern birds. To imply they can is to say that ancient shrews had built airplanes and the internet just like we humans have to day.
Where have I ever claimed the reverse. Maybe I should use the italics for you guys again. Birds are dinosaurs.
-
Can there be a rule against using logical fallacies in the upper forum?
Listen, I don't like General Disarray's straw man arguments either, but we can't seriously start banning people for making suspect arguments.
It's the difference between going to the store to buy a knife and chipping a stone to make a knife.
Ah, well the former would be better described as using an existing tool than using existing materials. I think EnglshGentleman's phrasing was better. Anyway, here is the requested evidence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9125000/9125227.stm
Young New Caledonian crows learn to use tools by going to "tool-school", where they can observe their parents at work. These crows are renowned for their extraordinary intelligence and ability to fashion tools to solve problems.
. . .
Even among this group, New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) stand out: they make the most complex tools of any animal yet studied apart from humans. For example, they will evolve and improve the shape of their tools over time, and will fashion left handed or right handed tools.
. . .
"[Juveniles] closely follow and watch their parents' behaviour, are taken to tool using sites, and are 'allowed' to use the tools of their parents," says Dr Hunt. Structuring their education in this way may also help explain how the crows improve their tools over time, as young crows may learn from their parent's mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonian_Crow#Tool_making
The New Caledonian Crow is the only non-human species with a record of inventing new tools by modifying existing ones, then passing these innovations to other individuals in the cultural group. Gavin R. Hunt and colleagues at the University of Auckland studied tools the crows make out of pandanus (or screw pine) leaves:
Crows snip into the leaf edges and then tear out neat strips of vegetation with which they can probe insect-harboring crevices. These tools have been observed to come in three types: narrow strips, wide strips and multi-stepped strips?which are wide at one end and, via a manufacturing process that involves stepwise snips and tears, become narrow at the opposite end.[2]
Observations of the distribution of 5,500 leaf counterparts or stencils left behind by the cutting process suggest that the narrow and the stepped tools are more advanced versions of the wide tool type. "The geographical distribution of each tool type on the island suggests a unique origin, rather than multiple independent inventions". This implies that the inventions, which involve a delicate change in the manufacturing process, were being passed from one individual to another.[3]
The New Caledonian Crow also spontaneously makes tools from materials it does not encounter in the wild, the only non-human species known to do so. In 2002, researcher Kacelnik and colleagues at the University of Oxford observed of a couple of New Caledonian Crows called Betty and Abel:
Betty's toolmaking abilities came to light by accident during an experiment in which she and Abel had to choose between a hooked and a straight wire for retrieving small pieces of pig heart, their favorite food. When Abel made off with the hooked wire, Betty bent the straight wire into a hook and used the tool to lift a small bucket of food from a vertical pipe. This experiment was the first time the crows had been presented with wire.[4]
Subsequently, this ability was tested through a series of systematic experiments. Out of ten successful retrievals, Betty bent the wire into a hook nine times. Abel retrieved the food once, without bending the wire.[5] The process would usually start with Betty trying to get the food bucket with the straight wire, but then she would make a hook from it bending it in different ways, usually by snagging one end of the wire under something, and then using the bent hook to pick up the tray.
Clearly, Betty's creation of hooks cannot be attributed to the shaping or reinforcement of randomly generated behavior. In 2004, Gavin Hunt observed the crows in the wild also making hooks, but the adaptation to the new material of the wire was clearly novel, and also purposeful. This type of intentional tool-making, even if it is generalizing a prior experience to a completely new context, is almost unknown in the animal world. Chimpanzees have great difficulty in similar innovative tasks.
The use of direct human activity has been recorded as well. This involves the placing of nuts in front of a vehicle on a heavy trafficked street and waiting for the/a car to crush it open, and then waiting at pedestrian lights with other pedestrians in order to retrieve the crushed nut safely.
I've presented all of this several times before, so I really don't understand why I'm being asked to do so yet again.
Brother Wilmore, this is most illuminant evidence you have presented to our Institute. I would like to put before the council Further evidence of dinosaurs grand armada would be the finches bill which is a tool adapted for certain nuts.
(http://www.outdooralabama.com/watchable-wildlife/images/HouseFinch.jpg)
Such a bill might originally have been used for sanding mahogany or chiseling some of the softer woods used in ship building such as pine. We know that birds bills are very adaptable and using their bills in such a way would leave their hands free for nails and rolled tobacco leaves which were probably smoked by site workers.
-
Brother Wilmore, this is most illuminant evidence you have presented to our Institute. I would like to put before the council Further evidence of dinosaurs grand armada would be the finches bill which is a tool adapted for certain nuts.
(http://www.outdooralabama.com/watchable-wildlife/images/HouseFinch.jpg)
Such a bill might originally have been used for sanding mahogany or chiseling some of the softer woods used in ship building such as pine. We know that birds bills are very adaptable and using their bills in such a way would leave their hands free for nails and rolled tobacco leaves which were probably smoked by site workers.
Maybe that's why dinosaurs evolved arms; so that they could hold their cigarettes.
-
Ah ha! Now everything makes sense.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cJ4gPnNSexw/TObeNFUEShI/AAAAAAAACOo/AXSFi67aFig/s1600/FarSide_DinosaursExtinct.jpg)
-
The joke in that cartoon doesn't make any sense, because of course dinoaurs haven't become extinct.
Brother Wilmore, this is most illuminant evidence you have presented to our Institute. I would like to put before the council Further evidence of dinosaurs grand armada would be the finches bill which is a tool adapted for certain nuts.
(http://www.outdooralabama.com/watchable-wildlife/images/HouseFinch.jpg)
Such a bill might originally have been used for sanding mahogany or chiseling some of the softer woods used in ship building such as pine. We know that birds bills are very adaptable and using their bills in such a way would leave their hands free for nails and rolled tobacco leaves which were probably smoked by site workers.
Maybe that's why dinosaurs evolved arms; so that they could hold their cigarettes.
Whatever about sincerity, the broad thrust of your speculations is intriguing. However, I must say that I doubt Dinosaurs would use tobacco, as such an athletic race would find its effects to be a serious incumbrance (not to mention the difficulties it would cause at sea).
-
Ah ha! Now everything makes sense.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cJ4gPnNSexw/TObeNFUEShI/AAAAAAAACOo/AXSFi67aFig/s1600/FarSide_DinosaursExtinct.jpg)
This is just another example of false politically correct doctrine. Smoking has not killed dinosaurs, they have evolved from smoking, into more nimble and smarter beings.
-
That's nice. Now, how is this evidence that ancient dinosaurs were able to make tools sophisticated to build a vast armada of ships so that they could migrate across an ocean?
That isn't what you asked for, so please don't try to blur the distinction.
Hasn't this discussion been going back and forth for the past 60 odd pages about how since modern avian dinosaurs can build floating nests and rudimentary tools, therefore it isn't unreasonable to assume that ancient, non-avian dinosaurs should have been able to construct vast armadas to migrate across oceans?
Saying that they could have been able to do it is not the same as saying they should have been able to do it. Furthermore, neither statement is the same as saying they were able to do it. Though one can interpret the latter two as having the same meaning as the first, they can also be interpreted quite differently. I want to be very clear about the claims we are making, and I don't want people constructing straw man arguments (which is precisely what RE'ers have been doing throughout this thread).
-
I want to be very clear about the claims we are making, and I don't want people constructing straw man arguments (which is precisely what RE'ers have been doing throughout this thread).
James has presented his ancient dinosaur migration armada as fact, not speculation.
-
James presents every strange belief he has as fact actually, never once has he tried to state his idea as a possibility.
-
Hmm, arguing against a Far Side comic, eh? I'm not sure if the credibility could get any lower.
-
Hmm, arguing against a Far Side comic, eh? I'm not sure if the credibility could get any lower.
How about arguing with a Far Side Comic?
-
Hmm, arguing against a Far Side comic, eh? I'm not sure if the credibility could get any lower.
How about arguing with a Far Side Comic?
I don't know, how about it? It probably won't respond, so I imagine it'd be an easy argument to win. ???
-
I imagine it'd be an easy argument to win. ???
FE VICTORY
-
Hmm, arguing against a Far Side comic, eh? I'm not sure if the credibility could get any lower.
How about arguing with a Far Side Comic?
Using support from a publication is 100 percent justifiable.
I for one support James' theory. Not the colonial dinosaurs part, but attempts at creating "rafts" of sorts like modern day birds, and the ocean currents taking the dinosaurs to other parts of the planet.
-
I imagine it'd be an easy argument to win. ???
FE VICTORY
I lulz'd...but in the good-natured way. ;)
-
[Moved over from raindrop thread]
So, is it fair to say that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, according to you? And humans are a subset of primates?
Humans are primates actually.
I KNOW humans are primates. Do you think humans are the only primates, or do other primates exist? Would that make humans a subset, or are you saying the terms are interchangeable? ::)
Anyway, what makes no sense to me is this analogy - Humans:Primates::Birds:Dinosaurs.
-
I expect a dinosaur might have smoked a pipe once in a while. I find it is soothing for the intellect, especially when engaged in some grand project.
-
I expect a dinosaur might have smoked a pipe once in a while. I find it is soothing for the intellect, especially when engaged in some grand project.
James & Crustinator are now interchangeable.
-
I expect a dinosaur might have smoked a pipe once in a while. I find it is soothing for the intellect, especially when engaged in some grand project.
We shall have to conduct further oneironautical surveys in order to as whether or not Dinosaurs engaged in such recreational activities in the past. However, I must say I have not encountered modern Dinosaurs doing so, though that is perhaps due to their pennated form.
-
We shall have to conduct further oneironautical surveys
Ah yes, this explains quite a bit.
-
[Moved over from raindrop thread]
So, is it fair to say that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, according to you? And humans are a subset of primates?
Humans are primates actually.
I KNOW humans are primates. Do you think humans are the only primates, or do other primates exist? Would that make humans a subset, or are you saying the terms are interchangeable? ::)
Anyway, what makes no sense to me is this analogy - Humans:Primates::Birds:Dinosaurs.
Do you think T rex are the only dinosaurs, or do other dinosaurs exist? As for interchangeable, no. I have been very clear. Birds are dinosaurs.
-
I expect a dinosaur might have smoked a pipe once in a while. I find it is soothing for the intellect, especially when engaged in some grand project.
I find this quote odd unless you mean that birds smoked them. Most animals that we refer to as "dinosaurs" predate tobacco by a long time.
As you are not a dinosaur it is rather irrelevant how pipe smoking makes you feel.
-
I expect a dinosaur might have smoked a pipe once in a while. I find it is soothing for the intellect, especially when engaged in some grand project.
I find this quote odd unless you mean that birds smoked them. Most animals that we refer to as "dinosaurs" predate tobacco by a long time.
As you are not a dinosaur it is rather irrelevant how pipe smoking makes you feel.
It might not have been tobacco as we know it today, but similar plants could have existed millions of years ago.
-
[Moved over from raindrop thread]
So, is it fair to say that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, according to you? And humans are a subset of primates?
Humans are primates actually.
I KNOW humans are primates. Do you think humans are the only primates, or do other primates exist? Would that make humans a subset, or are you saying the terms are interchangeable? ::)
Anyway, what makes no sense to me is this analogy - Humans:Primates::Birds:Dinosaurs.
Do you think T rex are the only dinosaurs, or do other dinosaurs exist? As for interchangeable, no. I have been very clear. Birds are dinosaurs.
You do a lot more saying they are than you do actually proving it.
-
I expect a dinosaur might have smoked a pipe once in a while. I find it is soothing for the intellect, especially when engaged in some grand project.
OK (http://i52.tinypic.com/n51sg0.jpg)
-
[Moved over from raindrop thread]
So, is it fair to say that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, according to you? And humans are a subset of primates?
Humans are primates actually.
I KNOW humans are primates. Do you think humans are the only primates, or do other primates exist? Would that make humans a subset, or are you saying the terms are interchangeable? ::)
Anyway, what makes no sense to me is this analogy - Humans:Primates::Birds:Dinosaurs.
Do you think T rex are the only dinosaurs, or do other dinosaurs exist? As for interchangeable, no. I have been very clear. Birds are dinosaurs.
You do a lot more saying they are than you do actually proving it.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
-
http://www.birding.com/birdsdino.asp
That was hard, it says many different things.
-
I am not questioning the idea that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. I am questioning the idea that birds are dinosaurs. If primates evolved from, say, shrews, then does that mean primates are shrews? Why or why not?
-
Do you understand how cladistics and phylogeny work?
-
So your link is right because you posted it, and my link is wrong because you didn't? There is still debate out there, it's not 100%.
-
So your link is right because you posted it, and my link is wrong because you didn't? There is still debate out there, it's not 100%.
If you subsrcibe to the classification of dinosaur, then there is no debate in the scientific community. I also don't think you actually read your link.
-
Do you understand how cladistics and phylogeny work?
Do those concepts arbitrarily predict equivalence in high-level behaviors, such as boat-building, between dinosaurs and birds?
-
Alright, birds are dinosaurs. This should also be brought to attention, "From the point of view of cladistics, birds are dinosaurs, but in ordinary speech the word "dinosaur" does not include birds. Additionally, referring to dinosaurs that are not birds as "non-avian dinosaurs" is cumbersome."
-
Alright, birds are dinosaurs.
:) Glad you agree.
-
Alright, birds are dinosaurs.
:) Glad you agree.
With that being said, it is not incorrect to refer to non-avian dinosaurs as dinosaurs, and to refer to birds and dinosaurs separately.
-
Just like with squares and rectangles. I thought that was implied.
-
Alright, birds are dinosaurs.
:) Glad you agree.
With that being said, it is not incorrect to refer to non-avian dinosaurs as dinosaurs, and to refer to birds and dinosaurs separately.
The first part yes. The bolded part no, the distiction has to be made of avian vs non-avian.
-
Do you understand how cladistics and phylogeny work?
Do those concepts arbitrarily predict equivalence in high-level behaviors, such as boat-building, between dinosaurs and birds?
It's a yes or no question, Ichi.
At any rate, I'm glad it's established that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, like squares and rectangles, excellent comparison.
So I gather that essentially the idea is: "Squares have four sides of equal length, therefore [?] rectangles have four sides of equal length."
Now, it seems like the [?] changes depending on whom you ask, but it's apparently either "it's possible that" or "it's not unreasonable to suppose that" or "".
-
My answer is yes, birds are dinosaurs.
-
Alright, birds are dinosaurs.
:) Glad you agree.
With that being said, it is not incorrect to refer to non-avian dinosaurs as dinosaurs, and to refer to birds and dinosaurs separately.
The first part yes. The bolded part no, the distiction has to be made of avian vs non-avian.
Seeing as how one of the definitions of dinosaur is, "any chiefly terrestrial, herbivorous or carnivorous reptile of the extinct orders Saurischia and Ornithischia, from the Mesozoic Era, certain species of which are the largest known land animals," I don't see how referring to them separately is wrong. You're talking about from a classification aspect, but saying dinosaur and bird in conversation and debate is not incorrect.
-
Alright, birds are dinosaurs.
:) Glad you agree.
With that being said, it is not incorrect to refer to non-avian dinosaurs as dinosaurs, and to refer to birds and dinosaurs separately.
The first part yes. The bolded part no, the distiction has to be made of avian vs non-avian.
Seeing as how one of the definitions of dinosaur is, "any chiefly terrestrial, herbivorous or carnivorous reptile of the extinct orders Saurischia and Ornithischia, from the Mesozoic Era, certain species of which are the largest known land animals," I don't see how referring to them separately is wrong. You're talking about from a classification aspect, but saying dinosaur and bird in conversation and debate is not incorrect.
Yes it is.
-
Do you understand how cladistics and phylogeny work?
Do those concepts arbitrarily predict equivalence in high-level behaviors, such as boat-building, between dinosaurs and birds?
It's a yes or no question, Ichi.
At any rate, I'm glad it's established that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, like squares and rectangles, excellent comparison.
So I gather that essentially the idea is: "Squares have four sides of equal length, therefore [?] rectangles have four sides of equal length."
Now, it seems like the [?] changes depending on whom you ask, but it's apparently either "it's possible that" or "it's not unreasonable to suppose that" or "".
There is a wide consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs. Using the strict cladistical definition that all descendants of a single common ancestor must be included in a group for that group to be natural, birds would thus be dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct. Birds are classified by most paleontologists as belonging to the subgroup Maniraptora, which are coelurosaurs, which are theropods, which are saurischians, which are dinosaurs.
-
Alright, birds are dinosaurs.
:) Glad you agree.
With that being said, it is not incorrect to refer to non-avian dinosaurs as dinosaurs, and to refer to birds and dinosaurs separately.
The first part yes. The bolded part no, the distiction has to be made of avian vs non-avian.
Seeing as how one of the definitions of dinosaur is, "any chiefly terrestrial, herbivorous or carnivorous reptile of the extinct orders Saurischia and Ornithischia, from the Mesozoic Era, certain species of which are the largest known land animals," I don't see how referring to them separately is wrong. You're talking about from a classification aspect, but saying dinosaur and bird in conversation and debate is not incorrect.
Yes it is.
"From the point of view of cladistics, birds are dinosaurs, but in ordinary speech the word "dinosaur" does not include birds. Additionally, referring to dinosaurs that are not birds as "non-avian dinosaurs" is cumbersome."
Do I have to post it again? Read the bolded part.
-
So in ordinary speech I shall refer to rectangles as squares?
The distinction has to be made in order to be correct.
-
So in ordinary speech I shall refer to rectangles as squares?
The distinction has to be made in order to be correct.
That would be stupid because a square is a rectangle with four equal sides.
-
So in ordinary speech I shall refer to rectangles as squares?
The distinction has to be made in order to be correct.
That would be stupid because a square is a rectangle with four equal sides.
What about calling squares rectangles?
-
So in ordinary speech I shall refer to rectangles as squares?
The distinction has to be made in order to be correct.
That would be stupid because a square is a rectangle with four equal sides.
What about calling squares rectangles?
The point you're trying to make is we either always speak scientifically or always speak commonly. I get it. Referring to avian dinosaurs as birds and non-avian dinosaurs as dinosaurs makes things easier. Every time it is brought up that birds are dinosaurs, it causes arguments and derailment. Seeing as how typing out avian and non-avian is just a waste of time and rather annoying, why cant there just be an agreement that there are birds and there are dinosaurs?
-
So in ordinary speech I shall refer to rectangles as squares?
The distinction has to be made in order to be correct.
That would be stupid because a square is a rectangle with four equal sides.
What about calling squares rectangles?
The point you're trying to make is we either always speak scientifically or always speak commonly. I get it. Referring to avian dinosaurs as birds and non-avian dinosaurs as dinosaurs makes things easier. Every time it is brought up that birds are dinosaurs, it causes arguments and derailment. Seeing as how typing out avian and non-avian is just a waste of time and rather annoying, why cant there just be an agreement that there are birds and there are dinosaurs?
Because birds are dinosaurs! That's a big part of the debate. Surely if I claimed something about all rectangles, I would have to take squares into consideration. Not doing so wouldn't make any sense now would it Simmias
-
So in ordinary speech I shall refer to rectangles as squares?
The distinction has to be made in order to be correct.
That would be stupid because a square is a rectangle with four equal sides.
What about calling squares rectangles?
The point you're trying to make is we either always speak scientifically or always speak commonly. I get it. Referring to avian dinosaurs as birds and non-avian dinosaurs as dinosaurs makes things easier. Every time it is brought up that birds are dinosaurs, it causes arguments and derailment. Seeing as how typing out avian and non-avian is just a waste of time and rather annoying, why cant there just be an agreement that there are birds and there are dinosaurs?
Because birds are dinosaurs! That's a big part of the debate. Surely if I claimed something about all rectangles, I would have to take squares into consideration. Not doing so wouldn't make any sense now would it Simmias
You're impossible. I understand that. I'm not arguing that fact with you anymore. I'm saying for the sake of making things easier, why cant birds mean flying feathered creatures and dinosaurs mean giant reptile creatures that died out 65 million years ago? You're just being difficult to be difficult now.
-
Because pterosaurs could fly but are not dinosaurs.
Birds are dinosaurs.
Surely we wouldn't want to invoke irrelevant organisms would we Cebes?
-
Because pterosaurs could fly but are not dinosaurs.
Birds are dinosaurs.
Surely we wouldn't want to invoke irrelevant organisms would we Cebes?
Surely we wouldn't want to purposely overlook words like feathered would we?
-
Because pterosaurs could fly but are not dinosaurs.
Birds are dinosaurs.
Surely we wouldn't want to invoke irrelevant organisms would we Cebes?
Surely we wouldn't want to purposely overlook words like feathered would we?
>Implying no pterosaurs had feathers and that all birds have feathers.
-
Anyway, my point is that this theory takes an evolutionary subset and arbitrarily applies a specific behavior to the entire ancestral set. Can any other proponent of this theory apart from Ichi the Broken Record (i.e. someone with solid reading comprehension skills) justify this?
-
Anyway, my point is that this theory takes an evolutionary subset and arbitrarily applies a specific behavior to the entire ancestral set. Can any other proponent of this theory apart from Ichi the Broken Record (i.e. someone with solid reading comprehension skills) justify this?
Birds are dinosaurs.
-
Anyway, my point is that this theory takes an evolutionary subset and arbitrarily applies a specific behavior to the entire ancestral set. Can any other proponent of this theory apart from Ichi the Broken Record (i.e. someone with solid reading comprehension skills) justify this?
I suppose extant phylogeny can answer some of those questions for us.
-
Why do birds need boats if they can fly?
-
Anyway, my point is that this theory takes an evolutionary subset and arbitrarily applies a specific behavior to the entire ancestral set. Can any other proponent of this theory apart from Ichi the Broken Record (i.e. someone with solid reading comprehension skills) justify this?
I suppose extant phylogeny can answer some of those questions for us.
It should also be brought to attention that birds did not evolve from all dinosaurs. For all of this to be even a possibility, the non-avian dinosaurs that may have used tools would have to be theropods, since that is the sub-order that avian dinosaurs evolved from. We're narrowing shit down now. What we need to do is find out what non-avian dinosaurs might have built boats, based on fossil records, and find out if they are theropods. If they are not, we'll have to explore a new route.
-
How about ornithopods?
"They reached their apex in the duck-bills, before they were wiped out by the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event along with all other non-avian dinosaurs. Members are known from all seven continents, although the Antarctic remains are unnamed, and they are generally rare in the Southern Hemisphere."
Oh, and this clarifies something about their Order:
"They are known as the 'bird-hipped' dinosaurs because of their bird-like hip structure, even though birds actually descended from the 'lizard-hipped' dinosaurs (the saurischians)." -Wikipedia
-
Why do birds need boats if they can fly?
Because their wings get tired, and they can hardly stop to rest when they're over water.
-
How about ornithopods?
"They reached their apex in the duck-bills, before they were wiped out by the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event along with all other non-avian dinosaurs. Members are known from all seven continents, although the Antarctic remains are unnamed, and they are generally rare in the Southern Hemisphere."
Oh, and this clarifies something about their Order:
"They are known as the 'bird-hipped' dinosaurs because of their bird-like hip structure, even though birds actually descended from the 'lizard-hipped' dinosaurs (the saurischians)." -Wikipedia
Interesting, however that order seemed to have either died out, or evolved into an animal that we haven't yet found the connection to. We must concentrate on theropods only.
-
By the way, why did the birds cross the ocean?
To get to the other tide. ::)
Anyway, my point is...how did non-therapod dinosaurs get on all of the continents? ???
-
By the way, why did the birds cross the ocean?
To get to the other tide. ::)
Anyway, my point is...how did non-therapod dinosaurs get on all of the continents? ???
Teleportation. They had the ability to teleport to any location at will.
-
Why do birds need boats if they can fly?
Because their wings get tired, and they can hardly stop to rest when they're over water.
Why not? Lots of birds can swim.
-
Why do birds need boats if they can fly?
Because their wings get tired, and they can hardly stop to rest when they're over water.
Why not? Lots of birds can swim.
So can I, but that doesn't mean that I can swim across an ocean.
-
There are birds that migrate over the ocean. Therefore, dinosaurs could also fly over the ocean.
-
So can I, but that doesn't mean that I can swim across an ocean.
Wimp.
Also, if they can swim and fly, they can just rest on water.
-
How about ornithopods?
"They reached their apex in the duck-bills, before they were wiped out by the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event along with all other non-avian dinosaurs. Members are known from all seven continents, although the Antarctic remains are unnamed, and they are generally rare in the Southern Hemisphere."
Oh, and this clarifies something about their Order:
"They are known as the 'bird-hipped' dinosaurs because of their bird-like hip structure, even though birds actually descended from the 'lizard-hipped' dinosaurs (the saurischians)." -Wikipedia
Interesting, however that order seemed to have either died out, or evolved into an animal that we haven't yet found the connection to. We must concentrate on theropods only.
I believe the hadrosaurs (I'm assuming that's what AA is referring to) play a part in James' theory
-
It should be noted that as adept scientists, we are not in the habit of using the indistinct vulgarities of everyday language, thus we insist on stringent cladistic classification in our studies. What the layman calls a bird, therefore, we rightly call a dinosaur.
-
It should be noted that as adept scientists, we are not in the habit of using the indistinct vulgarities of everyday language, thus we insist on stringent cladistic classification in our studies. What the layman calls a bird, therefore, we rightly call a dinosaur.
In that case, you would do better to call them modern, avian dinosaurs in order to avoid confusion with ancient, non-avian dinosaurs.
-
How about ornithopods?
"They reached their apex in the duck-bills, before they were wiped out by the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event along with all other non-avian dinosaurs. Members are known from all seven continents, although the Antarctic remains are unnamed, and they are generally rare in the Southern Hemisphere."
Oh, and this clarifies something about their Order:
"They are known as the 'bird-hipped' dinosaurs because of their bird-like hip structure, even though birds actually descended from the 'lizard-hipped' dinosaurs (the saurischians)." -Wikipedia
Interesting, however that order seemed to have either died out, or evolved into an animal that we haven't yet found the connection to. We must concentrate on theropods only.
I believe the hadrosaurs (I'm assuming that's what AA is referring to) play a part in James' theory
Oh, I am interested to hear what part they play in James's theory, absolutely.
-
How about ornithopods?
"They reached their apex in the duck-bills, before they were wiped out by the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event along with all other non-avian dinosaurs. Members are known from all seven continents, although the Antarctic remains are unnamed, and they are generally rare in the Southern Hemisphere."
Oh, and this clarifies something about their
"They are known as the 'bird-hipped' dinosaurs because of their bird-like hip structure, even though birds actually descended from the 'lizard-hipped' dinosaurs (the saurischians)." -Wikipedia
Interesting, however that order seemed to have either died out, or evolved into an animal that we haven't yet found the connection to. We must concentrate on theropods only.
I believe the hadrosaurs (I'm assuming that's what AA is referring to) play a part in James' theory
Oh, I am interested to hear what part they play in James's theory, absolutely.
Are you sure James in not talking about a Hadosaurus, as in you been had.
-
The joke in that cartoon doesn't make any sense, because of course dinoaurs haven't become extinct.
Brother Wilmore, this is most illuminant evidence you have presented to our Institute. I would like to put before the council Further evidence of dinosaurs grand armada would be the finches bill which is a tool adapted for certain nuts.
(http://www.outdooralabama.com/watchable-wildlife/images/HouseFinch.jpg)
Such a bill might originally have been used for sanding mahogany or chiseling some of the softer woods used in ship building such as pine. We know that birds bills are very adaptable and using their bills in such a way would leave their hands free for nails and rolled tobacco leaves which were probably smoked by site workers.
Maybe that's why dinosaurs evolved arms; so that they could hold their cigarettes.
Whatever about sincerity, the broad thrust of your speculations is intriguing. However, I must say that I doubt Dinosaurs would use tobacco, as such an athletic race would find its effects to be a serious incumbrance (not to mention the difficulties it would cause at sea).
I think Brother Wilmore that you are forgetting the many beneficial effects of tobacco, for example its ability to steady nerves, it also helps concentrate the mind and gives restless hands something to do. Smoking is generally a sign of strength and maturity. This would be of undoubted benefit in an advanced race such as the dinosaurs.
-
I saw some dinosaur shipwrights hard at work the other day on the shore of a lake, and I tried to photograph their work. I was shoved and pushed away by their security guards and this was one of only two pictures I was able to take before I had to flee from the scene. I suppose we should be careful interfering with dinosaur culture, as much as we know about them, their society has conventions we are not always familiar with. Dinosaurs might believe that photographs steal part of the soul, like some human cultures do.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/200550_1769538731201_1621200077_1766435_865272_n.jpg)
-
I'm not sure what I'm looking at, I was about to report it to moderators because I'm kind of offended and I think I need an adult.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/188265_1769539411218_1621200077_1766436_7304154_n.jpg)
This was the first photograph I took seconds before the man assaulted me and pushed me away. I took this photo as he was swimming towards me, at which point I looked him in the eye and said in a loud and assertive voice "SIR, PLEASE LET ME PASS, SIR, I WISH TO PHOTOGRAPH YOUR SHIP" at which juncture he began shouting at me very aggressively in a saurian dialect which I couldn't understand, and then he hit my camera with his mouth as I started to run backwards. That is what the first photograph is of, of him trying to take the camera off me to stop me photographing the boat which his colleagues were building. It worked, because I didn't get any shots of the ship. I ran away after the photo in the previous post was taken.
-
Did James just post a nude photo of himself?
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/188265_1769539411218_1621200077_1766436_7304154_n.jpg)
This was the first photograph I took seconds before the man assaulted me and pushed me away. I took this photo as he was swimming towards me, at which point I looked him in the eye and said in a loud and assertive voice "SIR, PLEASE LET ME PASS, SIR, I WISH TO PHOTOGRAPH YOUR SHIP" at which juncture he began shouting at me very aggressively in a saurian dialect which I couldn't understand, and then he hit my camera with his mouth as I started to run backwards. That is what the first photograph is of, of him trying to take the camera off me to stop me photographing the boat which his colleagues were building. It worked, because I didn't get any shots of the ship. I ran away after the photo in the previous post was taken.
Thank God you survived the experience! I always thought dinosaurwatching was an unnecessarily dangerous pastime.
-
Ethnographical journalism is risky. Hunter S Thompson once got beaten up when he infiltrated the Hell's Angels, to write a book, and I got beaten up when I infiltrated some dinosaur ship builders, to post in the Flat Earth Society. The lengths we will go to in order to discover the truth.
-
That's a picture of a duck. I'm not really sure what this proves.
-
Duck is a dinosaur ethnicity. Does it not prove anything just because it's duck? Are you being racist?
-
Duck is a dinosaur ethnicity. Does it not prove anything just because it's duck? Are you being racist?
So it was a duck who assaulted you?
-
Duck is a dinosaur ethnicity. Does it not prove anything just because it's duck? Are you being racist?
I seriously LOL'd when I read this. It doesn't prove anything because it's a duck and not a boat.
-
James, thank you for your bravery in the face of dinosaur aggression. Geese in particular are very touchy about being photographed. I have found that they are more open to communicating peacefully when I make an initial offering of food made of whole grains.
-
Well...if we're the on the subject of bird aggression, there's probably a couple of previously overlooked incidents that have been raised here before. Observe their larcenous intentions, as cataloged by Brother Bishop and myself:
(http://image.aimoo.com/Skins_Images/4700/fact/goose-stealing-money.jpg)
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r269/dearaewi/seagull.gif)
I'll admit I didn't think much of them at first, but you never really know. It could be just a humorous coincidence...or something more sinister.
-
Please be more careful in the future, James. The aggressive behavior of ducks, geese, and swans is well known.
http://quazen.com/recreation/outdoors/the-first-man-killed-by-an-angry-swan/ (http://quazen.com/recreation/outdoors/the-first-man-killed-by-an-angry-swan/)
-
Your bravery is inspiring, James. Glad you are safe after such an experience.
-
Ohhh man, this thread just gets better and better.
-
Ohhh man, this thread just gets better and better.
I suggest you re-read this entire thread. It has been this good the entire time. Knowledge is satisfying, indeed.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/188265_1769539411218_1621200077_1766436_7304154_n.jpg)
This was the first photograph I took seconds before the man assaulted me and pushed me away. I took this photo as he was swimming towards me, at which point I looked him in the eye and said in a loud and assertive voice "SIR, PLEASE LET ME PASS, SIR, I WISH TO PHOTOGRAPH YOUR SHIP" at which juncture he began shouting at me very aggressively in a saurian dialect which I couldn't understand, and then he hit my camera with his mouth as I started to run backwards. That is what the first photograph is of, of him trying to take the camera off me to stop me photographing the boat which his colleagues were building. It worked, because I didn't get any shots of the ship. I ran away after the photo in the previous post was taken.
Were you able to get a look at their tools?
-
These gentlemen were using their beaks.
-
These gentlemen were using their beaks.
Oh. I suppose that they were also building their "ships" in dry dock as well.
-
These gentlemen were using their beaks.
Did they appear to be unionized?
-
Brother James, sounds like a lucky escape but you captured some rare footage there. I think I can see the tobacco pipe that one of them dropped in his effort to strike you. This proves that dinosaurs smoke tobacco leaves!
Might I recommend that for your safety you were some kind of disguise in the future. that way you may become smore accepted into their culture and be able to make further observations therein. A brief search yielded this result:
(https://www.hollywood.uk.com/shop/pdb_images/BNOV-DS134.jpg)
It looks like an excellent starting point for anyone wishing to integrate themselves into this ancient civilisation.
-
Brother James, sounds like a lucky escape but you captured some rare footage there. I think I can see the tobacco pipe that one of them dropped in his effort to strike you. This proves that dinosaurs smoke tobacco leaves!
Might I recommend that for your safety you were some kind of disguise in the future. that way you may become smore accepted into their culture and be able to make further observations therein. A brief search yielded this result:
(https://www.hollywood.uk.com/shop/pdb_images/BNOV-DS134.jpg)
It looks like an excellent starting point for anyone wishing to integrate themselves into this ancient civilisation.
Brother Crustinator, while normally I would agree that wearing a disguise is the perfect way to conduct anthropological inquiries, with dinosaurs I would advice caution. Their mating rituals, as displayed in this picture:(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS29UPWbIZXFWN1xa-3CKa5iSw2Nw4OtVUBhnRkdaN6uuv3MX_X) are very aggressive and posing as a dinosaur might make you the involuntary target of one of the more lonely dinosaurs.
I would suggest camouflage. Something like this: (http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQu3NYr4QF194gNoKr1Jc7TvSbUI3Jx4tNKl34T2r03mcg9CpVd) should be explored first, as it can bring you close to the dinosaurs on the beach, where they mount their vessels.
-
Well suggested, Brother Beorn. Alternatively, a method of avoiding attention from amorous dinosaurs would be to work undercover in teams, thereby signaling that you already have a mate. Observe how the professionals operate:
(http://www.moonbattery.com/Barney-and-friends.jpg)
-
Crusty for Prime Minister.
-
This thread has gone so far off the deep end that it drowned.
-
James, the aggression exhibited by these Dinosaurs seems unusual. Moreover, if I recall correctly you once had an encounter with a trained attack Dinosaur acting at the behest of its Conspiracy masters. I have to wonder to what extent Dinosaurs are involved in the Conspiracy...
-
Duck is a dinosaur ethnicity. Does it not prove anything just because it's duck? Are you being racist?
a) species have nothing to do with race
b) ducks have nothing to do with prehistoric dinosaur species.
-
This thread has gone so far off the deep end that it drowned.
Please don't spam with image macros unless you intend to contribute to the discussion.
-
Well suggested, Brother Beorn. Alternatively, a method of avoiding attention from amorous dinosaurs would be to work undercover in teams, thereby signaling that you already have a mate. Observe how the professionals operate:
(http://www.moonbattery.com/Barney-and-friends.jpg)
Brother Saddam, I would worry for our mutual Brother if he were to try to disguise himself as you have suggested. That owuld be akin to dressing as a 1970s pimp in an attempt to go undercover in a New York gang. Most street gangs these days were a lot less ermine and our mutual Brothers life would surely be in jeopardy.
-
This thread has gone so far off the deep end that it drowned.
Please don't spam with image macros unless you intend to contribute to the discussion.
Jumping the shark was very relevant to this thread, and I am certainly not the only person that thinks so.
Ichi, this entire thread is a disgrace that belongs in Random Musings and you know it.
-
Why wasn't Barney removed Ichi?
Edit: Or any other picture one that same page?
-
Why wasn't Barney removed Ichi?
Edit: Or any other picture one that same page?
Not sure, but it's good to know that pictures of mating dinosaurs and naked sandy women are allowed!
-
Why wasn't Barney removed Ichi?
Edit: Or any other picture one that same page?
Not sure, but it's good to know that pictures of mating dinosaurs and naked sandy women are allowed!
I know, if I post pictures of either of those and I get banned, I shall reference this thread.
-
I know, if I post pictures of either of those and I get banned, I shall reference this thread.
It will do you no good. The Conspiracy is in control now.
-
Well suggested, Brother Beorn. Alternatively, a method of avoiding attention from amorous dinosaurs would be to work undercover in teams, thereby signaling that you already have a mate. Observe how the professionals operate:
(http://www.moonbattery.com/Barney-and-friends.jpg)
Brother Saddam, I would worry for our mutual Brother if he were to try to disguise himself as you have suggested. That owuld be akin to dressing as a 1970s pimp in an attempt to go undercover in a New York gang. Most street gangs these days were a lot less ermine and our mutual Brothers life would surely be in jeopardy.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that he dress up as Barney. I'm only saying that working as a part of a team is likely to reduce the risk of rape.
-
Saddam is Barney. He is.
-
Why wasn't Barney removed Ichi?
Edit: Or any other picture one that same page?
They're relevant.
-
Why wasn't Barney removed Ichi?
Edit: Or any other picture one that same page?
They're relevant.
Barney is not relevant.
-
Why wasn't Barney removed Ichi?
Edit: Or any other picture one that same page?
They're relevant.
Barney is not relevant.
It is very relevant. We are talking about dinosaur disguises.
-
I have a confession. I do not know what shall be held against me, or what consequences I may gain, but I have to say it.
I may or may not be a dinosaur.
-
I'm only saying that working as a part of a team is likely to reduce the risk of rape.
??? You should be doing this already.
-
I have a confession. I do not know what shall be held against me, or what consequences I may gain, but I have to say it.
I may or may not be a dinosaur.
Don't worry about it, man. None of us are racist. Besides, there are good dinosaurs and bad dinosaurs, just like people.
I'm only saying that working as a part of a team is likely to reduce the risk of rape.
??? You should be doing this already.
I agree, but apparently Brother James isn't. That's a problem.
-
Now I know why governments can commit huge atrocities. It's kinda like this thread; the mods are being hilariously out of order and it's kinda funny to watch.
-
Now I know why governments can commit huge atrocities. It's kinda like this thread; the mods are being hilariously out of order and it's kinda funny to watch.
I hope NATO will step in if the mods turn on us.
-
Crusty, I would have thought that you know that NATO is in on the conspiracy. We have enough trouble without NATO on here.
-
This is true. NATO (NASA) only ever act in their own best interests. However is would not surprise me if things on this forum were not as black and white as they seem. Certainly many senior accounts have been hacked by Conspiracy Agents. To this end, both NASAs interests and our own would briefly align to remove the scourge.
-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110412201724.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110412201724.htm)
"Evolution in birds of the olfactory bulb, the part of the brain where smell information is processed, passing from a dinosaur (Bambiraptor) through early birds (Lithornis, Presbyornis) to a modern-day bird (pigeon). (Credit: Courtesy of WitmerLab at Ohio University)"
-
Yeah, and guess what? Bambiraptors are therapods. So just for fun I'll ask this again:
Anyway, my point is...how did non-therapod dinosaurs get on all of the continents? ???
-
They were taken across as livestock.
-
Wow. Best answer I've read so far in this wonderful forum. Go on, enlighten me.....by who?
-
They were taken across as livestock.
what, like pets? interesting theory, but mine is better; dinosaurs evolved into even more special creatures, and split atoms, thus blowing the shit out of some point in South America, but covered it all up with a simulated meteor strike in case they got in trouble with the US and the whole war on terror malarkey. challenge you to prove me wrong, and if you can't, I therefore am proved correct.
-
Just some friendly advice (I'm not a moderator!), you can get banned for low-content posts like that in the "upper fora", I suggest reading the rules if you want to avoid this.
To answer your question, presumably by therapods, the super-intelligent dinosaurs which you know today as birds.
-
Just some friendly advice (I'm not a moderator!), you can get banned for low-content posts like that in the "upper fora", I suggest reading the rules if you want to avoid this.
To answer your question, presumably by therapods, the super-intelligent dinosaurs which you know today as birds.
This entire thread is low-content.
-
Keep posts on-topic and high-content in here. In Flat Earth Debate discussions are moderated far moree strictly than elsewhere. Please read both the Forum Rules and the board-specific rules.
-
Just some friendly advice (I'm not a moderator!), you can get banned for low-content posts like that in the "upper fora", I suggest reading the rules if you want to avoid this.
To answer your question, presumably by therapods, the super-intelligent dinosaurs which you know today as birds.
Birds are super intelligent? Since when? Ever met a supposedly intelligent owl? Thickest creatures I work with in my professional capacity. A newt has more brains. Raptors? The average hamster has a higher problem solving capability. The crow family or parrots? If party tricks are your thing, be my guest and be impressed by them, but rats show them the way to the door and kick their low IQ butts as they leave. I'll happily be proven wrong, but the direct decendent of everyone's favourite Jurassic Park extra, the velociraptor (BTW, the film was a lie, their is no evidence to suggest they were intelligent), is the chicken. Not exactly in line with this thread's super intelligent dinosaurs, really, is it? But carry on, I'm having a right laugh here.
-
The crow family or parrots?
Many studies have been done showing that corvid dinosaurs can use and create tools to solve problems. I have posted links to several of them in this thread. You should give it a read.
-
In all seriousness, plenty of birds have been shown to be extremely intelligent. For example, I think crows have been observed dropping shells or things they wanted to break onto roads, then waiting until a car comes along and smashes it.
-
Hardly intelligent and certainly a very large leap of faith away from using tools and floating across oceans. The vast majority of the reference to bird intelligence come from laboratory situations where persistent training and reward has been used to alter natural behaviour. THere are VERY few incidences of observed wild behaviour where any form of tool use has been observed. And I would hardly call putting shells on a road a sign of intelligence. It's a trial and error, learned repetitive behaviour. If this is evidence of dinosaurs building ships, then the rats will be constructing Death Stars soon...
-
In all seriousness, plenty of birds have been shown to be extremely intelligent. For example, I think crows have been observed dropping shells or things they wanted to break onto roads, then waiting until a car comes along and smashes it.
Crows began demonstrating the ability to construct tools using wires during experiments to see if they could do a task with a premade tool. The researchers forgot to provide a hook for the birds, so the birds bent a wire into a hook and used it instead. This ability is not shared by other birds of close relation meaning it is a trait that they most likely evolved long after branching off from most prehistoric dinosaur species. There is no reason to believe their ancient ancestors shared the ability, but crows certainly are advanced and have a local languages.
-
Wow. Best answer I've read so far in this wonderful forum. Go on, enlighten me.....by who?
By other dinosaurs.
-
How did the other dinosaurs get there?
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
Shell casing would disintegrate over the thousands of years since dinosaurs sailed the earth.
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
Shell casing would disintegrate over the thousands of years since dinosaurs sailed the earth.
Could a mod explain to me how this entire thread isn't a low content post?
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
Shell casing would disintegrate over the thousands of years since dinosaurs sailed the earth.
What if dinosaurs used titanium shell casings?
-
How did the other dinosaurs get there?
They were the ones who built the boats - the dromaeosaurs. Their prey animals such as Saurolophus were transported as yearlings in large agricultural shipping, along with seeds for crops, and tools and weapons.
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
>implying semi-auto !=single shot.
-
How did the other dinosaurs get there?
They were the ones who built the boats - the dromaeosaurs. Their prey animals such as Saurolophus were transported as yearlings in large agricultural shipping, along with seeds for crops, and tools and weapons.
Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly.
James, you should know better, my brother.
-
I am, as always, contributing amply to the discussion at hand (which, if you care to review the rest of this topic, is my own theory on dinosaurs). If you have nothing to contribute other than fallacious personal attacks which divert us from this noble discussion, you ought to leave this thread.
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
Shell casing would disintegrate over the thousands of years since dinosaurs sailed the earth.
What if dinosaurs used titanium shell casings?
Why bother?
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
Shell casing would disintegrate over the thousands of years since dinosaurs sailed the earth.
What if dinosaurs used titanium shell casings?
Why bother?
For an increase in penetrative ability against thick hides? Just a shot in the dark. ???
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
Shell casing would disintegrate over the thousands of years since dinosaurs sailed the earth.
What if dinosaurs used titanium shell casings?
Why bother?
For an increase in penetrative ability against thick hides? Just a shot in the dark. ???
The dinosaurs were eco-friendly and sustainable. You don't reign for millions of years without doing this.
-
I expect they became very good at recycling as they had an awful lot of time to think very carefully about it, unlike us humans who are always rushed off our feet with busy work, like imagining round Earths and building counterfeit space ships.
-
I expect they became very good at recycling as they had an awful lot of time to think very carefully about it, unlike us humans who are always rushed off our feet with busy work, like imagining round Earths and building counterfeit space ships.
How do you know that the dinosaurs didn't have their version of the conspiracy?
-
They were probably too busy recycling and building ships to worry about such nonsense.
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
Shell casing would disintegrate over the thousands of years since dinosaurs sailed the earth.
What if dinosaurs used titanium shell casings?
Why bother?
For an increase in penetrative ability against thick hides? Just a shot in the dark. ???
The dinosaurs were eco-friendly and sustainable. You don't reign for millions of years without doing this.
but dinosaurs where around 9000 years ago according to this site?
-
They were probably too busy recycling and building ships to worry about such nonsense.
so the conspiracy is nonsense? the FE conspiracy that this site is built upon, is nonsense? (according to someone who thinks dinosaurs were a sea faring society with a taste for their pets and agriculture)
-
I've had enough of this nonsense. I am going to compose a letter (perhaps include a petition) to Daniel asking that James have his Flat Earth Believer status revoked, since I am fairly certain Daniel isn't intending for the Flat Earth Society to become like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
James may be entertaining, but there should be a limit to absurdity among the Flat Earth Believers.
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
Shell casing would disintegrate over the thousands of years since dinosaurs sailed the earth.
What if dinosaurs used titanium shell casings?
Why bother?
For an increase in penetrative ability against thick hides? Just a shot in the dark. ???
The dinosaurs were eco-friendly and sustainable. You don't reign for millions of years without doing this.
but dinosaurs where around 9000 years ago according to this site?
Dinosaurs are around today.
-
I've had enough of this nonsense. I am going to compose a letter (perhaps include a petition) to Daniel asking that James have his Flat Earth Believer status revoked, since I am fairly certain Daniel isn't intending for the Flat Earth Society to become like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
James may be entertaining, but there should be a limit to absurdity among the Flat Earth Believers.
You leave me no choice but to compose a counter-letter, undemanding everything which you are planning to demand. It is a shame that you have to distract from the important issues and scientific debate of this thread with your childish vendetta against my character, and that I will have to waste my valuable time composing a counter-letter.
-
I've had enough of this nonsense. I am going to compose a letter (perhaps include a petition) to Daniel asking that James have his Flat Earth Believer status revoked, since I am fairly certain Daniel isn't intending for the Flat Earth Society to become like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
James may be entertaining, but there should be a limit to absurdity among the Flat Earth Believers.
You leave me no choice but to compose a counter-letter, undemanding everything which you are planning to demand. It is a shame that you have to distract from the important issues and scientific debate of this thread with your childish vendetta against my character, and that I will have to waste my valuable time composing a counter-letter.
I'm going to write a counter-counter-letter stating that Horatio, as much of a whiny dork as he is, is in fact right and you do nothing but derail and spread nonsense to the people on this website.
-
No alteration of my position or rank, were such an outcome even likely in the slightest, could possibly silence the voice of my truth. Not only would I continue to expound the true science with my characteristic vigour and eloquence, but my manifold zetetic colleagues will inevitably continue to defend the fine theorems which I have advanced, in every board of this website which admits such subject matters, to include the Flat Earth Believer's board on which I have posted with integrity and depth for some five calendar years, never erring in my dedication to the truth. Were I completely absent from the field of debate, theorems of the same quality and quantity would be espoused by my friends and fellow scientists, as has been demonstrated historically during times wherein I have wandered the Earth and as such omitted to post.
Of these facts, my friend Daniel and the rest of the administration are plainly aware, and they, like I, have so often been subjected to the unjust complaint of ephemeral globularist web-debators as to be quite unlikely to hear such demands as the dismissal of a fellow zetetic scientist.
-
your over the top, self-indulgent & overly verbose rants, prolific use of 'big words' and rhetoric is mind numbingly boring, not to mention utterly insane, especially the cartoon dinosaurs in boats that you draw
inb4 FE’ers don’t get the irony
-
My verisimilitude is not countermanded by spurious aspersions.
-
no, you're a patronising eejit who thinks he's cleverer than everyone else, but the truth is, you're typical of a certain type of internet personality, in that you hide your total lack of credability behind a sound grasp and excellent delivery off written word
-
I must warn you to abstain from personal vitriol in your posts, or you shall leave me no choice but to banish you from these flat Earth society forums.
-
another familiar tactic in avoiding unanswerable questions, the ban hammer, I've seen this in many instances before this, I remind you that I have lurked here for longer than you think, I know how you work, predictability is your Achilles..
-
James is respected for his brilliance and for how he can apply that brilliance to making us all more knowledgeable.
Take the time to read and learn and you will be all the wiser for time better spent. Make sure that thinking is part of your regimen and you will understand.
-
I am paid an awful lot to think, it is a natural poise for my mind, but James is drawing cartoons of dinosaurs sailing boats and expects to be taken seriously. his reference points are that of a 200 year old smack head with a thin grasp of reality, and physics, and whilst he is undoubtedly an intelligent individual, I am yet to see him express this brilliance you speak off, especially in the area of evidence to the FET
-
James is drawing cartoons of dinosaurs sailing boats and expects to be taken seriously.
I see no problem.
-
I know how you work, predictability is your Achilles..
What hubris to think you know what James will do next.
-
Given the lack of available shell casing evidence, I certainly am. Dinosaurs tiny forelimbs wouldn't have been able to cope with teh recoil anyway, that's why they stuck with single shot rifles.
Shell casing would disintegrate over the thousands of years since dinosaurs sailed the earth.
What if dinosaurs used titanium shell casings?
Why bother?
For an increase in penetrative ability against thick hides? Just a shot in the dark. ???
How would the shell casing affect the penatrative ability?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
-
because they can contain a larger blast, thus increasing the projectiles velocity over softer casings
inb4 conspiracy or fake
-
James is respected for his brilliance and for how he can apply that brilliance to making us all more knowledgeable.
Take the time to read and learn and you will be all the wiser for time better spent. Make sure that thinking is part of your regimen and you will understand.
James makes stuff up after watching too much Flintstones and Jim Henson.
-
James is respected for his brilliance and for how he can apply that brilliance to making us all more knowledgeable.
Take the time to read and learn and you will be all the wiser for time better spent. Make sure that thinking is part of your regimen and you will understand.
James makes stuff up after watching too much Flintstones and Jim Henson.
Ah, a typical Ali "debunking!" This will be your last warning against the low-content posts before a ban is issued.
-
Feel free. You're entirely incapable of answering legitimate questions anyway. I take it you tend to ban people when they come across gigantic holes in your argument? See "magnetospehere", "solar wind", "event horizon" and "redshift" in your search facility.
-
I reject the globular-chauvanist terminology of the word Magnetosphere.
-
Would you prefer "Magnetosaurus"?
-
I reject the globular-chauvanist terminology of the word Magnetosphere.
they say the empty can rattles the most
-
Would you prefer "Magnetosaurus"?
they say the empty can rattles the most
This is your last warning before we issue a ban; stop with the contentless crap posts in the upper forums.
-
Feel free. We've shot gigantic hole sin your theory which no-one will answer so there doesn't seem much point in having a forum with a Q&A or Debate section because no regulars seem capable of either, just a bunch of semantic arguing and "use the search function" posts.
-
Feel free. We've shot gigantic hole sin your theory which no-one will answer so there doesn't seem much point in having a forum with a Q&A or Debate section because no regulars seem capable of either, just a bunch of semantic arguing and "use the search function" posts.
You've really done no such thing. Unfortunately. I would welcome you to actually put gigantic holes in my theory. I have no will to ban you; if I did you would already be gone. If you think you actually put any holes in our theory, you clearly aren't reading the same threads you are posting in.
Now, please quite derailing this topic again. Again, this is a warning.
-
Warn away John, but at least have the decency to try and answer my questions on UA, time dilation and the apparent lack of redshift and an event horizon, not to mention the absurdity of the moon and sun being able to circle (not orbit) a non gravitational body. Or even how that body doesn't possess gravity when it's 30,000 km across and 9,000km deep and very obviously possesses mass. Do it in the threads the questions were asked in by all means, before they were derailed by your cohorts who keep trying to wrap arguments up in ridiculous nitpicking. You seem to be the only one here with any genuine knowledge and the only one prepared to at least try and answer them. As for derailing the thread, didn't that happen on page 1?
-
Would you prefer "Magnetosaurus"?
they say the empty can rattles the most
This is your last warning before we issue a ban; stop with the contentless crap posts in the upper forums.
There are many on this forum that wonder when that warning will be issued to James.
-
Warn away John, but at least have the decency to try and answer my questions on UA, time dilation and the apparent lack of redshift and an event horizon, not to mention the absurdity of the moon and sun being able to circle (not orbit) a non gravitational body. Or even how that body doesn't possess gravity when it's 30,000 km across and 9,000km deep and very obviously possesses mass.
These have nothing to do with this thread.
-
the answers are just the same though, aren't they? it's like a someone who says they can fly, and when you ask them to, they say they can't be bothered, or they don't want to. Just answer him and maybe then you'll not be bothered by him asking all the time, no?
-
Warn away John, but at least have the decency to try and answer my questions on UA, time dilation and the apparent lack of redshift and an event horizon, not to mention the absurdity of the moon and sun being able to circle (not orbit) a non gravitational body. Or even how that body doesn't possess gravity when it's 30,000 km across and 9,000km deep and very obviously possesses mass.
These have nothing to do with this thread.
Hence:
Do it in the threads the questions were asked in by all means
I see you have nothing to offer bar semantics again.
-
Just answer him and maybe then you'll not be bothered by him asking all the time, no?
And we stated that we would. This thread however, is not about the subjects he is talking about.
-
Would you prefer "Magnetosaurus"?
they say the empty can rattles the most
This is your last warning before we issue a ban; stop with the contentless crap posts in the upper forums.
There are many on this forum that wonder when that warning will be issued to James.
Do not make off-topic or low-content posts in the upper forums, or I will have no choice but to issue you with a ban.
-
Would you prefer "Magnetosaurus"?
they say the empty can rattles the most
This is your last warning before we issue a ban; stop with the contentless crap posts in the upper forums.
There are many on this forum that wonder when that warning will be issued to James.
Do not make off-topic or low-content posts in the upper forums, or I will have no choice but to issue you with a ban.
It was not low-content or off-topic. It was a valid question related to your postings in this thread.
-
Would you prefer "Magnetosaurus"?
they say the empty can rattles the most
This is your last warning before we issue a ban; stop with the contentless crap posts in the upper forums.
There are many on this forum that wonder when that warning will be issued to James.
Do not make off-topic or low-content posts in the upper forums, or I will have no choice but to issue you with a ban.
It was not low-content or off-topic. It was a valid question related to your postings in this thread.
As you know, do not dispute moderationor post off topic within the thread; I wouldn't be surprised if James banned you for this.
-
I would welcome you to actually put gigantic holes in my theory.
Unfortunately, that can be rather difficult seeing as you haven't actually published your theory yet. :-\
-
I bet there is empirical evidence that it exists though
-
ZOMGFFSWTF!!!111!! James is RIGHT:
I have observed it and experienced it twice, no less, so it's repeatable as well! By FE logic, that's empirical evidence right there!
-
ZOMGFFSWTF!!!111!! James is RIGHT:
I have observed it and experienced it twice, no less, so it's repeatable as well! By FE logic, that's empirical evidence right there!
See you in three days... Sigh.
-
ZOMGFFSWTF!!!111!! James is RIGHT:
I have observed it and experienced it twice, no less, so it's repeatable as well! By FE logic, that's empirical evidence right there!
See you in three days... Sigh.
I fail to see the difference between someone using that particular youtube video as evidence and James claiming dreams as evidence.
-
ZOMGFFSWTF!!!111!! James is RIGHT:
I have observed it and experienced it twice, no less, so it's repeatable as well! By FE logic, that's empirical evidence right there!
See you in three days... Sigh.
I fail to see the difference between someone using that particular youtube video as evidence and James claiming dreams as evidence.
IF you wish to discuss or contest a ban, please do so in the appropriate forum. I'm sick of having to say this.
However, he was clearly not using that video as evidence, and you know it.
-
Upon consideration of recently submitted evidence, I have to conclude that James was right about dinosaurs.
I am sure James will agree when I say that the TV series shown in the link above was likely created by disenchanted members of the conspiracy as a way to help soften the blow on humanity when the truth is finally revealed or, more likely, exposed. Indeed, the content of the infamous finale of the show gives us insight into the views of those disenchanted members of the conspiracy and the concern that they have for the future of humanity and our world.
-
Upon consideration of recently submitted evidence, I have to conclude that James was right about dinosaurs.
I am sure James will agree when I say that the TV series shown in the link above was likely created by disenchanted members of the conspiracy as a way to help soften the blow on humanity when the truth is finally revealed or, more likely, exposed. Indeed, the content of the infamous finale of the show gives us insight into the views of those disenchanted members of the conspiracy and the concern that they have for the future of humanity and our world.
Enjoy your 3 day ban for being a jackass. Do you really think we are stupid enough to think you aren't trying to use your post as some sort of soapbox to whine about the previous ban?
-
Let's be absolutely clear: any further posts in this thread which violate the forum or board-specific rules will result in a ban. Those rules are very clear:
Update. In this forum, off-topic posting is against the rules. If a moderator feels that a thread has strayed from its original point to an unacceptable degree, and tells people to get back on-topic, this is not an invitation to discuss the matter further, nor is it just a suggestion. At that point, all off-topic discussion either ceases, or members involved in further off-topic discussion will receive a suspension. This is part of the Forum Rules (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43826.0) anyway, but it is strictly enforced Flat Earth Debate. Take heed.
I'm bringing this up because I see a lot of members ignoring and even disputing instructions from moderators to stay on-topic, often dragging the thread even further off-topic. This cannot continue. From now on I will be suspending people without warning for such behaviour, for a week or more, depending (frankly) on how I feel about it. I encourage other moderators to do the same.
By the point such a suspension takes place, you've already been asked to stick to the point under discussion, so you have no excuse. I see a lot of regulars who have been here long enough to know better doing this kind of stuff, and it's getting tiresome. To newcomers who may get caught on the wrong side of this rule because they didn't read this thread, all I can say is ignorantia legis neminem excusat- the rules apply whether you've read them or not.
I am going to be really strict about this from now on, and I encourage all the other mods to ban immediately for any further infractions. This topic is about "James' theory on dinosaurs", and that is the only legitimate subject for debate. Moreover, it is expected that those involved in the debate adhere to the forum and board-specific rules. You have all had fair warning.
-
Do the dinosaurs have contact with the moonshrimp? There old civilized society must have attempted to make a telepathic link with them, did they succeed and if so, has the younger generation of dinosaurs maintained that link?
These are important questions, we might be able to learn more of dinosaur migrations by looking at the moonshrimp migrations.
-
Do the dinosaurs have contact with the moonshrimp? There old civilized society must have attempted to make a telepathic link with them, did they succeed and if so, has the younger generation of dinosaurs maintained that link?
These are important questions, we might be able to learn more of dinosaur migrations by looking at the moonshrimp migrations.
Highly unlikely. Just look at the way whales consume plankton. Dinosaurs would probably behave in the same way, except that they would use nets off the size of their galleons to capture the moon shrimp.
Besides, it is archaelogically recognised that proto-moon shrimp left the earth long before dinosaurs arrived on the earth.
-
Do the dinosaurs have contact with the moonshrimp? There old civilized society must have attempted to make a telepathic link with them, did they succeed and if so, has the younger generation of dinosaurs maintained that link?
These are important questions, we might be able to learn more of dinosaur migrations by looking at the moonshrimp migrations.
No dinosaurs would have messed with moonshrimp. See the moonshrimp would eat some algae and start glowing and scare the dinosaurs away. I mean shit if a Moonbat wont fuck with a glowing moonshrimp then why the hell would a big ass dinosaur fuck with it?
Highly unlikely. Just look at the way whales consume plankton. Dinosaurs would probably behave in the same way, except that they would use nets off the size of their galleons to capture the moon shrimp.
Besides, it is archaelogically recognised that proto-moon shrimp left the earth long before dinosaurs arrived on the earth.
-
The moonshrimps ability to glow is actually a hindrance since it makes them more visible and thus easier for the dinosaurs to catch. Only by forming great swarms can they hope to blind any would be predator. They are also able to turn off this glow as observed in the phases of the moon.
-
I recall a claim made that dinosaurs did not possess simple or complex building abilities. I have searched the internet and the site and can not locate sources of information backing up that claim.
Please post evidence and include links that prove dinosaurs could not have had these skills and did not use them to advance their society. The data is appreciated as it helps to advance a current research project related to this thread. Thank you.
-
I recall a claim made that dinosaurs did not possess simple or complex building abilities. I have searched the internet and the site and can not locate sources of information backing up that claim.
That's funny, I seem to recall a claim made that dinosaurs did possess the ability to build vast armadas of ocean sailing ships used for colonization purposes, but I've been unable to find any evidence backing up that claim either.
-
I recall a claim made that dinosaurs did not possess simple or complex building abilities. I have searched the internet and the site and can not locate sources of information backing up that claim.
That's funny, I seem to recall a claim made that dinosaurs did possess the ability to build vast armadas of ocean sailing ships used for colonization purposes, but I've been unable to find any evidence backing up that claim either.
There is plenty of evidence relating man to a reptilian ancestry. If dinosaurs were to be considered intelligent, there would not be much limit to their capability. I would invoke the human example to support this claim. I have an excellent theory pertaining to dinosaurs on these very fora. The evidence, when weighed between intelligent or stupid, clearly suggests that some of them, were in fact intelligent life forms.
-
If dinosaurs were to be considered intelligent, there would not be much limit to their capability.
Except for their bio-mechanical limitations. Intelligence doesn't do a species much good if they don't have the dexterity and range of motion to make and use sophisticated tools and structures (such as ships).
-
But dinosaurs did build ships.
But they had to destroy them. Because when they got to America there might be cowards that wanted to go home. Also they needed the wood for building new houses. It makes sense to me. Why would you keep a boat you didn't need any more?
-
But dinosaurs did build ships.
But they had to destroy them. Because when they got to America there might be cowards that wanted to go home. Also they needed the wood for building new houses. It makes sense to me. Why would you keep a boat you didn't need any more?
Wouldn't it be easier (and more profitable) just to sail the ship back (preferably loaded with exotic goods) and pick up more paying customers?
-
We are talking about Dinosaur Colonisation here. There was undoubtedly a lot of politics and power play going on. When the colonisers saw the desolate new world they had been instructed to inhabit by their much hated autocratic government it would have been tempting to try and hop back on the boat to the old civilisation. The Navy had to make sure that didn't happen, while at the same time giving the settlers as much encouragement as possible in terms of materials + livestock.
-
We are talking about Dinosaur Colonisation here. There was undoubtedly a lot of politics and power play going on. When the colonisers saw the desolate new world they had been instructed to inhabit by their much hated autocratic government it would have been tempting to try and hop back on the boat to the old civilisation. The Navy had to make sure that didn't happen, while at the same time giving the settlers as much encouragement as possible in terms of materials + livestock.
Excellent post, Dr Crustinator. Is it a part of your Dinosaurs Essay that is going to be released soon?
-
That is some excellent fiction writing Crusty.
-
That is some excellent fiction writing Crusty.
It certainly is excellent, but it most certainly isn't fiction.
-
We are talking about Dinosaur Colonisation here. There was undoubtedly a lot of politics and power play going on. When the colonisers saw the desolate new world they had been instructed to inhabit by their much hated autocratic government it would have been tempting to try and hop back on the boat to the old civilisation. The Navy had to make sure that didn't happen, while at the same time giving the settlers as much encouragement as possible in terms of materials + livestock.
Excellent post, Dr Crustinator. Is it a part of your Dinosaurs Essay that is going to be released soon?
I am wary of publishing due to the likely harsh reception it will receive. Like Darwin I must deliberate the merits of shocking the world with something they would not like to be shocked with. It is a burden to have a great mind.
-
Why hasnt this thread been moved to the RM section? Threads which are far more relavant to FE have been. Move this crap immediately.
-
But dinosaurs did build ships.
But they had to destroy them. Because when they got to America there might be cowards that wanted to go home. Also they needed the wood for building new houses. It makes sense to me. Why would you keep a boat you didn't need any more?
Wouldn't it be easier (and more profitable) just to sail the ship back (preferably loaded with exotic goods) and pick up more paying customers?
I am confused, why did the dinosaurs build ships? They could have easily been given rides from aliens who were busy covering the planet in pyramids?
-
But dinosaurs did build ships.
But they had to destroy them. Because when they got to America there might be cowards that wanted to go home. Also they needed the wood for building new houses. It makes sense to me. Why would you keep a boat you didn't need any more?
Wouldn't it be easier (and more profitable) just to sail the ship back (preferably loaded with exotic goods) and pick up more paying customers?
I am confused, why did the dinosaurs build ships? They could have easily been given rides from aliens who were busy covering the planet in pyramids?
LOL The pyramids weren't built until centuries later.
-
If dinosaurs were to be considered intelligent, there would not be much limit to their capability.
Except for their bio-mechanical limitations. Intelligence doesn't do a species much good if they don't have the dexterity and range of motion to make and use sophisticated tools and structures (such as ships).
I don't think many dinosaurs are really that limited by their bio-mechanics. Just look at modern dinosaurs, and how they can make intricate homes using nothing other than their mouths. Then recall how ancient dinosaurs had long tails that they can control. Sure, it by not be to the same dexterity as a monkey, but one swing of the tall my be enough to fall a tree, which can then be picked up by the jaw, or strung onto other packanimal-like dinosaurs.
-
I don't think many dinosaurs are really that limited by their bio-mechanics. Just look at modern dinosaurs, and how they can make intricate homes using nothing other than their mouths.
Modern bird's nests are not comparable with the ocean sailing that James is proposing.
-
In order for them to sail successfully they would have to have developed several different lines of technologies, any one of which should have left some evidence, even over that length of time.
-
In order for them to sail successfully they would have to have developed several different lines of technologies, any one of which should have left some evidence, even over that length of time.
Like what?
-
In order for them to sail successfully they would have to have developed several different lines of technologies, any one of which should have left some evidence, even over that length of time.
Like what? The natives that arrived to Hawaii or Easter island are supposed to have only used rafts or canoes.
Modern dinosaurs are able to intricately weave their homes out of sticks, and even water proof them. Are you suggesting ancient dinosaurs would be incapable of stringing logs together?
-
In order for them to sail successfully they would have to have developed several different lines of technologies, any one of which should have left some evidence, even over that length of time.
Like what? The natives that arrived to Hawaii or Easter island are supposed to have only used rafts or canoes.
They also had tools.
Modern dinosaurs are able to intricately weave their homes out of sticks, and even water proof them. Are you suggesting ancient dinosaurs would be incapable of stringing logs together?
Floating nests are not comparable with the ocean going ships that James proposed.
-
In order for them to sail successfully they would have to have developed several different lines of technologies, any one of which should have left some evidence, even over that length of time.
Like what? The natives that arrived to Hawaii or Easter island are supposed to have only used rafts or canoes.
They also had tools.
Modern dinosaurs are able to intricately weave their homes out of sticks, and even water proof them. Are you suggesting ancient dinosaurs would be incapable of stringing logs together?
Floating nests are not comparable with the ocean going ships that James proposed.
Irrelevant. The spirit of James's Theory is that ancient dinosaur fossils appear on different continents because the dinosaurs had migrated there via the ocean. Just because they may not have been able to build the warships of today (which is a different debate) does not mean they could not have created seaworthy vessels.
-
In order for them to sail successfully they would have to have developed several different lines of technologies, any one of which should have left some evidence, even over that length of time.
Like what? The natives that arrived to Hawaii or Easter island are supposed to have only used rafts or canoes.
They also had tools.
Modern dinosaurs are able to intricately weave their homes out of sticks, and even water proof them. Are you suggesting ancient dinosaurs would be incapable of stringing logs together?
Floating nests are not comparable with the ocean going ships that James proposed.
Irrelevant. The spirit of James's Theory is that ancient dinosaur fossils appear on different continents because the dinosaurs had migrated there via the ocean. Just because they may not have been able to build the warships of today (which is a different debate) does not mean they could not have created seaworthy vessels.
And by the same logic: That different species today can build something does not imply that a different species did so in the past.
-
Floating nests are not comparable with the ocean going ships that James proposed.
Irrelevant. The spirit of James's Theory is that ancient dinosaur fossils appear on different continents because the dinosaurs had migrated there via the ocean. Just because they may not have been able to build the warships of today (which is a different debate) does not mean they could not have created seaworthy vessels.
Actually, it's quite relevant because James claims that ancient dinosaurs had a robust sea faring civilization. This is far and away more advanced than mere floating nests.
-
Alrighty, can someone actually post the theory?
-
Alrighty, can someone actually post the theory?
Not really, because the theory has to be totally fluid to give the appearance of validity. The vessels have to be enormous when confronted with the fact that these dinosaurs would have needed gigantic boats to carry enormous dinosaurs and their food. Then the boats have to become small when confronted with the enormity of the task of making such huge boats, which not even us, with all our technology, can build out of wood.
The tools have to be simple and wooden when arguing that a dinosaur or a bird could have made it, and then have to become incredibly sophisticated when arguing that a big boat was done with them. And then they have to become simple again when arguing that every single piece of their technology rotted and disappeared.
They have not accepted that a technologically advanced culture is needed to make these large boats, and that this would mean having complete cities that also magically disappeared.
So, the answer is the same as with FET: you do not have one theory that explains most evidence, you have a myriad small theories that explain each single piece of evidence (in this case, each single piece of missing evidence), and which contradict each other.
They have also failed to show why my theory, by which the aliens from Alpha Centauri came and moved the dinosaurs and flora over the oceans, is not any better than their patchwork of theories. At least mine covers all bases with just one theory. (Of course my preferred theory is what real science tells us).
Edit: added bolded "not" to correct typo
-
Admittedly this is just a hunch, but I am willing to bet that any vessel large enough to carry anything bigger than a velociraptor, especially if it is only built out of plant materials, would run smack up against the inverse cube law.
-
Noah built an ark that could hold two of every animal in the world, I'm pretty sure that a dinosaur could build a similar boat to hold lots of its friends.
-
Noah built an ark that could hold two of every animal in the world, I'm pretty sure that a dinosaur could build a similar boat to hold lots of its friends.
Sorry, did you have some evidence about Noah that you forgot to provide?
-
Admittedly this is just a hunch, but I am willing to bet that any vessel large enough to carry anything bigger than a velociraptor, especially if it is only built out of plant materials, would run smack up against the inverse cube law.
Has a sizeable reed boat crossed the atlantic recently.
Ra II crossed the Atlantic Ocean and sailed the approx. 6,100 km from Safi in Morocco to Barbados in the West Indies in 57 days. Since this time the experiment had been successful, anthropologists across the entire world had to forget the old dogma that papyrus boats could not have brought cultural impulses from North Africa to Central America in pre-Columbian times.
-
Admittedly this is just a hunch, but I am willing to bet that any vessel large enough to carry anything bigger than a velociraptor, especially if it is only built out of plant materials, would run smack up against the inverse cube law.
Has a sizeable reed boat crossed the atlantic recently.
Ra II crossed the Atlantic Ocean and sailed the approx. 6,100 km from Safi in Morocco to Barbados in the West Indies in 57 days. Since this time the experiment had been successful, anthropologists across the entire world had to forget the old dogma that papyrus boats could not have brought cultural impulses from North Africa to Central America in pre-Columbian times.
Please, do tell us what "sizeable" means for you. Is this papyrus boat enough to carry one Diplodocus?
Or is it more like a "sizeable" boat that carried a couple of people and their food? The people in this photo don't even seem as big as anything other than a Velociraptor, but maybe that is just me.
(http://www.qsl.net/hg5acx/Ra2.jpg)
-
Noah built an ark that could hold two of every animal in the world, I'm pretty sure that a dinosaur could build a similar boat to hold lots of its friends.
This logical fallacy is known as a non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29). Noah was not a dinosaur therefore no conclusion about dinosaur abilities can be drawn from his ability to build an ark.
-
Noah built an ark that could hold two of every animal in the world, I'm pretty sure that a dinosaur could build a similar boat to hold lots of its friends.
This logical fallacy is known as a non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29). Noah was not a dinosaur therefore no conclusion about dinosaur abilities can be drawn from his ability to build an ark.
But, in fact we can find clear indications of the opposite argument in this one. It has been demonstrated several times that Noah's ark is impossible to construct without steel. I have no problem with people believing in the literal explanation in the Bible, as long as they declare themselves non-scientists. Then they can declare that Noah's trip needed a miracle per minute, and it is their problem if they believe it.
But without miracles, it is impossible to make a sea-faring wooden 300 cubit vessel, even if you have metallic tools, opposable thumbs, more than twice the intelligence of any other animal and a culture that is thousands of years old, which created thousands of progressively larger boats with progressively better technology.
-
Noah built an ark that could hold two of every animal in the world, I'm pretty sure that a dinosaur could build a similar boat to hold lots of its friends.
Noahs Ark, supposedly of beam and plank construction of gopher wood, hits the inverse cube law a lot harder than even te dino straw boat would, lol
-
Why would they have to carry adult dinosaurs? They could easily carry the young or even the eggs.
-
Why would they have to carry adult dinosaurs? They could easily carry the young or even the eggs.
Are you suggesting that the young or even the eggs piloted the ship, maintained the ship, and tended to the passengers?
-
Why would they have to carry adult dinosaurs? They could easily carry the young or even the eggs.
Are you suggesting that the young or even the eggs piloted the ship, maintained the ship, and tended to the passengers?
They could have floated on currents. Or Pliosaurs could have pushed them like dolphins do to rafts nowadays.
-
Are you suggesting that the young or even the eggs piloted the ship, maintained the ship, and tended to the passengers?
What are you talking about? Your contention doesn't even make internal sense ???
I am suggesting that Deinonychus (James' main candidate), a dinosaur significantly shorter than the average human, could have easily brought the eggs or young of other species across the sea in small but sturdy vessels. There is no reason why fully grown species of massive dinosaur would have to be transported.
-
Are you suggesting that the young or even the eggs piloted the ship, maintained the ship, and tended to the passengers?
What are you talking about? Your contention doesn't even make internal sense ???
I am suggesting that Deinonychus (James' main candidate), a dinosaur significantly shorter than the average human, could have easily brought the eggs or young of other species across the sea in small but sturdy vessels. There is no reason why fully grown species of massive dinosaur would have to be transported.
So when you asked "Why would they have to carry adult dinosaurs?", you meant beyond the Deinonychus adults running the ship? Got it.
-
They could have floated on currents. Or Pliosaurs could have pushed them like dolphins do to rafts nowadays.
They could have, but that is not what James is suggesting. James is suggesting sailing ships along the lines of those used in colonial times (circa 15th - 18th century).
-
So when you asked "Why would they have to carry adult dinosaurs?", you meant beyond the Deinonychus adults running the ship? Got it.
Precisely, hence "they". That's what pronouns are for.
-
obviously the murgu had far more advanced biological technology than we have today
-
So when you asked "Why would they have to carry adult dinosaurs?", you meant beyond the Deinonychus adults running the ship? Got it.
Precisely, hence "they". That's what pronouns are for.
ambiguous antecedent much? Oh, so now "they" refers to adult Deinonychi. What an amazing leap to the antecedent!
So now you want us to believe without any DSE that "they" carried the eggs of predator species across the Oceans. I assume "they" did so to have the fun of avoiding being eaten. Your outlandish claims are outlandish.
-
ambiguous antecedent much? Oh, so now "they" refers to adult Deinonychi. What an amazing leap to the antecedent!
Uh, this is what James has always suggested. It's not my fault that you've decided to enter the discussion despite apparently having no clue about what is being discussed. Much as it pains us, we read your posts. It would be nice if you returned the favour.
So now you want us to believe without any DSE that "they" carried the eggs of predator species across the Oceans. I assume "they" did so to have the fun of avoiding being eaten. Your outlandish claims are outlandish.
Gosh yes, imagine a species transporting creatures that could potentially predate upon them across the ocean. When has that ever happened?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Rewilding#List_of_species_proposed_for_the_Pleistocene_Rewilding_project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo
-
Gosh yes, imagine a species transporting creatures that could potentially predate upon them across the ocean. When has that ever happened?
You are comparing a species and a civilization that has every weapon imaginable, which will leave a thousand or a million times as much of a footprint to archaeologists from the next tens of millions of years as the dinosaurs ever did, with a species who (in your mind) did nothing more than a few boats.
Lions and big predators pose almost no danger to humans. Small dinosaurs were in permanent danger from the larger ones. There is a reason why archaeologists are now finding a few Deinonychus in very limited locations on Earth, but future archaeologists will find humans everywhere. Humans are so powerful that they do not have any predators of importance, while Deinonychi were hunted by other dinosaurs and suffered from lots of dangers, to the point where they never were an important percentage of the living dinosaurs.
Other carnivore dinosaurs not just "could potentially predate upon them", other dinosaurs did predate on them.
-
This whole thread is a prime example of what happens when people confuse imagination with logic and evidence.
-
Exactly. A logical FET becomes saturated with imaginative additions from REers to transform a legitimate theory into a tall tale.
-
Exactly. A logical FET becomes saturated with imaginative additions from REers to transform a legitimate theory into a tall tale.
Then show us why this dinosaur theory is any better than my posted theory (that the aliens from Alpha Centauri moved the dinosaurs and plants over the ocean), or my other posted theory (that humans travelled back in time and did it). Making a tall tale like these or the one about dinosaurs making ships is easy. Finding evidence is what changes them from tall tales into scientific theories.
We can do many things, but we cannot convert a tall tale about dinosaurs into a tall tale.
-
Have we observed aliens? No.
Has time travel, backwards, been observed? No
Have dinosaurs been observed building structures? YES!
Remember,
birds are dinosaurs.
-
Have we observed aliens? No.
Has time travel, backwards, been observed? No
Have dinosaurs been observed building structures? YES!
Remember,
birds are dinosaurs.
Ancient dinosaurs haven't been observed building structures. And speak for yourself when it comes to having observed aliens. I'm sure there are people who would disagree (not me, but there are people).
-
Aliens from worlds separate from Earth,* you perfidious pedant.
-
no cursing in the upper boards ichi,
-
Wait, I am confused, dinosaurs were not very smart, did they do this great ocean travel by accident?
-
Aliens from worlds separate from Earth,* you perfidious pedant.
I wasn't being pedantic, there are people who claim to have seen aliens from other worlds. I'd say their accounts are at least as reliable as Brother James' dreams/hallucinations.
-
Wait, I am confused, dinosaurs were not very smart, did they do this great ocean travel by accident?
I can't imagine the people that mastered boats and populated the South Pacific thousands of years ago were much smarter than dinosaurs. If they could do it in just a matter of a few thousand years, surely it's not too hard to imagine that dinosaurs could have done it in the millions of years they had on the planet.
-
Wait, I am confused, dinosaurs were not very smart, did they do this great ocean travel by accident?
I can't imagine the people that mastered boats and populated the South Pacific thousands of years ago were much smarter than dinosaurs. If they could do it in just a matter of a few thousand years, surely it's not too hard to imagine that dinosaurs could have done it in the millions of years they had on the planet.
Thousands of years ago we were still humans, we may not have been as knowledgeable as we are now, and with less emphasis one education we were certainly on average less intelligent, but i am looking at the EQ of the dinosaurs, and frankly its minuscule compared to homo sapiens, monkeys, and dolphines, even elephants.
-
Wait, I am confused, dinosaurs were not very smart, did they do this great ocean travel by accident?
I can't imagine the people that mastered boats and populated the South Pacific thousands of years ago were much smarter than dinosaurs. If they could do it in just a matter of a few thousand years, surely it's not too hard to imagine that dinosaurs could have done it in the millions of years they had on the planet.
Thousands of years ago we were still humans, we may not have been as knowledgeable as we are now, and with less emphasis one education we were certainly on average less intelligent, but i am looking at the EQ of the dinosaurs, and frankly its minuscule compared to homo sapiens, monkeys, and dolphines, even elephants.
And you can continue the list: the IQ of dinosaurs was minuscule compared to a dog's, a cat's, a cow's.
-
Ancient dinosaurs haven't been observed building structures.
Ancient Egyptians have not been observed building structures. Therefore...?
-
Have we observed aliens? No.
Has time travel, backwards, been observed? No
And have we found Deinonychi in enough quantity to justify the idea that they had a culture? No. (Remember, they could have made their tools with wood, but they would have left, at least, their skeletons). And have they been found close to the remains of the creatures they supposedly took across the oceans? No. And have we found any creature that had the ecological sense to carry all living things, including plants, predators, herbivores so big that it was impossible to use them as food?
Even we, humans, have never even attempted moving such enormous amount of different flora and fauna, enough to populate a continent or two. And remember, the geological strata also matches. Did the Deinonichi also carry geological strata in their 4 meter rafts?
All I ask of you is that you believe in one unobserved phenomenon, be it space travel or time travel. And yes, it is too much to ask.
-
Why should anybody believe in something for which there is no evidence?
-
Why should anybody believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Well, there are two possible reasons:
1) They really want to (por ejemple, religious converts)
2) They were raised to believe so (por ejemple, most RE'ers)
This phenomenon, however, has quite a bit of evidence. For instance, fossils of certain ancient dinosaurs of the same species have been found on separate continents.
-
Ancient dinosaurs haven't been observed building structures.
Ancient Egyptians have not been observed building structures. Therefore...?
But we have artifacts from the ancient Egyptians. No so for ancient dinosaurs.
-
Why should anybody believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Well, there are two possible reasons:
1) They really want to (por ejemple, religious converts)
2) They were raised to believe so (por ejemple, most RE'ers)
This phenomenon, however, has quite a bit of evidence. For instance, fossils of certain ancient dinosaurs of the same species have been found on separate continents.
Which is completely reasonable if continents shift, which we can currently record them doing. And our theory of how they are moving uses a mechanism that would have been present when the dinosaurs were around.
I was taught RE, and for an extensive period of time now i have been exposed to FE and never have i seen a single topic that is better explained by FE than it is by RE. At best FE offers inadequate semi plausible alternatives to things that RE predicts extremely well, and on many topics FE has absolutely no theory.
-
Wait, I am confused, dinosaurs were not very smart, did they do this great ocean travel by accident?
I can't imagine the people that mastered boats and populated the South Pacific thousands of years ago were much smarter than dinosaurs. If they could do it in just a matter of a few thousand years, surely it's not too hard to imagine that dinosaurs could have done it in the millions of years they had on the planet.
Thousands of years ago we were still humans, we may not have been as knowledgeable as we are now, and with less emphasis one education we were certainly on average less intelligent, but i am looking at the EQ of the dinosaurs, and frankly its minuscule compared to homo sapiens, monkeys, and dolphines, even elephants.
Do you have the IQ stats for all dinosaurs?
-
Wait, I am confused, dinosaurs were not very smart, did they do this great ocean travel by accident?
I can't imagine the people that mastered boats and populated the South Pacific thousands of years ago were much smarter than dinosaurs. If they could do it in just a matter of a few thousand years, surely it's not too hard to imagine that dinosaurs could have done it in the millions of years they had on the planet.
Thousands of years ago we were still humans, we may not have been as knowledgeable as we are now, and with less emphasis one education we were certainly on average less intelligent, but i am looking at the EQ of the dinosaurs, and frankly its minuscule compared to homo sapiens, monkeys, and dolphines, even elephants.
Do you have the IQ stats for all dinosaurs?
You cannot test the IQ of dead things. We have calculated every EQ for all the dinosoars that we have complete skeletons for. Another issue is that it is not very effective outside of mammals, because mammals have more brain power devoted outside of cognitive functions than reptiles, and therefore require larger brains. But on average the EQ of cold blooded dinosaurs is lower than mammals and birds.
Mean EQ for reptiles are about one tenth of the EQ for mammals. EQ in birds (and estimated EQ in dinosaurs) generally also falls below that of mammals, possibly due to lower thermoregulation and/or motor control demands.[18] Estimation of brain size in the oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx, shows it had an EQ in the upper reptilian range, but below that of living birds.
The general consensus according to most people who devote their entire life to researching this is that dinosaurs were not ship builders, they were just relatively smart overgrown reptiles.
-
Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.
-
Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.
There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded. It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.
There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.
Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.
-
Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.
There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded. It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.
There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.
Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.
Most mammals can't use tools. Does that mean that all mammals can't use tools?
-
Ancient dinosaurs haven't been observed building structures.
Ancient Egyptians have not been observed building structures. Therefore...?
But we have artifacts from the ancient Egyptians. No so for ancient dinosaurs.
So you agree that whether or not anyone has observed ancient dinosaurs/Egyptians building structures has no bearing on whether they did or not. Glad we cleared that up.
Now, what are the odds of us having found sea-faring boats made by dinosaurs, given the state of the fossil record?
-
Ancient dinosaurs haven't been observed building structures.
Ancient Egyptians have not been observed building structures. Therefore...?
But we have artifacts from the ancient Egyptians. No so for ancient dinosaurs.
So you agree that whether or not anyone has observed ancient dinosaurs/Egyptians building structures has no bearing on whether they did or not. Glad we cleared that up.
James brought up that we've seen dinosaurs build structures. I was merely pointing out that we haven't seen ancient dinosaurs (i.e. what most people mean when they say dinosaur) doing that, so it's proof of nothing. We certainly haven't seen birds building ships with sails and berths to hold goods, either.
I'm afraid you can't use semantics to magic away the fact that you have no evidence of boat-building ancient dinosaurs. Unless we're counting the hallucinations of a schizophrenic as evidence, now.
-
Modern dinosaurs don't need to build grand ships. They evolved a means of flight.
-
Um, dinosaurs fly so dinosaurs didn't need ships. Argument over.
-
Um, dinosaurs fly so dinosaurs didn't need ships. Argument over.
Not the early ones.
-
Um, dinosaurs fly so dinosaurs didn't need ships. Argument over.
Not the early ones.
How do you know?
-
I believe that these early civilizations of dinosaurs may have, in fact, been dragons.
-
Now, what are the odds of us having found sea-faring boats made by dinosaurs, given the state of the fossil record?
Archeologists have found a number of fossilized dinosaur bones, eggs, nests and even feces. Why should it be unreasonable to expect to be able to find fossilized dinosaur boats?
-
I'd just like to point out that it's paleontologists who find dino bones. Archaeologists deal with human artifacts only, as they're a branch of anthropology.
-
Well, it's one of those stupid -oligists.
-
James brought up that we've seen dinosaurs build structures. I was merely pointing out that we haven't seen ancient dinosaurs (i.e. what most people mean when they say dinosaur) doing that, so it's proof of nothing.
It's proof that dinosaurs can build boats. It shows that ancient dinosaurs could plausibly have such a capability.
-
Archeologists have found a number of fossilized dinosaur bones, eggs, nests and even feces. Why should it be unreasonable to expect to be able to find fossilized dinosaur boats?
Paleontologists have only found a handful of Deinonychus specimens. It's entirely reasonably to think that they would not have found their wooden, sea-faring boats, due to the probability of such material surviving intact and where they were probably stored (at sea or on the coast).
-
James brought up that we've seen dinosaurs build structures. I was merely pointing out that we haven't seen ancient dinosaurs (i.e. what most people mean when they say dinosaur) doing that, so it's proof of nothing.
It's proof that dinosaurs can build boats. It shows that ancient dinosaurs could plausibly have such a capability.
Ha ha, ok, if you say so.
I like how you guys keep conveniently leaving out the bits about taking other plants and animals with them and having an actual civilization when you bring up the whole "birds can build boats" thing. No, they can't build boats like would be required for this theory to work.
-
Archeologists have found a number of fossilized dinosaur bones, eggs, nests and even feces. Why should it be unreasonable to expect to be able to find fossilized dinosaur boats?
Paleontologists have only found a handful of Deinonychus specimens. It's entirely reasonably to think that they would not have found their wooden, sea-faring boats, due to the probability of such material surviving intact and where they were probably stored (at sea or on the coast).
Paleontologists have found thousands of dinosaurs that the Deinonychus were supposed to have moved across the ocean, and yet, they have found a handful (I think even a handful is an exageration) of Deinonychus skeletons. Even if you want to continue with the fantasy of a complete civilization of Deinonychus that left absolutely no trace whatsoever, the Deinonychus would have left their own bones behind. Why have the Paleontologists found thousands of the animals that were herded by these Deinonychus and not found a single Deinonychus near the herds?
Lots of things are wrong with this "theory", among which the most possible lack of capacity to make an ocean-faring boat is just one.
You can also think about the humans, which you use so much in your analogies. When paleontologists from the future look for evidence of our time they will find human skeletons everywhere. In every continent, in every kind of strata. Your Deinonychus have been found in even less quantities than the Trilobites from the early Cambrian.
-
I like how you guys keep conveniently leaving out the bits about taking other plants and animals with them and having an actual civilization when you bring up the whole "birds can build boats" thing. No, they can't build boats like would be required for this theory to work.
Tell me something, when was the first human civilisation? And what do you mean by civilisation? Why are we confident that the Pacific was colonised by humans who could build boats, despite there being no evidence of such boats?
Paleontologists have found thousands of dinosaurs that the Deinonychus were supposed to have moved across the ocean, and yet, they have found a handful (I think even a handful is an exageration) of Deinonychus skeletons. Even if you want to continue with the fantasy of a complete civilization of Deinonychus that left absolutely no trace whatsoever, the Deinonychus would have left their own bones behind. Why have the Paleontologists found thousands of the animals that were herded by these Deinonychus and not found a single Deinonychus near the herds?
Can you post evidence of the above please? I think the fossil record is a lot patchier than you're trying to make out.
Lots of things are wrong with this "theory", among which the most possible lack of capacity to make an ocean-faring boat is just one.
Could you clarify what the bolded terms mean? I don't understand.
You can also think about the humans, which you use so much in your analogies. When paleontologists from the future look for evidence of our time they will find human skeletons everywhere. In every continent, in every kind of strata. Your Deinonychus have been found in even less quantities than the Trilobites from the early Cambrian.
If that's so, why is it we have found relatively few prehistoric human remains, despite their temporal proximity?
-
Why are we confident that the Pacific was colonised by humans who could build boats, despite there being no evidence of such boats?
Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events. Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.
-
Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events. Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.
There are oral histories of many things which no mainstream scientist believes. There are even oral histories which have become written histories, such as the Old Testament. Does this mean Moses parted the Red Sea with the power of God?
And as we don't really know that much about dinosauric vocalisation, it's a bit much to say we know for certain no such oral history exists.
-
If that's so, why is it we have found relatively few prehistoric human remains, despite their temporal proximity?
This is the way you get perceived as an idiot. "Relatively few"? Compared with the handful (I think that was your own word) of Deinonychus found in all the Earth?
We have found prehistoric human remains in every continent except Antarctica. We have found Australopithecus from the time when all of humanity (if you consider Australopithecus human) was no more than some groups of individuals in the center of Africa. We have found more Mayas in Mexico than Tyrannosaurus in the whole world. I have seen more remains of Muiscas than the findings of Diplodocus found in the whole world.
By contrast, your beloved Deinonychus have been found only in the current USA, and all the findings together are less than the findings of pharaohs in Egypt.
But please tell me, why if the Deinonychus are supposed to have been moving thousands of plants and animals across the ocean, why do we find remains of them only on one side of the ocean? And what about Africa, Australia, and so many other places where we have found dinosaurs but no Deinonychus?
-
Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events. Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.
There are oral histories of many things which no mainstream scientist believes. There are even oral histories which have become written histories, such as the Old Testament. Does this mean Moses parted the Red Sea with the power of God?
And as we don't really know that much about dinosauric vocalisation, it's a bit much to say we know for certain no such oral history exists.
So why should we assume? Modern dinosaurs don't seem capable of advanced. Alex the parrot, for example, did little beyond answer questions like "which block is blue?" It's an impressive trick, yes, but the most remarkable communicator of the birds wasn't creating oral histories and plans.
It'd be very odd indeed for ancient dinosaurs to have had those capabilities and to have no remnant of them today in birds. It could have happened, yes, but to think it's plausible is ridiculous.
-
Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events. Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.
There are oral histories of many things which no mainstream scientist believes. There are even oral histories which have become written histories, such as the Old Testament. Does this mean Moses parted the Red Sea with the power of God?
Perhaps: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/22/holy-moses-science-may-explain-parting-of-sea/
And as we don't really know that much about dinosauric vocalisation, it's a bit much to say we know for certain no such oral history exists.
Apparently the birds aren't talking, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_bird
-
If that's so, why is it we have found relatively few prehistoric human remains, despite their temporal proximity?
This is the way you get perceived as an idiot. "Relatively few"? Compared with the handful (I think that was your own word) of Deinonychus found in all the Earth?
We have found prehistoric human remains in every continent except Antarctica. We have found Australopithecus from the time when all of humanity (if you consider Australopithecus human) was no more than some groups of individuals in the center of Africa. We have found more Mayas in Mexico than Tyrannosaurus in the whole world. I have seen more remains of Muiscas than the findings of Diplodocus found in the whole world.
Okay, take any given species of prehistoric dinosaur (i.e. Triassic, Jurrassic, Cretaceous etc) that we have only a minimal fossil record of. You've mentioned several. Are you saying that all species of prehistoric dinosaur had near-impossibly small populations, just because we have only found a tiny number of specimens? Because that is not what paleontologists think.
Also, the "Pharohs" (i.e. ancient Egyptians) were not prehistoric humans. Nor were the Mayans, and nor were the Muiscas. When it comes to actual prehistoric remains, we have found relatively few given their chronological proximity to modern man. And prehistoric dinosaurs are much, much older.
By contrast, your beloved Deinonychus have been found only in the current USA, and all the findings together are less than the findings of pharaohs in Egypt.
But please tell me, why if the Deinonychus are supposed to have been moving thousands of plants and animals across the ocean, why do we find remains of them only on one side of the ocean? And what about Africa, Australia, and so many other places where we have found dinosaurs but no Deinonychus?
This is a total misrepresentation of the fossil record. Dromaeosauridae have been found all over the world, but the number of proper specimens is still incredibly small. We have more described specimens of Velociraptor than any other dromaeosaur, and do you know how many that is? Twelve. Tyrannosaurus rex is a species of which there is considered to be a relative wealth of fossil material. Yet there are only 30 specimens known to us, despite this being a relatively large (and therefore easy to find) dinosaur fossil.
Yet any mainstream paleontologist will tell you that they believe that many, many of the creatures existed. Simply put, you're making a mountain of a molehill. The fossil record is far too patchy to draw the kind of conclusions you're drawing.
So why should we assume? Modern dinosaurs don't seem capable of advanced. Alex the parrot, for example, did little beyond answer questions like "which block is blue?" It's an impressive trick, yes, but the most remarkable communicator of the birds wasn't creating oral histories and plans.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm just saying markjo shouldn't.
And you're confusing the ability of dinosaurs to communicate with each other (which they clearly can do) with their ability to communicate with us. After all, we're capable of communicating in very advanced ways, but we can't communicate with dinosaurs in many simple ways. Why the double standard?
It'd be very odd indeed for ancient dinosaurs to have had those capabilities and to have no remnant of them today in birds. It could have happened, yes, but to think it's plausible is ridiculous.
Now who's making assumptions? ::)
Perhaps: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/22/holy-moses-science-may-explain-parting-of-sea/
In what way does this link support the idea that Moses parted the Red Sea through God Almighty? ???
Apparently the birds aren't talking, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_bird
I didn't say that, as you well know, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
-
And you're confusing the ability of dinosaurs to communicate with each other (which they clearly can do) with their ability to communicate with us. After all, we're capable of communicating in very advanced ways, but we can't communicate with dinosaurs in many simple ways. Why the double standard?
Why don't you try actually looking into all the research done by zoologists? I know they're no great practitioners of the zetetic method like yourself, but they manage to actually find out some interesting things that go beyond mere speculation.
So anyway, bird communication has been quite well-studied, and no, it doesn't appear to be particularly advanced. Most bird calls mean "here I am!" and they use them to identify each other and stay out of each others' territories. There are also mating calls, which once against, are basically "here I am!"
Birds perfect their own calls. They don't change them. They don't use different tones. The only exception to this is mimicking birds. Their mimicks are as exact as possible, though, and in the wild are used as mating calls.
The only time birds go outside their usual identifying calls is if there's danger, when they'll make high-pitched, difficult-to-locate cheeps to warn everyone in the vicinity.
You'll probably come back with something like "We can't know for sure they're not talking about their great bird civilization" and you're right, we can't be, but it doesn't seem likely. We're a species that relies a lot on communication, and this is reflected in our brains and development. We can't start acting like adults a few weeks or months after birth because it takes time for us to build our knowledge of the world and, most importantly, to gain our language and social skills. This is how we work. It's not how birds work.
-
We're a species that relies a lot on communication, and this is reflected in our brains and development. We can't start acting like adults a few weeks or months after birth because it takes time for us to build our knowledge of the world and, most importantly, to gain our language and social skills. This is how we work. It's not how birds work.
I think that perhaps, you are anthropomorphizing birds. You said it well yourself when you say, "This is how we work. It's not how birds work." Simply because something limits us, or us hard for us to do does not mean that it is difficult for our avian friends. Dismissing a possibility simply because it's difficult for you to imagine it working that way is not a good reason for discounting it.
-
Why don't you try actually looking into all the research done by zoologists? I know they're no great practitioners of the zetetic method like yourself, but they manage to actually find out some interesting things that go beyond mere speculation.
So anyway, bird communication has been quite well-studied, and no, it doesn't appear to be particularly advanced. Most bird calls mean "here I am!" and they use them to identify each other and stay out of each others' territories. There are also mating calls, which once against, are basically "here I am!"
Birds perfect their own calls. They don't change them. They don't use different tones. The only exception to this is mimicking birds. Their mimicks are as exact as possible, though, and in the wild are used as mating calls.
The only time birds go outside their usual identifying calls is if there's danger, when they'll make high-pitched, difficult-to-locate cheeps to warn everyone in the vicinity.
You'll probably come back with something like "We can't know for sure they're not talking about their great bird civilization" and you're right, we can't be, but it doesn't seem likely. We're a species that relies a lot on communication, and this is reflected in our brains and development. We can't start acting like adults a few weeks or months after birth because it takes time for us to build our knowledge of the world and, most importantly, to gain our language and social skills. This is how we work. It's not how birds work.
This is not really true. Our knowledge of dinosauric communication is limited to testing for grammar etc. as in The Alex Studies, or recording them in the wild in scenarios where orating tales of yore is bound to be unlikely. I don't recite the oral history of my people as I cycle to college each day, or when I'm sitting in a cafe. I communicate about day-to-day stuff. Moreover, oral histories have always been the preserve of the few in human society, and the same could be the case in dinosauric society.
In any event, I still don't understand why we're talking about this. As I said above, oral or written histories/mythologies do not constitute real evidence of the events they describe. Otherwise I could present various cosmologies as evidence that the Earth is flat and dust my hands off.
-
We're a species that relies a lot on communication, and this is reflected in our brains and development. We can't start acting like adults a few weeks or months after birth because it takes time for us to build our knowledge of the world and, most importantly, to gain our language and social skills. This is how we work. It's not how birds work.
I think that perhaps, you are anthropomorphizing birds. You said it well yourself when you say, "This is how we work. It's not how birds work." Simply because something limits us, or us hard for us to do does not mean that it is difficult for our avian friends. Dismissing a possibility simply because it's difficult for you to imagine it working that way is not a good reason for discounting it.
Yawn, yes, endless possibilities are imaginable. Come back when you have evidence that birds are communicating anything more complex than what I talked about.
-
It is invigorating to see such a renewed interest in my research, and with some great points from both sides. I cannot thank my colleagues enough for taking up the arguments for the purpose of educating the sceptics.
Other theorists seem to be doing well fielding technical queries, many of which have familiar answers which have occured at length throughout this 6-year research project. It is a pleasure to see them disseminating the important nuances of this crucial scientific finding.
I would like to raise a few of the conceits I have noticed in the latest posts, on the part of interlocuters who doubt the veracity of this exciting field of study.
Some common preconceptions, which I think deserve questioning:
The Idea of Linear Progress
Living in such a technological age, we are often inclined to think of progress as an increasing linear curve with few setbacks. However, I argue that enlightenment and knowledge occur not in increasing measure throughout history, but in pockets - rafts if you will - of ephemeral and temporary insight in an ocean of intellectual darkness. When the Library of Alexandria was burned, many important documents were lost for centuries, and the medieval world was plunged into an age of superstition, ignorance and globularism which lasted for almost a thousand years. I would remind you that the scale of this catastrophe pales in comparison to the near total bombardment of the Earth with asteroids, and it should not surprise us if the technological setbacks to terrestrial animals is accordingly greater. So - do not imagine that all historical periods before ours have been so many orders of magnitude behind ours in thought and science.
Human Exceptionalism
Really, this is just another form of racism. All to often I hear the same tirade - "animals can't do this, animals can't do that" - however, just because they don't live in houses there really is no reason to smear animals as crude or ignorant brutes. Many animals are adept tool users, and can solve a multitude of problems which are really not so different from our own (feeding ourselves, finding a mate, escaping predators) - the sorts of problems which in fact, our own technologies singularly focus on accomplishing. Otters, for example, routinely break open shellfish with stone implements during their long fishing trips on the open ocean. Are you capable of opening shellfish whilst swimming in the middle of the ocean? Probably not as capable as an otter. And probably not as capable as a dinosaur either.
Pessimism About the Ocean/Fear of Boats?
A common line of argument which occurs in discussions of this nature is that crossing the ocean is far too difficult for a dinosaur to accomplish. People who think this, I fear, are projecting their own insecurities about boating onto the noble dinosaur. It is true, the sea is not for everybody - but that is no reason to shrug your shoulders and declare ocean crossings impossible. Building boats is actually very easy and fun, and so is navigating them. Do not let your own hatred of sailing and the water cloud your honest assessment of the possibility of getting over the sea.
I hope these insights are helpful. Overcoming the cognitive biases which I have outlined ought to help readers address the problem in a whole new light.
-
Okay, take any given species of prehistoric dinosaur (i.e. Triassic, Jurrassic, Cretaceous etc) that we have only a minimal fossil record of. You've mentioned several. Are you saying that all species of prehistoric dinosaur had near-impossibly small populations, just because we have only found a tiny number of specimens? Because that is not what paleontologists think.
You are the only one saying that about 5 finds of Deinonychus in all of the United States is acceptable evidence that they had a civilization capable of a feat that not even present day humans have tried.
You can safely say that in many places there have been no finds of any dinosaurs because of the geology you are so desperately trying to deny, But you cannot deny that where the supposed herded animals were found the Deinonychus were not found.
You are playing a dumb game where you switch from exaggerating the evidence that was found to seeing evidence in the lack of evidence in a blink of an eye.
If you are saying that Deinonychus was a herder, then show that the Deinonychus was present everywhere the herded animals were found. If you are saying that they had a civilization capable of an immensely complex and ambitious feat, then at least show that they appeared in numbers that are proportional to that feat, and in more places than one country.
To continue your analogy with humans, the first humans that were capable of intercontinental sea travel were middle ages humans. And we find archaeological evidence of them in every place we expect to find it. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that paleontologists from the far future will find remains from the middle ages in droves, both skeletons and tools and constructions. Not just five skeletons without tools and without constructions nearby.
-
You are the only one saying that about 5 finds of Deinonychus in all of the United States is acceptable evidence that they had a civilization capable of a feat that not even present day humans have tried.
Please quote where I have said this. Honestly, this is such a blatant strawman it beggars belief.
You can safely say that in many places there have been no finds of any dinosaurs because of the geology you are so desperately trying to deny, But you cannot deny that where the supposed herded animals were found the Deinonychus were not found.
Why not? If only a handful of specimens the "herded" specimens have been found, why is it beyond the bounds of possibility that we simply haven't found the herders? After all, the herders are much smaller in size, and may also have been fewer in number - this is common with humans and the animals they herd. In the 1980s, Australia had a sheep population of 148 million, and a human population of 14 million. It is more than plausible that we have simply not found the fossils in question.
And remember, Deinonychus is just our paradigmatic example of a potentially intelligent Dromaesaur. James believes that Dromaeosaurs of all kinds were involved in migration, and indeed traces different species of Dromaesaur on different continents to a common ancestor:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg707661#msg707661
You are playing a dumb game where you switch from exaggerating the evidence that was found to seeing evidence in the lack of evidence in a blink of an eye.
If you are saying that Deinonychus was a herder, then show that the Deinonychus was present everywhere the herded animals were found. If you are saying that they had a civilization capable of an immensely complex and ambitious feat, then at least show that they appeared in numbers that are proportional to that feat, and in more places than one country.
The points I have made above show exactly what you asked for. And why must you constantly resort to petty insults? Post like an adult or not at all.
To continue your analogy with humans, the first humans that were capable of intercontinental sea travel were middle ages humans. And we find archaeological evidence of them in every place we expect to find it. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that paleontologists from the far future will find remains from the middle ages in droves, both skeletons and tools and constructions. Not just five skeletons without tools and without constructions nearby.
The bolded point above is not true. Please see the below link for evidence to the contrary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation
-
The Idea of Linear Progress
Living in such a technological age, we are often inclined to think of progress as an increasing linear curve with few setbacks. However, I argue that enlightenment and knowledge occur not in increasing measure throughout history, but in pockets - rafts if you will - of ephemeral and temporary insight in an ocean of intellectual darkness. When the Library of Alexandria was burned, many important documents were lost for centuries, and the medieval world was plunged into an age of superstition, ignorance and globularism which lasted for almost a thousand years. I would remind you that the scale of this catastrophe pales in comparison to the near total bombardment of the Earth with asteroids, and it should not surprise us if the technological setbacks to terrestrial animals is accordingly greater. So - do not imagine that all historical periods before ours have been so many orders of magnitude behind ours in thought and science.
Of all the biases I have seen when discussing your theory, this is the one I feel to be the most likely underlying cause of skepticism. It's also a bias that I fear we are all likely to experience the error of during our lifetime.
I hope these insights are helpful. Overcoming the cognitive biases which I have outlined ought to help readers address the problem in a whole new light.
Brother James, your thoughts in this regard are always instructive. I can only hope our resident skeptics take note of your post and make a conscious effort to rid themselves of such bias.
-
The points I have made above show exactly what you asked for. And why must you constantly resort to petty insults? Post like an adult or not at all.
I think posting like an adult would include not saying things like "the evidence is on our side" when you have no idea what you're talking about. As well as avoiding the constant back-patting of FEers whenever they vomit out another off-the-wall idea. How about some criticism of each other?
You're supporting a theory that requires a seafaring dinosaur civilization. If you want zeteticism and the FES to be taken seriously this is the sort of stuff you should avoid. Claiming that this is a theory that's worthy of consideration and RET isn't just makes you look like a clown.
I'm not posting this to be mean, I just think you guys have no idea how any of this comes off to people who aren't part of your little group.
-
You can safely say that in many places there have been no finds of any dinosaurs because of the geology you are so desperately trying to deny, But you cannot deny that where the supposed herded animals were found the Deinonychus were not found.
Why not? If only a handful of specimens the "herded" specimens have been found, why is it beyond the bounds of possibility that we simply haven't found the herders? After all, the herders are much smaller in size, and may also have been fewer in number - this is common with humans and the animals they herd. In the 1980s, Australia had a sheep population of 148 million, and a human population of 14 million. It is more than plausible that we have simply not found the fossils in question.
You really think we are all this stupid when evaluating probabilities?
The probability that one particular dinosaur dies in a place where the conditions to fossilize his bones are not met is very high. It is quite acceptable to estimate that where one Tyrannosaurus was found, for example, others lived some kilometers away.
On the other hand, that every single one of the thousands of discoveries so far of dinosaurs happened to be of one of the "herded" animals, and in every single one of the discoveries so far, the "herder" animal did not die, are astronomically small. And your idea that the Deinonychus never fossilized because they were smaller is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in this forum. Go to a museum, you will see thousands of small fossils but only a few huge ones.
The very idea that every probability associated with dinosaurs is very small, and therefore you can say what you please, is ludicrous. Have you even heard about conditional probability?
One final word: Technology has made the relatively small herder-to-herded ratio in Australia possible. And you are comparing a herder and a herded animal of similar size. The ratio will be the total opposite when you have herders that are a hundred times smaller than the herded animals. If at all possible, it would take tens of Deinonychus to control a single Triceratops. You would have to expect to find tens of Deinonychus near the death site of each single Triceratops, and maybe hundreds near each Diplodocus.
-
I think posting like an adult would include not saying things like "the evidence is on our side" when you have no idea what you're talking about. As well as avoiding the constant back-patting of FEers whenever they vomit out another off-the-wall idea. How about some criticism of each other?
You're supporting a theory that requires a seafaring dinosaur civilization. If you want zeteticism and the FES to be taken seriously this is the sort of stuff you should avoid. Claiming that this is a theory that's worthy of consideration and RET isn't just makes you look like a clown.
I'm not posting this to be mean, I just think you guys have no idea how any of this comes off to people who aren't part of your little group.
All I can say is read my signature. I am interested in the pursuit of truth first and foremost. How we are viewed by other people as a result is a secondary concern.
You really think we are all this stupid when evaluating probabilities?
The probability that one particular dinosaur dies in a place where the conditions to fossilize his bones are not met is very high. It is quite acceptable to estimate that where one Tyrannosaurus was found, for example, others lived some kilometers away.
On the other hand, that every single one of the thousands of discoveries so far of dinosaurs happened to be of one of the "herded" animals, and in every single one of the discoveries so far, the "herder" animal did not die, are astronomically small.
But we are not claiming that. The proposed herders have been found on several continents. Please read the link I provided above.
And your idea that the Deinonychus never fossilized because they were smaller is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in this forum. Go to a museum, you will see thousands of small fossils but only a few huge ones.
First of all, I never claimed that they were not fossilised because they were smaller. I claimed they were harder to find because they were smaller. If you bothered to read my posts, perhaps your intelligence would feel less insulted. In addition, I might feel less like insulting it.
The very idea that every probability associated with dinosaurs is very small, and therefore you can say what you please, is ludicrous. Have you even heard about conditional probability?
But why the double standard? I'm not making strong or definite claims, merely stressing the plausibility of the theory. Moreover, paleontologists make such inferences all the time.
One final word: Technology has made the relatively small herder-to-herded ratio in Australia possible. And you are comparing a herder and a herded animal of similar size. The ratio will be the total opposite when you have herders that are a hundred times smaller than the herded animals. If at all possible, it would take tens of Deinonychus to control a single Triceratops. You would have to expect to find tens of Deinonychus near the death site of each single Triceratops, and maybe hundreds near each Diplodocus.
So are you saying there were no shepherds, ranchers etc. before the 1980s? ???
And why is it that lions seem to be able to herd and kill much larger prey without the kind of losses you suggest?
-
All I can say is read my signature. I am interested in the pursuit of truth first and foremost. How we are viewed by other people as a result is a secondary concern.
The truth... about seafaring dinosaurs? Good luck getting to the bottom of this case, what with the zero evidence and all.
-
But we are not claiming that. The proposed herders have been found on several continents. Please read the link I provided above.
So, tell me which are the proposed herders. Any one species of herders found where the herded animals were found, in more than one continent?
Any way you try to twist it, you have not found what you should have: herders and their herds in close proximity in two continents. You try to dance your way out of explaining why your Deinonychus supposedly moved all the species of flora and fauna between continents, herded dinosaurs sometimes more than a hundred times their side, but managed every single time to die where their remains would not fossilize. And if your herder species is not Deinonychus, which is it?
-
But why the double standard? I'm not making strong or definite claims, merely stressing the plausibility of the theory. Moreover, paleontologists make such inferences all the time.
Please show me just one place where a paleontologist makes the inference that one animal used another as food when they have never been repeatedly found in any kind of proximity. The "double standard" is called conditional probability, and I knew you have no idea how to use it. Just as an example, the probability that I know Spanish is about one in ten if I just take the whole world and the Spanish speaking population in the world, but now that I am telling you that I live in a Spanish speaking country, you know that the conditional probability, given the additional information, is 100%.
And you are confusing theoretical possibility with plausibility. It is theoretically possible that I am an alien from another galaxy, but that is not a plausible possibility. And it is theoretically possible that the Deinonychus had a civilization capable of moving thousands of species of fauna and flora over the oceans, to then disappear without even leaving but a handful of fossils, all of them far away from their herds of dinosaurs, but that is not a plausible possibility.
And why is it that lions seem to be able to herd and kill much larger prey without the kind of losses you suggest?
Lions can't even kill adult elephants. And a lion is some 10 times heavier than the Deinonychus. Also, the Diplodocus was about 3 times larger than an elephant. I doubt that the Deinonychus could kill the larger dinosaurs, even if they hunted in packs. Therefore, my calculation that anything less than a pack of several tens of Deinonychus would never control a large dinosaur is in fact an underestimation. And what are the "losses you suggest"? I never talked about losses, I talked about the same thing as you did: the relationship between the number of herders and the size of the herds.
Finally, where on Earth did you get the idea that lions herd their prey? I think you just use the words as they appear in your head, without even thinking in their meaning. But please, show me any study or even a photo of a lion herding. Dolphins herd, lions hunt. See the difference?
-
But we are not claiming that. The proposed herders have been found on several continents. Please read the link I provided above.
So, tell me which are the proposed herders. Any one species of herders found where the herded animals were found, in more than one continent?
Any way you try to twist it, you have not found what you should have: herders and their herds in close proximity in two continents. You try to dance your way out of explaining why your Deinonychus supposedly moved all the species of flora and fauna between continents, herded dinosaurs sometimes more than a hundred times their side, but managed every single time to die where their remains would not fossilize. And if your herder species is not Deinonychus, which is it?
Please read the link I provided above.
Seriously, www.rif.org
Please show me just one place where a paleontologist makes the inference that one animal used another as food when they have never been repeatedly found in any kind of proximity. The "double standard" is called conditional probability, and I knew you have no idea how to use it. Just as an example, the probability that I know Spanish is about one in ten if I just take the whole world and the Spanish speaking population in the world, but now that I am telling you that I live in a Spanish speaking country, you know that the conditional probability, given the additional information, is 100%.
Irrelevant. See the link I gave you above.
And you are confusing theoretical possibility with plausibility. It is theoretically possible that I am an alien from another galaxy, but that is not a plausible possibility. And it is theoretically possible that the Deinonychus had a civilization capable of moving thousands of species of fauna and flora over the oceans, to then disappear without even leaving but a handful of fossils, all of them far away from their herds of dinosaurs, but that is not a plausible possibility.
No, I'm not. I've explicitly said that it's plausible, not just that it's possible.
Lions can't even kill adult elephants.
This is not true:
And a lion is some 10 times heavier than the Deinonychus.
Also not true:
Weights for adult lions range between 150–250 kg (330–550 lb) for males and 120–182 kg (264–400 lb) for females.
Brinkman et al. (1998) point out that Deinonychus had an adult mass of 70–100 kilograms
Emphasis mine. Females do most of the hunting.
Also, the Diplodocus was about 3 times larger than an elephant.
Assuming you are still talking about weight, again this is not true:
Modern mass estimates for Diplodocus (exclusive of D. hallorum) have tended to be in the 10 to 16 tonne (11–17.6 ton) range
This male weighed about 10,900 kg (24,000 lb]The largest elephant ever recorded was shot in Angola in 1955.[9] This male weighed about 10,900 kg
Please do some basic research and stop wasting my time.
I doubt that the Deinonychus could kill the larger dinosaurs, even if they hunted in packs.
From the same source as above:
Deinonychus teeth found in association with fossils of the ornithopod dinosaur Tenontosaurus are quite common in the Cloverly Formation. Two quarries have been discovered that preserve fairly complete Deinonychus fossils near Tenontosaurus fossils. The first, the Yale quarry in the Cloverly of Montana, includes numerous teeth, four adult Deinonychus and one juvenile Deinonychus. The association of this number of Deinonychus skeletons in a single quarry suggests that Deinonychus may have fed on that animal, and perhaps hunted it. Ostrom and Maxwell have even used this information to speculate that Deinonychus might have lived and hunted in packs.[39] The second such quarry is from the Antlers Formation of Oklahoma. The site contains six partial skeletons of Tenontosaurus of various sizes, along with one partial skeleton and many teeth of Deinonychus. One tenontosaur humerus even bears what might be Deinonychus tooth marks. Brinkman et al. (1998) point out that Deinonychus had an adult mass of 70–100 kilograms, whereas adult tenontosaurs were 1–4 metric tons. A solitary Deinonychus could not kill an adult tenontosaur, suggesting that pack hunting is possible.
Therefore, my calculation that anything less than a pack of several tens of Deinonychus would never control a large dinosaur is in fact an underestimation. And what are the "losses you suggest"? I never talked about losses, I talked about the same thing as you did: the relationship between the number of herders and the size of the herds.
You said the following;
You would have to expect to find tens of Deinonychus near the death site of each single Triceratops, and maybe hundreds near each Diplodocus.
As you seemed to be asserting that it would be very difficult for Deinonychus packs to take on these dinosaurs, I assumed the above referred to those who would be killed or mortally wounded in the hunt.
Finally, where on Earth did you get the idea that lions herd their prey? I think you just use the words as they appear in your head, without even thinking in their meaning. But please, show me any study or even a photo of a lion herding. Dolphins herd, lions hunt. See the difference?
Lions frequently hunt in packs, manipulating and breaking apart herds in order to isolate prey. This is common knowledge - go and watch some videos on YouTube, or read some articles on Wikipedia. Even the video above shows the lions encircling and attempting to manipulate the herd of elephants, even though in this case they were unable to do so successfully. That they often succeed is implied by their hunting tactics (and indeed by the narrator, David Attenborough).
-
So much hard work, so little content. Lord Wilmore has not showed why his supposed herders have not been found close to the supposed herds. He tries to draw our attention to the infrequent cases where the predator is killed during the hunt, so we don't think about the fact that herders live close to their herds. Even if the herders don't die during the killing of a herded animal, it eventually dies, and does so close to the place where it lives, and that is close to the herd. It still is almost impossible that every single site where the herded animals died (and according to James and Lord Wilmore, that is every dinosaur), the herds died but the herders survived.
You just need to read what Lord Wilmore writes about lions being herders to learn that he does not know what a herd is.
And it is still clear that Lord Wilmore does not understand conditional probability. He still wants to consider "plausible" what is almost totally impossible, but theoretically possible.
PS. Did you really watch the Youtube video you linked? So, I change my phrase: Lions only kill adult elephants if they are desperate, the elephant is unusually small, it is alone and tens of lions can attack one single elephant. And this video shows how a small pack of Deinonychus would probably not even try to hunt a dinosaur that weighs more than 30 or 40 times as much as each Deinonychus.
-
Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.
There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded. It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.
There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.
Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.
Most mammals can't use tools. Does that mean that all mammals can't use tools?
No. Whats your point? No Mammals besides humans build ships. No other mammals are as smart as humans. No dinosaurs were as smart as the smartest mammals, which means no dinosaurs were building ships.
-
So much hard work, so little content. Lord Wilmore has not showed why his supposed herders have not been found close to the supposed herds. He tries to draw our attention to the infrequent cases where the predator is killed during the hunt, so we don't think about the fact that herders live close to their herds. Even if the herders don't die during the killing of a herded animal, it eventually dies, and does so close to the place where it lives, and that is close to the herd. It still is almost impossible that every single site where the herded animals died (and according to James and Lord Wilmore, that is every dinosaur), the herds died but the herders survived.
What are you talking about? I provided evidence of just that above. You know, evidence of something that is true, as opposed to complete fabrication (which is what we've had from you so far).
www.rif.org
You just need to read what Lord Wilmore writes about lions being herders to learn that he does not know what a herd is.
The elephants are described as a herd in the video. Lions regularly hunt herds of wilder beast, buffalo and zebra. They manipulate the herd in order to target their prey. This is no different to what dolphins do.
Moreover, this is thoroughly rich coming from someone who thought lions weigh a tonne and cannot kill elephants.
And it is still clear that Lord Wilmore does not understand conditional probability. He still wants to consider "plausible" what is almost totally impossible, but theoretically possible.
This is not an argument, just a denial. Do you have anything of substance to contribute? If not, stop posting.
PS. Did you really watch the Youtube video you linked? So, I change my phrase: Lions only kill adult elephants if they are desperate, the elephant is unusually small, it is alone and tens of lions can attack one single elephant.
First of all, it shows them killing an adult elephant, something you claimed lions could not do. Secondly, the video also refers to this pack of lions as "specialised elephant hunters", and clearly implies it is something they do with some regularity. Finally, I have never suggested that a single Deinonychus could kill any of the larger creatures mentioned in this thread by itself.
And this video shows how a small pack of Deinonychus would probably not even try to hunt a dinosaur that weighs more than 30 or 40 times as much as each Deinonychus.
In what way? ???
-
So much hard work, so little content. Lord Wilmore has not showed why his supposed herders have not been found close to the supposed herds. He tries to draw our attention to the infrequent cases where the predator is killed during the hunt, so we don't think about the fact that herders live close to their herds. Even if the herders don't die during the killing of a herded animal, it eventually dies, and does so close to the place where it lives, and that is close to the herd. It still is almost impossible that every single site where the herded animals died (and according to James and Lord Wilmore, that is every dinosaur), the herds died but the herders survived.
What are you talking about? I provided evidence of just that above. You know, evidence of something that is true, as opposed to complete fabrication (which is what we've had from you so far).
www.rif.org
You just need to read what Lord Wilmore writes about lions being herders to learn that he does not know what a herd is.
The elephants are described as a herd in the video. Lions regularly hunt herds of wilder beast, buffalo and zebra. They manipulate the herd in order to target their prey. This is no different to what dolphins do.
Moreover, this is thoroughly rich coming from someone who thought lions weigh a tonne and cannot kill elephants.
And it is still clear that Lord Wilmore does not understand conditional probability. He still wants to consider "plausible" what is almost totally impossible, but theoretically possible.
This is not an argument, just a denial. Do you have anything of substance to contribute? If not, stop posting.
PS. Did you really watch the Youtube video you linked? So, I change my phrase: Lions only kill adult elephants if they are desperate, the elephant is unusually small, it is alone and tens of lions can attack one single elephant.
First of all, it shows them killing an adult elephant, something you claimed lions could not do. Secondly, the video also refers to this pack of lions as "specialised elephant hunters", and clearly implies it is something they do with some regularity. Finally, I have never suggested that a single Deinonychus could kill any of the larger creatures mentioned in this thread by itself.
And this video shows how a small pack of Deinonychus would probably not even try to hunt a dinosaur that weighs more than 30 or 40 times as much as each Deinonychus.
In what way? ???
-
Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.
There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded. It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.
There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.
Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.
Most mammals can't use tools. Does that mean that all mammals can't use tools?
No. Whats your point? No Mammals besides humans build ships. No other mammals are as smart as humans. No dinosaurs were as smart as the smartest mammals, which means no dinosaurs were building ships.
This is a huge assumption.
-
Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.
There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded. It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.
There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.
Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.
Most mammals can't use tools. Does that mean that all mammals can't use tools?
No. Whats your point? No Mammals besides humans build ships. No other mammals are as smart as humans. No dinosaurs were as smart as the smartest mammals, which means no dinosaurs were building ships.
This is a huge assumption.
No it is not, its based on the EQ of dinosaurs.
-
Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.
There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded. It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.
There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.
Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.
Most mammals can't use tools. Does that mean that all mammals can't use tools?
No. Whats your point? No Mammals besides humans build ships. No other mammals are as smart as humans. No dinosaurs were as smart as the smartest mammals, which means no dinosaurs were building ships.
This is a huge assumption.
No it is not, its based on the EQ of dinosaurs.
No, it's based on the EQ of a couple of dinosaurs. There's a difference. Besides, EQ is far from accurate. According to it, humans are as smart as mice and small birds are the smartest animals on Earth.
-
Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.
There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded. It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.
There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.
Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.
Most mammals can't use tools. Does that mean that all mammals can't use tools?
No. Whats your point? No Mammals besides humans build ships. No other mammals are as smart as humans. No dinosaurs were as smart as the smartest mammals, which means no dinosaurs were building ships.
Have you studied all speices of dinosaur? If not, I don't feel that you are qualified to make this statement.
-
Wow Pongo. So basically since we dont have a 100% perfectly clear picture of a subject we somehow can't comment? Please apply this to FET in the future.
-
Wow Pongo. So basically since we dont have a 100% perfectly clear picture of a subject we somehow can't comment? Please apply this to FET in the future.
We can't conclusively say that all dinosaurs weren't intelligent without a 100% clear picture. It's like an alien race sampling >1% of all mammals that have existed, are existing now, and ever will exist and then saying that no mammals could have been smart enough to build a boat. What do you think the odds of that >1% being humans or a future intelligent mammalian species? Hell, it's entirely possible that mammals smart enough to build boats have already existed. Maybe they were aquatic, land locked, or never refined their intelligence before becoming extinct.
-
And maybe there was a civilization of telepathic jellyfish that ruled the ancient seas. Our seafaring dinosaurs battled with them endlessly, and at the end of the great war the jellyfish, and all of dinosaurkind, were wiped out.
-
And maybe there was a civilization of telepathic jellyfish that ruled the ancient seas. Our seafaring dinosaurs battled with them endlessly, and at the end of the great war the jellyfish, and all of dinosaurkind, were wiped out.
I would be inclined to say this is not likely because we have never found a jellyfish with a brain. However, I will not say it's impossible just as people cannot say that boat-building dinosaurs are not possible. I go one step further to say that over the course of more than 4,500,000,000 years of evolution, it's strange that only one species has evolved intelligence. We have not yet proven that we can survive the test of time. It's a grand show of hubris to so vocally declare that we are the only intelligent species to have existed on Earth when our knowledge of the past is so extremely poor.
-
And maybe there was a civilization of telepathic jellyfish that ruled the ancient seas. Our seafaring dinosaurs battled with them endlessly, and at the end of the great war the jellyfish, and all of dinosaurkind, were wiped out.
I would be inclined to say this is not likely because we have never found a jellyfish with a brain. However, I will not say it's impossible just as people cannot say that boat-building dinosaurs are not possible. I go one step further to say that over the course of more than 4,500,000,000 years of evolution, it's strange that only one species has evolved intelligence. We have not yet proven that we can survive the test of time. It's a grand show of hubris to so vocally declare that we are the only intelligent species to have existed on Earth when our knowledge of the past is so extremely poor.
If there were other intelligent species, they left no traces of civilization.
And I don't think it's hubris. Our brains have gone on a specific path with many incremental steps along the way. I don't find it surprising that other animals haven't gone down the same path. That would be some remarkable convergent evolution.
-
If there were other intelligent species, they left no traces of civilization.
And I don't think it's hubris. Our brains have gone on a specific path with many incremental steps along the way. I don't find it surprising that other animals haven't gone down the same path. That would be some remarkable convergent evolution.
Why? Flight took many incremental steps to become viable yet it has evolved at least four times independently. I think it would be harder to have flight evolved separately four times than intelligence. Not every mammal, fish, reptile, bird, or insect has limbs capable of becoming wings without major changes, yet they all have brains.
-
If there were other intelligent species, they left no traces of civilization.
And I don't think it's hubris. Our brains have gone on a specific path with many incremental steps along the way. I don't find it surprising that other animals haven't gone down the same path. That would be some remarkable convergent evolution.
Why? Flight took many incremental steps to become viable yet it has evolved at least four times independently. I think it would be harder to have flight evolved separately four times than intelligence. Not every mammal, fish, reptile, bird, or insect has limbs capable of becoming wings without major changes, yet they all have brains.
They all have brains, but very different ones. It depends on what you mean by "intelligence," also. Other animals have brains that are very good at doing what they need to do. Any pigeon is able to judge the areas of shapes better than any human. It's something they seem able to do in a flash, judging from the speed they peck the correct answer to get their food. It's also something they need to be able to navigate through tree branches and, in the modern world, buildings. We have to think about it.
They also spend a lot of brain power adjusting their eyes to cancel out the shakiness caused by their wings beating. We can't do that.
I don't think our brains would be very useful to a pigeon. We ended up on a different path, and our brains have dedicated areas for doing things that are important to us, like processing meaning from speech and recognizing faces. We really need speech because we don't have many instinctual responses to rely on and have to learn everything from our parents. We're aided in this by an excellent ability to form concepts.
This seems far more specialized to me than a specific mode of transportation. I should point out that our monkey-like ancestors were quite unusual in that area. Swinging from branch to branch is not a commonly adopted method of transportation.
Which brings up another point, which is if there were other "intelligent" animals they probably don't have any modern descendants. We still have the arms and neck of a tree-swinger. We still share brain structures with reptiles. It would be very odd for these specialized brains to develop and not have a trace of them today in birds.
But of course, there's no point actually bringing real science into this discussion.
-
Baboons share a relatively close ancestor with humans, yet you don't see evidence of branch swinging muscles in their arms. Why is that?
-
Yes, branch-swinging muscles. Excellent point, Brother Pongo. This question requires great study.
This is why I knew I shouldn't bother with facts and reason. You don't care.
-
I think that the point I was making has evaded you, Brother Cat Earth Theory. Either willfully or not, I cannot tell. The point was, a speices of dinosaur could have branched out and developed advanced brains and then left no ancestors for us to study today. If we have not found any remains of said dinosaurs then we would have no fossils to study either. Simply because there are no living decendents and our rather poor fossil record hasnt uncovered them, does not mean that they never existed.
On a side note, if you have such an aversion to facts then perhaps The Flat Earth Society is not the place for you. May I recommend Wikipedia.org or foxnews.com.
-
Oh my, what an excellent point that I already made.
Could it be possible that you didn't actually read me post until you got to the bit about monkey arms? :'(
-
Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.
There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded. It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.
There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.
Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.
Most mammals can't use tools. Does that mean that all mammals can't use tools?
No. Whats your point? No Mammals besides humans build ships. No other mammals are as smart as humans. No dinosaurs were as smart as the smartest mammals, which means no dinosaurs were building ships.
This is a huge assumption.
No it is not, its based on the EQ of dinosaurs.
No, it's based on the EQ of a couple of dinosaurs. There's a difference. Besides, EQ is far from accurate. According to it, humans are as smart as mice and small birds are the smartest animals on Earth.
What are you talking about? Do you just post whatever you feel like without doing any research? EQ is not the direct body mass to brain ratio. Rats (similar to mice) have a much lower eq than humans. the closest mammal has an eq of roughly 4, compared to humans which are at roughly 8.
-
Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.
There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded. It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.
There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.
Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.
Most mammals can't use tools. Does that mean that all mammals can't use tools?
No. Whats your point? No Mammals besides humans build ships. No other mammals are as smart as humans. No dinosaurs were as smart as the smartest mammals, which means no dinosaurs were building ships.
Have you studied all speices of dinosaur? If not, I don't feel that you are qualified to make this statement.
Yes i have studied all the known species of dinosaurs intelligence. There may have been some secret species that rocketed all of their members into space so that we would not find their bodies, but in terms of the dinosaurs we have found none show any sign of intelligence remotely close to humans.
-
Oh my, what an excellent point that I already made.
Could it be possible that you didn't actually read me post until you got to the bit about monkey arms? :'(
Could be, but I doubt that. It doesn't sound like me. More than likely I misunderstood you.
-
So Pongo, precisely when did you stop beating your wife?
-
So Pongo, precisely when did you stop beating your wife?
I have never been married and I don't see how this relates to the topic at hand.
-
So Pongo, precisely when did you stop beating your wife?
Please refrain from making low content, inflammatory posts. Consider this a warning.
-
I think that the point I was making has evaded you, Brother Cat Earth Theory. Either willfully or not, I cannot tell. The point was, a speices of dinosaur could have branched out and developed advanced brains and then left no ancestors for us to study today. If we have not found any remains of said dinosaurs then we would have no fossils to study either. Simply because there are no living decendents and our rather poor fossil record hasnt uncovered them, does not mean that they never existed.
One problem with this line of reasoning is that the species of dinosaur that James contends built these great colonial armadas did leave fossil remains of themselves and their cargo, but not their ships.
-
Ships get broken up, you know. Their boats may well have merely been temporary, to get them over the water and then broken up to form dwellings.
-
Ships get broken up, you know. Their boats may well have merely been temporary, to get them over the water and then broken up to form dwellings.
Perhaps as part of an earth goddess religion. The dinosaurs had no modern conception of personal ownership. Everything belonged to the land and could only be borrowed, and then returned, as needed.
I'd say it's possible, nay plausible, that the catastrophic event that destroyed the dinosaurs was the result of dinosaurian hubris. They thought themselves above such beliefs, and the earth, no longer calmed by the ancient courtesy, flew into an implacable rage. She regretted her anger immediately, but it was too late. Her children were dead, and the land was freezing cold.
Will we make the same mistake? Will the earth goddess learn to control her emotions? Answers create more questions, as always. This is science at its finest!
-
So Pongo, precisely when did you stop beating your wife?
Please refrain from making low content, inflammatory posts. Consider this a warning.
Its actually quite on topic, and not inflamatory at all, if you know its origin. Pongo is asking others to prove a negative, which is why the "when did you stop beating your wife?" line of questioning is not allowed in courtrooms, because it is fallacious.
-
Ships get broken up, you know. Their boats may well have merely been temporary, to get them over the water and then broken up to form dwellings.
Perhaps as part of an earth goddess religion. The dinosaurs had no modern conception of personal ownership. Everything belonged to the land and could only be borrowed, and then returned, as needed.
I'd say it's possible, nay plausible, that the catastrophic event that destroyed the dinosaurs was the result of dinosaurian hubris. They thought themselves above such beliefs, and the earth, no longer calmed by the ancient courtesy, flew into an implacable rage. She regretted her anger immediately, but it was too late. Her children were dead, and the land was freezing cold.
Will we make the same mistake? Will the earth goddess learn to control her emotions? Answers create more questions, as always. This is science at its finest!
It is well precedented to turn ships upside down to make houses. It is done as a matter of course in many cultures. It may be an explanation as to why dino-ships have never been found.
-
The UA has not been constant. My view is that it was a lower value in dinosaur days, enabling the largest dinosaurs to grow to a size that could not be sustained today.
This also enables much less substantial boats to be built and still be able to carry large loads.
It is then possible for large reed boats to be thoroughly ocean going crafts When upturned to give shelter they would leave little fossil trace.
-
I think that the point I was making has evaded you, Brother Cat Earth Theory. Either willfully or not, I cannot tell. The point was, a speices of dinosaur could have branched out and developed advanced brains and then left no ancestors for us to study today. If we have not found any remains of said dinosaurs then we would have no fossils to study either. Simply because there are no living decendents and our rather poor fossil record hasnt uncovered them, does not mean that they never existed.
One problem with this line of reasoning is that the species of dinosaur that James contends built these great colonial armadas did leave fossil remains of themselves and their cargo, but not their ships.
But the problem is even worse. Dinosaurs did not just leave their bones, they left whole sequences of information. When one fossil is found the area around that find is of the same strata, so you can find information on how it lived, which other dinosaurs, other animals and plants formed his ecosystem. By finding other similar species we can know a whole lot about their evolution.
This is where selective statistics become the game of the FE'ers. It is simple reasoning that whole species have been lost. But it is not good reasoning that the animals transported by the Deinonychus are everywhere in the world, and yet the Deinonychus has only appeared in one part of the current United States. That is just bad statistics.
A civilization of the size that the FE'ers say happened, which moved animals and plants on a global scale including all continents except Antarctica, would have had Deinonychus protecting and culling the most varied animals in every continent, and dying near those animals, where the conditions for fossilizing were just right.
It makes no sense whatsoever that these Deinonychus (or any other species found up til now) were able to perform the biggest flora and fauna relocation project this planet has seen, just for the good of the planet. If they managed to move the entire ecosystems, they lived and died where the ecosystem was re-planted. And if some dinosaurs (and many other animals) died in the transplanted ecosystem, to be found for us, the Deinonychus did also.
-
It makes no sense whatsoever that these Deinonychus (or any other species found up til now) were able to perform the biggest flora and fauna relocation project this planet has seen, just for the good of the planet. If they managed to move the entire ecosystems, they lived and died where the ecosystem was re-planted. And if some dinosaurs (and many other animals) died in the transplanted ecosystem, to be found for us, the Deinonychus did also.
Thankfully, science isn't limited to what makes sense to you.
-
Thankfully, science isn't limited to what makes sense to you.
It is limited by that pesky need for evidence, though, and you don't got any.
-
Thankfully, science isn't limited to what makes sense to you.
It is limited by that pesky need for evidence, though, and you don't got any.
There is plenty of evidence, you just reject it. It's like trying to convince a Young-Earth Creationist that evolution exists. They either say they reject the evidence or interpret it differently. No matter what we present to you, you will summarily reject it on the grounds that it's an affront to your predetermined beliefs.
-
Thankfully, science isn't limited to what makes sense to you.
It is limited by that pesky need for evidence, though, and you don't got any.
There is plenty of evidence, you just reject it. It's like trying to convince a Young-Earth Creationist that evolution exists. They either say they reject the evidence or interpret it differently. No matter what we present to you, you will summarily reject it on the grounds that it's an affront to your predetermined beliefs.
I reject it because the distribution (which is the entirety of any "evidence" you have) is already explained better by Pangaea, the evidence for which goes beyond just the fossil record into geology. You are refusing to consider that evidence and are going with boats and super-intelligent herding dinosaurs.
So tell me, why should I believe in your boats, which we haven't found, over something that explains everything better?
-
It makes no sense whatsoever that these Deinonychus (or any other species found up til now) were able to perform the biggest flora and fauna relocation project this planet has seen, just for the good of the planet. If they managed to move the entire ecosystems, they lived and died where the ecosystem was re-planted. And if some dinosaurs (and many other animals) died in the transplanted ecosystem, to be found for us, the Deinonychus did also.
Thankfully, science isn't limited to what makes sense to you.
The sense of which I am talking is the same as in all the foundation of science, which is to say something makes sense if you use it to make predictions and the predictions are later found to be true.
And that is what FET has almost nothing of.
-
But the problem is even worse. Dinosaurs did not just leave their bones, they left whole sequences of information. When one fossil is found the area around that find is of the same strata, so you can find information on how it lived, which other dinosaurs, other animals and plants formed his ecosystem. By finding other similar species we can know a whole lot about their evolution.
This is where selective statistics become the game of the FE'ers. It is simple reasoning that whole species have been lost. But it is not good reasoning that the animals transported by the Deinonychus are everywhere in the world, and yet the Deinonychus has only appeared in one part of the current United States. That is just bad statistics.
A civilization of the size that the FE'ers say happened, which moved animals and plants on a global scale including all continents except Antarctica, would have had Deinonychus protecting and culling the most varied animals in every continent, and dying near those animals, where the conditions for fossilizing were just right.
It makes no sense whatsoever that these Deinonychus (or any other species found up til now) were able to perform the biggest flora and fauna relocation project this planet has seen, just for the good of the planet. If they managed to move the entire ecosystems, they lived and died where the ecosystem was re-planted. And if some dinosaurs (and many other animals) died in the transplanted ecosystem, to be found for us, the Deinonychus did also.
But we do have fossil evidence that dromaeosaurs existed on different continents.
Moreover, the kind of fossil record required to satisfy your demands simply doesn't exist. Palaeontologists make far stronger claims than we do based on far less evidence than we have. It's the nature of the field.
-
I'd love to know what claims made by paleontologists are as unsupported as boat-building dinosaur civilizations.
-
I'd love to know what claims made by paleontologists are as unsupported as boat-building dinosaur civilizations.
There is all kind of palaeontological speculation about the behavioural characteristics of dinosaurs, based on nothing more than their size, where they were found, etc.
-
There is all kind of palaeontological speculation about the behavioural characteristics of dinosaurs, based on nothing more than their size, where they were found, etc.
And their anatomy. And comparisons to animals living today. And this is recognized as just that, speculation. And none of the behaviors speculated are as complex as what James is suggesting. And It's not the basis of a theory to explain the distribution of fossils across the continents.
-
But we do have fossil evidence that dromaeosaurs existed on different continents.
We also have evidence that tectonic plates have been moving for hundreds of millions of years.
-
And comparisons to animals living today.
Well, that's clearly a valid basis for speculative arguments, and nobody would dispute that. Oh wait, you guys did!
-
And comparisons to animals living today.
Well, that's clearly a valid basis for speculative arguments, and nobody would dispute that. Oh wait, you guys did!
As soon as you see birds sailing the ocean in boats you might have a point.
I guess you have no objection to the rest of the points.
-
As soon as you see birds sailing the ocean in boats you might have a point.
Why would dinosaurs do that now that they can fly? ???
I guess you have no objection to the rest of the points.
What other points? We have made inferences about their capacity to build tools based on their anatomy. And I at least have explicitly stated on several occasions (including in this thread) that it is just speculation. You're just spouting the same tired statements, with no regard for what we've actually said.
-
Why would dinosaurs do that now that they can fly? ???
So their behavior is nothing alike. Noted.
ts? We have made inferences about their capacity to build tools based on their anatomy. And I at least have explicitly stated on several occasions (including in this thread) that it is just speculation. You're just spouting the same tired statements, with no regard for what we've actually said.
You've made baseless speculations by extending the type of tool use seen in crows to dinosaurs being able to build oceanworthy vessels and haul cargo. To say this is at most as bad as what paleontologists do when they speculate is ridiculous.
And it's clearly not "just" speculation since this is being floated as an alternative to a much better theory with actual evidence supporting it.
-
So their behavior is nothing alike. Noted.
This is a silly non-sequitur. The fact that avian dinosaurs and non-avian dinosaurs differ in one respect does not mean that they are nothing alike. Otherwise, you and I are nothing alike. The fact is, avian dinosaurs do exhibit intelligent behaviour, and do construct floating structures.
You've made baseless speculations by extending the type of tool use seen in crows to dinosaurs being able to build oceanworthy vessels and haul cargo. To say this is at most as bad as what paleontologists do when they speculate is ridiculous.
No, it isn't. Crows have totally different physiques to prehistoric dinosaurs, so the comparison can obviously only demonstrating their capacity for intelligent tool use, rather than the specific task in question. If such comparisons can be made by mainstream palaeontologists, they can be made by us.
And it's clearly not "just" speculation since this is being floated as an alternative to a much better theory with actual evidence supporting it.
What exactly is meant by "better"? A model which posits that dinosaur fossils are found in different places because dinosaurs lived places is a lot more plausible than one that contends they are found in different places because the Earth's crust moves them around. In Zetetic terms I don't think plate tectonics holds up at all.
-
This is a silly non-sequitur. The fact that avian dinosaurs and non-avian dinosaurs differ in one respect does not mean that they are nothing alike. Otherwise, you and I are nothing alike. The fact is, avian dinosaurs do exhibit intelligent behaviour, and do construct floating structures.
Floating structures in ponds. Not ocean-crossing ships with holds for cargo. Next
You've made baseless speculations by extending the type of tool use seen in crows to dinosaurs being able to build oceanworthy vessels and haul cargo. To say this is at most as bad as what paleontologists do when they speculate is ridiculous.
No, it isn't. Crows have totally different physiques to prehistoric dinosaurs, so the comparison can obviously only demonstrating their capacity for intelligent tool use, rather than the specific task in question. If such comparisons can be made by mainstream palaeontologists, they can be made by us.
Lol, ok, this goes beyond intelligent tool use to a seafaring dinosaur civilization. If you can point out a leap that big made by modern paleontologists I'd love to see it.
What exactly is meant by "better"? A model which posits that dinosaur fossils are found in different places because dinosaurs lived places is a lot more plausible than one that contends they are found in different places because the Earth's crust moves them around. In Zetetic terms I don't think plate tectonics holds up at alll.
As a zetetic, you can't see the tectonic plates moving throughout millions of years. As a zetetic, you couldn't see an advanced dinosaur civilization millions of years in the past. I'm not seeing why zetetics would compel you to think one is more plausible than the other.
If you're willing to use fossils as evidence for your speculation, why not geology? Just like how we can match up the fossil distributions to Pangaea, we can match up the layers of rock. I fail to see how this is any less zetetic than using fossil distribution as evidence of James' theory.
-
Floating structures in ponds. Not ocean-crossing ships with holds for cargo. Next
I'll take the non sequitur as conceded then.
Lol, ok, this goes beyond intelligent tool use to a seafaring dinosaur civilization. If you can point out a leap that big made by modern paleontologists I'd love to see it.
For example, palaeontologists have found teeth marks from a dromaeosaur on the fossil (or near the remains of) a large dinosaur. They then speculate that dromaeosaurs may have been intelligent creatures that practised coordinated hunting in packs.
As a zetetic, you can't see the tectonic plates moving throughout millions of years. As a zetetic, you couldn't see an advanced dinosaur civilization millions of years in the past. I'm not seeing why zetetics would compel you to think one is more plausible than the other.
If you're willing to use fossils as evidence for your speculation, why not geology? Just like how we can match up the fossil distributions to Pangaea, we can match up the layers of rock. I fail to see how this is any less zetetic than using fossil distribution as evidence of James' theory.
As a Zetetic, I could see fossils in the ground and examine them for myself. However, I cannot live to observe plates whizzing about over the course of several million years.
-
I'll take the non sequitur as conceded then.
Nope, the comparison you make with floating structures is meaningless. They're not oceangoing ships that can hold cargo as James' theory demands.
For example, palaeontologists have found teeth marks from a dromaeosaur on the fossil (or near the remains of) a large dinosaur. They then speculate that dromaeosaurs may have been intelligent creatures that practised coordinated hunting in packs.
So they found teeth marks of a smaller dinosaur on a much larger dinosaur and thought it possible that they hunted in packs, as it seems unlikely a dinosaur that small could take something that big down. That doesn't seem like much of a leap to me.
On the other hand, you're taking the fact that fossils show up on two different continents as evidence that some dinosaurs may have built ships and brought other plants and animals along with them on the voyage. No evidence of these ships, either.
Do you honestly think that's an equivalent leap?
As a Zetetic, I could see fossils in the ground and examine them for myself. However, I cannot live to observe plates whizzing about over the course of several million years.
Yep, I've already established that you can't see the plates moving. You can't see this ancient dino civilization, either. All we have is potential evidence of these things having happened
There are places on earth where you can actually see the exposed layers of rock at faultlines, and see that one side has been sliding underneath the other. We can match the layers of rock up. Shouldn't this be evidence of some ability of the earth to move around?
-
Watched an interesting telly programme a day or two back. Lemurs found their own way to Madagascar. I presume they didn't fly.
More evidence of non-human boat building?
-
Watched an interesting telly programme a day or two back. Lemurs found their own way to Madagascar. I presume they didn't fly.
More evidence of non-human boat building?
Interesting. It is well taught amongst RE thinking people that lizards populated various islands of the world by floating there on logs. This preposterous idea is more easily explained by these lizards tapping their ancestral roots and building crafts to navigate the seas. It's ludicrous to propose that something that today's ants can master is beyond the much more advanced brain of a reptile.
-
So you are positing a complex racial memory with an extrordinary level of detail? Do you also posit a mechanism?
-
I'll take the non sequitur as conceded then.
Nope, the comparison you make with floating structures is meaningless. They're not oceangoing ships that can hold cargo as James' theory demands.
The non sequitur is due to the silly nature of your argument. Even if the comparison were meaningless (and I don't believe it is; more on that below), your argument would still be a non sequitur. It simply does not follow that because avian dinosaurs and non-avian dinosaurs differ in one respect, they must be nothing alike.
So they found teeth marks of a smaller dinosaur on a much larger dinosaur and thought it possible that they hunted in packs, as it seems unlikely a dinosaur that small could take something that big down. That doesn't seem like much of a leap to me.
Why couldn't the teeth marks be the result of scavenging? Or the result of a fight which broke out when the dromaeosaur(s) in question tried to attack the herd's young, or their eggs? What about the fossil finds where the teeth are merely found nearby? There are plenty of explanations that don't involve notable cognitive capacities on the part of dromaeosaurs.
On the other hand, you're taking the fact that fossils show up on two different continents as evidence that some dinosaurs may have built ships and brought other plants and animals along with them on the voyage. No evidence of these ships, either.
Do you honestly think that's an equivalent leap?
I think it's equally supported by the fossil record, yes.
Yep, I've already established that you can't see the plates moving. You can't see this ancient dino civilization, either. All we have is potential evidence of these things having happened
There are places on earth where you can actually see the exposed layers of rock at faultlines, and see that one side has been sliding underneath the other. We can match the layers of rock up. Shouldn't this be evidence of some ability of the earth to move around?
Nobody here denies that fault lines exist, or that the Earth's crust moves somewhat. What we are skeptical about is the idea that they move around in such a way that the continents completely rearrange themselves. I won't find any direct sensorial evidence of that at a fault line.
-
So you are positing a complex racial memory with an extrordinary level of detail? Do you also posit a mechanism?
Well, it's also consistent with modern, avian dinosaurs and their floating nests. A common maritime heritage, perhaps?
-
I think it's equally supported by the fossil record, yes.
Welp, then this is the point where I stop taking you seriously anymore.
-
I think it's equally supported by the fossil record, yes.
Welp, then this is the point where I stop taking you seriously anymore.
Welp, this is the point where I direct you to the links I posted earlier, and ask that you identify what you find it hard to take seriously.
-
Identify what I find hard to take seriously about a seafaring dinosaur civilization? With no evidence of boats or a civilization? lol
-
Identify what I find hard to take seriously about a seafaring dinosaur civilization? With no evidence of boats or a civilization? lol
Yes, please do.
-
If you can't see it by now there's no point continuing. I might as well beat my head against a wall.
-
If you can't see it by now there's no point continuing. I might as well beat my head against a wall.
Well, you haven't actually made any points...
-
If you can't see it by now there's no point continuing. I might as well beat my head against a wall.
I have presented links in which the fossil record is used to support our model. If you are unwilling to contest that evidence, then there really is no point in continuing.
-
If you can't see it by now there's no point continuing. I might as well beat my head against a wall.
I have presented links in which the fossil record is used to support our model. If you are unwilling to contest that evidence, then there really is no point in continuing.
You haven't contested the evidence for continental drift. I'll spend my time looking at your links and writing a response if I feel I'm going to get an actual response out of my effort and not more ignoring and hand-waving.
Edit: Oh, and which links do you want me looking at? This is a long thread.
-
You haven't contested the evidence for continental drift. I'll spend my time looking at your links and writing a response if I feel I'm going to get an actual response out of my effort and not more ignoring and hand-waving.
This thread isn't about continental drift, and in any event I'm not sure any evidence for CDT has been presented. There certainly hasn't been very much.
Edit: Oh, and which links do you want me looking at? This is a long thread.
The posts by James that I most recently linked to. You actually responded to the post the links are contained in. Either read my posts, or stop replying to them.
-
This thread isn't about continental drift, and in any event I'm not sure any evidence for CDT has been presented. There certainly hasn't been very much.
Mhmm, you don't know because you didn't read it.
The posts by James that I most recently linked to. You actually responded to the post the links are contained in. Either read my posts, or stop replying to them.
I already read those, you rude dude.
-
Mhmm, you don't know because you didn't read it.
I have been posting in this thread since 2009 (which is a fair length of time), and accordingly I cannot be absolutely sure that no claimed 'evidence' for CDT has been presented. I am certain very little has been put forward. I presume you will forgive me if I cannot remember everything the thread contains, and if you will not, then you are quite the hypocrite, as you asked for the same courtesy just moments ago.
I already read those, you rude dude.
Then I await your response.
-
Then I await your response.
Sure, just point me to where you think the actual evidence is contained in these great works.
-
Sure, just point me to where you think the actual evidence is contained in these great works.
James uses the distribution of fossils to support his model. He does so quite explicitly - it really couldn't be clearer.
-
James uses the distribution of fossils to support his model. He does so quite explicitly - it really couldn't be clearer.
Ok, so they somehow got across the ocean (or the continents moved). I don't think anyone's challenging that.
So where's the support for them being intelligent enough to create a civilization? Write things with their claws? Create fabrics? Make ships large enough to haul dinosaurs?
-
So where's the support for them being intelligent enough to create a civilization?
Earlier you claimed comparison with living animals is a legitimate way of exploring the potential traits of non-existent animals. Modern dinosaurs can construct floating structures, and prehistoric dinosaurs were physically stronger than modern dinosaurs.
Make ships large enough to haul dinosaurs?
The fossil evidence we have presented.
-
Earlier you claimed comparison with living animals is a legitimate way of exploring the potential traits of non-existent animals. Modern dinosaurs can construct floating structures, and prehistoric dinosaurs were physically stronger than modern dinosaurs.
Nests that float in ponds. Do you believe you could just make a larger nest out of larger pieces of wood and float them across the ocean with cargo? I'm curious because I don't think you realize the challenges that increased weight brings.
Also writing, fabric?
The fossil evidence we have presented.
Says nothing about a civilization of any kind.
-
Nests that float in ponds. Do you believe you could just make a larger nest out of larger pieces of wood and float them across the ocean with cargo? I'm curious because I don't think you realize the challenges that increased weight brings.
I believe that a stronger dinosaur could do a lot more with stronger pieces of wood. Beavers can build dams that have incredible structural integrity overnight, so the idea that a sea-faring structure could not be built along those lines is clearly silly. Rafts have been built out of reeds, and the currach is a proven trans-oceanic craft that is light and simple to build. It's also worth noting that whilst historians do not doubt the existence of hide-based currach, they base this solely on written sources, as they deem it highly unlikely that such vessels would survive in any recognisable form.
Also writing, fabric?
There is of course no fossil evidence of this, but its possibility is tied directly to the intelligence of the creature in question.
Says nothing about a civilization of any kind.
How do you define civilisation? ???
-
I believe that a stronger dinosaur could do a lot more with stronger pieces of wood. Beavers can build dams that have incredible structural integrity overnight, so the idea that a sea-faring structure could not be built along those lines is clearly silly. Rafts have been built out of reeds, and the currach is a proven trans-oceanic craft that is light and simple to build. It's also worth noting that whilst historians do not doubt the existence of hide-based currach, they base this solely on written sources, as they deem it highly unlikely that such vessels would survive in any recognisable form.
Beaver dams are walls made out of branches and mud. Their construction is nothing like that of a boat, and their integrity comes from repairs made by the beavers and, over time, the growth of plants on them.
The vessels you speak of have been built by humans, yes. But once again we have no evidence of any such craft existing in the time of the dinosaurs, and we don't see birds building them, either.
I should also point out that all the dinosaur nests we've found have not been similar to bird nests. They've been pits dug into the ground, some with mud piled up around the side. They're like reptile nests.
There is of course no fossil evidence of this, but its possibility is tied directly to the intelligence of the creature in question.
An intelligence that would be remarkable when compared to their EQ measurements. It would be larger mismatch than any we see in modern species.
How do you define civilisation? ???
In anthropology we'd say it's a civilization once people start getting into specialized jobs and the population exceeds a certain amount. At this point, the governance has to become more formalized to deal with the lack of personal ties between people. The distinction between civilizations and chiefdoms is fuzzy, though, and it's a word I believe both you and James have used.
The point is that we don't have remains of dinosaur cities and villages, no fabric that they made, writing, or any artifacts of any sort.
-
Beaver dams are walls made out of branches and mud. Their construction is nothing like that of a boat, and their integrity comes from repairs made by the beavers and, over time, the growth of plants on them.
But they are constructed to an extremely high standard, and by a relatively small animal. I bet most of us here would fail if given the same task.
The vessels you speak of have been built by humans, yes. But once again we have no evidence of any such craft existing in the time of the dinosaurs, and we don't see birds building them, either.
But we don't have any physical evidence of them existing among humans of that time either. We're totally reliant on written accounts, and even they only go so far back. Nevertheless, we posit that such boats existed long before the surviving textual evidence was written.
I should also point out that all the dinosaur nests we've found have not been similar to bird nests. They've been pits dug into the ground, some with mud piled up around the side. They're like reptile nests.
And I should point out that the oldest fossils of birds' nests we have found are (to my knowledge) only a few thousand years old. Yet no-one is suggesting that birds did not have nests before then, or that prehistoric species of bird (now extinct) did not build nests.
An intelligence that would be remarkable when compared to their EQ measurements. It would be larger mismatch than any we see in modern species.
The subject of EQ measurements has been a source of dispute in this thread and others, and I am satisfied that it does not serve as an accurate measure of intelligence. I suggest doing a few searches, as there have been extensive discussions on the subject.
In anthropology we'd say it's a civilization once people start getting into specialized jobs and the population exceeds a certain amount. At this point, the governance has to become more formalized to deal with the lack of personal ties between people. The distinction between civilizations and chiefdoms is fuzzy, though, and it's a word I believe both you and James have used.
The point is that we don't have remains of dinosaur cities and villages, no fabric that they made, writing, or any artifacts of any sort.
But we do have fossil evidence that supports the contention that they migrated over huge distances. As the geography necessitates that they would have done so by sea, the requisite technological advancement can be inferred.
As for anthropology, it goes without saying that it is by definition an anthropocentric discipline, so I feel it may be difficult to make 1:1 comparisons between our standards of civilisation and that of any other species. In any event, I am not particularly tied to the word civilisation - chiefdom would be fine, or even a term which encompassed technologically sophisticated nomads/herders.
-
For example, palaeontologists have found teeth marks from a dromaeosaur on the fossil (or near the remains of) a large dinosaur. They then speculate that dromaeosaurs may have been intelligent creatures that practised coordinated hunting in packs.
This is getting funnier by the minute. Now we are off with the Deinonychus and on with the Dromaeosaurus. And the Dromaeosaurus carried dinosaurs that even when young already weigh tens or even thousands of times their own weight? Across an ocean? We have jumped from a 70 kg dinosaur which might have been somewhat intelligent to a 15 kg dinosaur that was mostly brawn an no brain. How on Earth would a 15 kg dinosaur even move the egg of a large dinosaur, when the egg itself outweighs him? Not to mention the response from the owner of the eggs. Did the dromaeosaurus also invent the hydraulic crane?
This is a typical tactic of bad scientists and pseudo-scientists. You need an intelligent dinosaur? You talk about the Deinonychus. You need one that has been found in several places? You change to the Dromaeosaurus. You need one which uses tools? You change to the crows, or some other bird who knows how to lift a stone over an egg and drop it.
When are you going to stop the special pleading and take one argument to its conclusion?
PS. And where did you get the information on the intelligence of the Dromaeosaur?
-
Trig, Wilmore was giving me an example of an instance where paleontologists came to a conclusion with as little evidence as James has. I don't agree that they're equivalent leaps, but you're not responding to it in context.
'
-
For example, palaeontologists have found teeth marks from a dromaeosaur on the fossil (or near the remains of) a large dinosaur. They then speculate that dromaeosaurs may have been intelligent creatures that practised coordinated hunting in packs.
This is getting funnier by the minute. Now we are off with the Deinonychus and on with the Dromaeosaurus. And the Dromaeosaurus carried dinosaurs that even when young already weigh tens or even thousands of times their own weight? Across an ocean? We have jumped from a 70 kg dinosaur which might have been somewhat intelligent to a 15 kg dinosaur that was mostly brawn an no brain. How on Earth would a 15 kg dinosaur even move the egg of a large dinosaur, when the egg itself outweighs him? Not to mention the response from the owner of the eggs. Did the dromaeosaurus also invent the hydraulic crane?
This is a typical tactic of bad scientists and pseudo-scientists. You need an intelligent dinosaur? You talk about the Deinonychus. You need one that has been found in several places? You change to the Dromaeosaurus. You need one which uses tools? You change to the crows, or some other bird who knows how to lift a stone over an egg and drop it.
When are you going to stop the special pleading and take one argument to its conclusion?
PS. And where did you get the information on the intelligence of the Dromaeosaur?
1) As CET said, you're quoting me out of context.
2) This post shows you did not read the links I provided earlier. If you want to be spoon fed, contact a child-minder. It's not what this forum is for.
-
This line is all just one logical fallacy. Just because modern birds can build a floating nest does not mean that much larger creatures would be capable of doing the same. However, the inverse cube law when applied to the building materials that dinosaurs had available certainly makes it unlikely. That being said, there is a slim possibility that they could have accomplished such a feat.
-
This line is all just one logical fallacy. Just because modern birds can build a floating nest does not mean that much larger creatures would be capable of doing the same. However, the inverse cube law when applied to the building materials that dinosaurs had available certainly makes it unlikely. That being said, there is a slim possibility that they could have accomplished such a feat.
Still they did it somehow. We can't know how exactly, but there is no evidence they were incapable of that.
-
Still they did it somehow. We can't know how exactly, but there is no evidence they were incapable of that.
Not having evidence that they were incapable is not the same as evidence that they were capable.
-
This line is all just one logical fallacy. Just because modern birds can build a floating nest does not mean that much larger creatures would be capable of doing the same. However, the inverse cube law when applied to the building materials that dinosaurs had available certainly makes it unlikely. That being said, there is a slim possibility that they could have accomplished such a feat.
Still they did it somehow.
Did they? Without any evidence, how can you know for sure?
We can't know how exactly, but there is no evidence they were incapable of that.
There is also no evidence that they were capable of that.
-
According to todays Metro there is some scientist geezer who is saying that dinosaurs were far more aquatic than we think, due to water being able to support their huge bulks far better than relying on their muscles alone.
Another win for FE Transcontinental Dinosaurs.
-
You just have to love someone who uses the word geezer lol. I am assuming that that article was talking about the large herbivores like Brontosaurus?
-
They were refering to any number of the large, tailed dinosaurs, but emphasis was indeed upon the large herbivores.
-
According to todays Metro there is some scientist geezer who is saying that dinosaurs were far more aquatic than we think, due to water being able to support their huge bulks far better than relying on their muscles alone.
Another win for FE Transcontinental Dinosaurs.
I heard this being discussed on the Today programme. The idea was put forward by a microbiologist. The theory was pooh-poohed by a paleontologist who said this idea was nothing new and harked back to a time when we knew less about skeletal mechanics. They won't be flooding the Natural History Museum just yet.
-
It's a shame that the dinosaurs were not such strong swimmers as science had previously thought, but it is hardly surprising that they made up for it with deftness and industry, so that they were still able to enjoy the pleasures of the ocean. Life always finds a way!
-
Life always finds a way!
James,
Sorry to be a pedant, but if life always finds a way there would be no extinctions.
-
yes but even with extinctions, life does go on, the life just evolves.
-
Life always finds a way!
James,
Sorry to be a pedant, but if life always finds a way there would be no extinctions.
Also, life always finds a way to what? If the answer is "to survive", well, every extinction has spared some species until now. But if the answer is "to everything", well, NO!
Life has not found a way to cure all cancers, to explore other worlds from Earth, to feed all the population. "Life always finds a way" is just like the infamous "God acts in mysterious ways". It is just a phrase to say when you do not have an answer.
-
Life always does find a way. Thank goodness or we'd ALL be in trouble!
-
Life always does find a way. Thank goodness or we'd ALL be in trouble!
A baseless piece of rhetoric! It's most unscientific to conclude simply that past performance predicts future performance.
Maybe true: Since existence of our most distant ancestor, some form of life has found a way to survive until now.
-
Life always does find a way. Thank goodness or we'd ALL be in trouble!
A baseless piece of rhetoric! It's most unscientific to conclude simply that past performance predicts future performance.
Maybe true: Since existence of our most distant ancestor, some form of life has found a way to survive until now.
Actually true: life always finds a way!
-
Life always does find a way. Thank goodness or we'd ALL be in trouble!
A baseless piece of rhetoric! It's most unscientific to conclude simply that past performance predicts future performance.
Maybe true: Since existence of our most distant ancestor, some form of life has found a way to survive until now.
Actually true: life always finds a way!
Again: A baseless piece of rhetoric! Please do try to add to the debate. How did you determine that Life will find a way in 2109?
-
Finds and will find are not the same Clocktower!
Life always finds a way!
-
Life always finds a way? So should I assume the sun is populated with living organisms since life always finds a way?
-
Life always finds a way? So should I assume the sun is populated with living organisms since life always finds a way?
No. What life has there on the Sun to find a way?
-
Life always finds a way? So should I assume the sun is populated with living organisms since life always finds a way?
No. What life has there on the Sun to find a way?
So life doesn't always find a way. Noted.
-
Life always finds a way cat. Life just has to be there.
-
So if all life were wiped out on earth, through some catastrophe, life wouldn't find a way?
-
We wouldn't be talking about life at that moment now would we!
-
So life will find a way to exist, unless it stops existing.
Wow. Thank you for that bit of wisdom.
-
Life always does find a way. Thank goodness or we'd ALL be in trouble!
A baseless piece of rhetoric! It's most unscientific to conclude simply that past performance predicts future performance.
Not really. I can scientifically predict that the Ospreys would flatten the Tondu Third team in a game of rugby purely based on past performance.
-
Life always does find a way. Thank goodness or we'd ALL be in trouble!
A baseless piece of rhetoric! It's most unscientific to conclude simply that past performance predicts future performance.
Not really. I can scientifically predict that the Ospreys would flatten the Tondu Third team in a game of rugby purely based on past performance.
Your definition of "scientifically" needs serious review. What would happen if the Ospreys' bus failed to deliver them to the stadium. What if the match were cancelled? What if a Osprey player was ruled ineligible after the game?
-
Then his prediction would be wrong.
-
Life always finds a way!
Tell that to all of the extinct species.
-
Have you guys just never seen Jurassic Park? ???
-
Have you guys just never seen Jurassic Park? ???
Yes, and I find it far more plausible James' idea of a seafaring dinosaur civilization.
-
Irrelevant. I'm just pointing out that this "Life always finds a way!" is just a reference to it. It's not a serious point, it's Ichi having fun with you.
-
What a hilarious, fun time we're having here.
-
Irrelevant. I'm just pointing out that this "Life always finds a way!" is just a reference to it. It's not a serious point, it's Ichi having fun with you.
Well, duh.
-
It's only a matter of time until life finds a way.
-
And it's only a matter of time before life dies out. Now, how about getting back to something resembling on topic.
-
Life always finds a way? So should I assume the sun is populated with living organisms since life always finds a way?
Yes, I believe you are starting to get the picture, as the latest scientific research has indeed indicated that the Sun is in fact populated with living organisms.
However, the Sun is not the topic at hand; what I meant by my statement that life finds a way, which seems to have attracted considerable attention, is that the dinosaurs, despite their weak swimming, FOUND A WAY to enjoy the pleasures of the ocean. This they accomplished with the construction of boats, just as we, the inheritors of their terrestrial legacy, have also found a way to enjoy the pleasures of the ocean, despite our weak swimming.
My statement was really a turn of phrase, I do not hold, say, that all life always finds a way to survive. For example a dead dinosaur, or a dead person, has not found a way to survive. The dinosaurs as a whole, however, found a way to survive, when they took to the air and their lives became even easier and presumably more carefree and pleasant than when they were the masters of the ocean.
-
The sun is populated with living organisms? Isn't the sun just a spotlight?
-
Yes, I believe you are starting to get the picture, as the latest scientific research has indeed indicated that the Sun is in fact populated with living organisms.
Would you be good enough to point us in the direction of this research?
-
Life always finds a way? So should I assume the sun is populated with living organisms since life always finds a way?
Yes, I believe you are starting to get the picture, as the latest scientific research has indeed indicated that the Sun is in fact populated with living organisms.
However, the Sun is not the topic at hand; what I meant by my statement that life finds a way, which seems to have attracted considerable attention, is that the dinosaurs, despite their weak swimming, FOUND A WAY to enjoy the pleasures of the ocean. This they accomplished with the construction of boats, just as we, the inheritors of their terrestrial legacy, have also found a way to enjoy the pleasures of the ocean, despite our weak swimming.
My statement was really a turn of phrase, I do not hold, say, that all life always finds a way to survive. For example a dead dinosaur, or a dead person, has not found a way to survive. The dinosaurs as a whole, however, found a way to survive, when they took to the air and their lives became even easier and presumably more carefree and pleasant than when they were the masters of the ocean.
If ever anyone though the FES was serious, this guy has just blown the cover right off.
I can't believe this thread has gone on for 87 pages! Don't you get tired of this joke yet? And now things live on the sun? OH PLEASE.
You're yet another saddo who needs to get a life. Stop trolling and go help at a soup kitchen or something.
-
Yes, I believe you are starting to get the picture, as the latest scientific research has indeed indicated that the Sun is in fact populated with living organisms.
Would you be good enough to point us in the direction of this research?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.msg785207#msg785207
Like James, I suggest that any further discussion should centre on the topic at hand.
-
Yes, I believe you are starting to get the picture, as the latest scientific research has indeed indicated that the Sun is in fact populated with living organisms.
Would you be good enough to point us in the direction of this research?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.msg785207#msg785207
This isn't scientific research, it's a combination of mythology, daydreaming and downright lies.
-
Yes, I believe you are starting to get the picture, as the latest scientific research has indeed indicated that the Sun is in fact populated with living organisms.
Would you be good enough to point us in the direction of this research?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.msg785207#msg785207
Like James, I suggest that any further discussion should centre on the topic at hand.
You're not doing justice to FET by endorsing such bizzare ideas.
-
On-topic please. I won't ask again.
-
On-topic please. I won't ask again.
So the topic is colonial dinosaurs? What about them?
-
I wanted to make sure James has seen this article about T. Rex having feathers, in case it helps his research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html)
Considering modern dinosaurs have feathers, as well, it could shed some light on converging the gap between colonial and modern dinosaur attributes.
-
I wanted to make sure James has seen this article about T. Rex having feathers, in case it helps his research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html)
Considering modern dinosaurs have feathers, as well, it could shed some light on converging the gap between colonial and modern dinosaur attributes.
What is a "modern" dinosaur!?
-
I wanted to make sure James has seen this article about T. Rex having feathers, in case it helps his research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html)
Considering modern dinosaurs have feathers, as well, it could shed some light on converging the gap between colonial and modern dinosaur attributes.
What is a "modern" dinosaur!?
Birds are dinosaurs.
-
I wanted to make sure James has seen this article about T. Rex having feathers, in case it helps his research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html)
Considering modern dinosaurs have feathers, as well, it could shed some light on converging the gap between colonial and modern dinosaur attributes.
What is a "modern" dinosaur!?
It is best not to contradict these people on the definition of "dinosaur". They like simple definitions, and "birds are dinosaurs" is as good as any other three word definition can be. As any other three word definition, this one is not very useful, but what can you expect from three words?
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.
-
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.
This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.
-
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.
This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.
This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
-
We have a common ancestor with the fish.
This could use a citation.
And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Yeah, more sweeping statements. Could we have something to show you didn't just make this up? Preferably something peer reviewed.
-
We have a common ancestor with the fish.
This could use a citation.
And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Yeah, more sweeping statements. Could we have something to show you didn't just make this up? Preferably something peer reviewed.
How about this? (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/tag/evolution/page/2/)
(http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2008/04/28/1209396476_3863-1.jpg)
Rest assured, Discover is peer reviewed. But more to the point, these "sweeping statements" are elementary information that everyone has received in High School unless you live in the Bible Belt of the United States or some equally fundamentalist Iranian school. Where did you go to High School?
-
We have a common ancestor with the fish.
This could use a citation.
And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Yeah, more sweeping statements. Could we have something to show you didn't just make this up? Preferably something peer reviewed.
How about this? (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/tag/evolution/page/2/)
(http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2008/04/28/1209396476_3863-1.jpg)
Rest assured, Discover is peer reviewed. But more to the point, these "sweeping statements" are elementary information that everyone has received in High School unless you live in the Bible Belt of the United States or some equally fundamentalist Iranian school. Where did you go to High School?
Oh, how embarrassing for you. You linked me to a wall of text about the theory of evolution. Nothing about hard facts and evidence. Its a theory of course because it is not proved. So then picking out subsections such as hypothetical family trees ... well its as valid as James' theory on dinosaurs.
-
We have a common ancestor with the fish.
This could use a citation.
And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Yeah, more sweeping statements. Could we have something to show you didn't just make this up? Preferably something peer reviewed.
How about this? (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/tag/evolution/page/2/)
(http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2008/04/28/1209396476_3863-1.jpg)
Rest assured, Discover is peer reviewed. But more to the point, these "sweeping statements" are elementary information that everyone has received in High School unless you live in the Bible Belt of the United States or some equally fundamentalist Iranian school. Where did you go to High School?
Oh, how embarrassing. You linked me to a wall of text about the theory of evolution. Nothing about hard facts and evidence. Its a theory of course because it is not proved. So then picking out subsections such as hypothetical family trees ... well its as valid as James' theory on dinosaurs.
Gotta better alternative?
-
Gotta better alternative?
Yes, see James' work on birds and dinosaurs.
-
Gotta better alternative?
Yes, see James' work on birds and dinosaurs.
It's a bit lost in the 88 pages!
-
Gotta better alternative?
Yes, see James' work on birds and dinosaurs.
It's a bit lost in the 88 pages!
Allow me to sum up for you. Birds are dinosaurs.
-
OK.
What's the relevance with "Flat Earth Debate"?
-
OK.
What's the relevance with "Flat Earth Debate"?
It starts with plate tectonics. James theorises that continents don't move. This gives rise to the question how do dinosaurs of similar genetic likeness turn up in different continents? James answer is "that they build boats". RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.
(http://www.colourbox.com/preview/3354371-951426-swan-sitting-on-its-nest-on-water.jpg)
A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
Objection then came "That's a bird, not a dinosaur". As Ichi helpfully pointed out birds are dinosaurs.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.
-
OK.
What's the relevance with "Flat Earth Debate"?
It starts with plate tectonics. James theorises that continents don't move. This gives rise to the question how do dinosaurs of similar genetic likeness turn up in different continents? James answer is "that they build boats". RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.
(http://www.colourbox.com/preview/3354371-951426-swan-sitting-on-its-nest-on-water.jpg)
A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
Objection then came "That's a bird, not a dinosaurs". As Ichi helpfully pointed out birds are dinosaurs.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.
Oh! Another hypothesis devoid of scientific grounds.
-
OK.
What's the relevance with "Flat Earth Debate"?
It starts with plate tectonics. James theorises that continents don't move. This gives rise to the question how do dinosaurs of similar genetic likeness turn up in different continents? James answer is "that they build boats". RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.
(http://www.colourbox.com/preview/3354371-951426-swan-sitting-on-its-nest-on-water.jpg)
A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
Objection then came "That's a bird, not a dinosaurs". As Ichi helpfully pointed out birds are dinosaurs.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.
Oh! Another hypothesis devoid of scientific grounds.
??? You can observe boat building dinosaurs for yourself. Its not a hypothesis. Its a fact.
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
That's science to you. It explains a lot.
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
That's science to you. It explains a lot.
You will also notice the thread is helpfully titled "James' theory on dinosaurs". Thork's theory is that plate tectonics is equally as valid on a flat earth as a round one and so Thork doesn't need to follow this theory to its logical conclusion. It doesn't however mean I haven't taken the time to read, understand and respect James' theories ... something you seem incapable of doing.
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
That's science to you. It explains a lot.
You will also notice the thread is helpfully titled "James' theory on dinosaurs". Thork's theory is that plate tectonics is equally as valid on a flat earth as a round one and so Thork doesn't need to follow this theory to its logical conclusion. It doesn't however mean I haven't taken the time to read, understand and respect James' theories ... something you seem incapable of doing.
If it was summerised in the FET wiki or in the Q&A, why not.
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
-
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.
This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.
This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.
-
Have tectonic of plaques been disproved by FET?
-
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.
This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.
This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.
Have you even checked out the definition of clade?
If there is a species that is an ancestor, either extinct or not, of both species you are comparing, they belong to the same clade.
Even wikipedia has this definition nice and simple so you can understand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade)
And what kind of biologist are you, who does not know that all animals share gene structures? It is by now such common knowledge that the whole tree of evolution of species has been revised based on this scientific evidence. If you want to use the term "clade" with any precision at all you have to mention how far into the tree you want to go looking for that common ancestor. In fact, if you want to go all the way to some time after Abiogenesis, you can consider yourself part of the same clade as a bacteria, a plant or a fungus.
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.
In fact, it is a dinosaur's nest which may or may not have been designed to float, which may or may not be floating, and which may or may not be capable of withstanding a 5 cm wave. In short, the only detail that is arguably right in the claim is that the bird seen in the photo can be considered a dinosaur.
For all we can see, the bird is a victim of flooding and is trying to save whatever might be saved from her nest before it inevitably sinks.
Here you have the same situation with a different species of animal:
(http://dawnontheamazon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/flood-victims-in-the-amazon.jpg)
-
On the question of whether humans are fish:
Humans and fish share a common ancestor, they are both vertebrates. If you therefore asked me "can you show me a picture of a vertebrate twiddling its thumbs", a valid response would be to show you a picture of a human twiddling its thumbs. I could not show you a picture of a fish twiddling its thumbs.
Likewise, swans and deinoncyhus share a common ancestor, they are both dinosaurs. If you therefore asked me "can you show me a picture of a dinosaur using a boat", a valid response would be to show you a picture of a swan using a boat. You might think I could not show you a picture of a deinoychus using a boat, because they did not document their work with cameras.
But in fact I can show you a picture of a deinoychus using a boat.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/delaware3large.jpg)
Do you see how arguments about birds not being dinosaurs are in fact doubly invalid?
-
This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
It is not a question of common ancestry. There are many species with whom we share common ancestry, without sharing the same clade. Please at least read the links you so condescendingly present.
Dinosaurs represent a clade, and birds are part of that clade. Therefore, birds are dinosaurs. Humans and fish, despite distant common ancestry, are nevertheless not the part of the same clade, which is why neither we nor fish are considered fishumans.
-
which is why neither we nor fish are considered fishumans
Explain fish fingers.
(http://shoelacecheese.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/ij-omega-3.jpg?w=500&h=280)
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.
It's both. I like to think of it as the dinosaur equivalent of a houseboat.
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.
It's both. I like to think of it as the dinosaur equivalent of a houseboat.
Have you ever taken a houseboat on a transoceanic voyage?
-
In the news today ...
Giant dinosaurs could have warmed the planet with their flatulence, say researchers.
I wonder if this may also have been a form of propulsion for their boats?
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.
It's both. I like to think of it as the dinosaur equivalent of a houseboat.
Have you ever taken a houseboat on a transoceanic voyage?
No. But I'm not saying that a dinosaur would be able to sail across the ocean on a simple nest like that. They may have collaborated to build larger vessels - larger nests, if you will - for that purpose.
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.
It's both. I like to think of it as the dinosaur equivalent of a houseboat.
Have you ever taken a houseboat on a transoceanic voyage?
People have taken far less capable ships on transoceanic voyages.
-
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.
It's both. I like to think of it as the dinosaur equivalent of a houseboat.
Have you ever taken a houseboat on a transoceanic voyage?
People have taken far less capable ships on transoceanic voyages.
But dinosaurs? Very unlikely.
-
But dinosaurs? Very unlikely.
An outstanding contribution to the discussion. Truly, you have deployed a weighty argument. ::)
-
But dinosaurs? Very unlikely.
An outstanding contribution to the discussion. Truly, you have deployed a weighty argument. ::)
There's obviously a missing link between a contemporary photo and million of years old dinosaurs at the very least.
And tectonics is a reality, measured and proved.
-
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.
This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.
This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.
Have you even checked out the definition of clade?
If there is a species that is an ancestor, either extinct or not, of both species you are comparing, they belong to the same clade.
Even wikipedia has this definition nice and simple so you can understand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade)
And what kind of biologist are you, who does not know that all animals share gene structures? It is by now such common knowledge that the whole tree of evolution of species has been revised based on this scientific evidence. If you want to use the term "clade" with any precision at all you have to mention how far into the tree you want to go looking for that common ancestor. In fact, if you want to go all the way to some time after Abiogenesis, you can consider yourself part of the same clade as a bacteria, a plant or a fungus.
Please stop using faulty examples of clades. I'm happy you can clap your hands are realize some gene sequences are highly conserved (it appears you think this is something new) but do not try and pretend humans can be classified as fish.
-
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.
This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.
This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.
Have you even checked out the definition of clade?
If there is a species that is an ancestor, either extinct or not, of both species you are comparing, they belong to the same clade.
Even wikipedia has this definition nice and simple so you can understand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade)
And what kind of biologist are you, who does not know that all animals share gene structures? It is by now such common knowledge that the whole tree of evolution of species has been revised based on this scientific evidence. If you want to use the term "clade" with any precision at all you have to mention how far into the tree you want to go looking for that common ancestor. In fact, if you want to go all the way to some time after Abiogenesis, you can consider yourself part of the same clade as a bacteria, a plant or a fungus.
Please stop using faulty examples of clades. I'm happy you can clap your hands are realize some gene sequences are highly conserved (it appears you think this is something new) but do not try and pretend humans can be classified as fish.
I am not even interested in classification. My point is that the definition of clade only requires a common ancestor, and therefore the definition of what classifies with what is quite arbitrary. What makes the common ancestor between a dinosaur and a bird "close enough" and the common ancestor between a lizard and a human "not close enough"? There has to be a classification so the living beings can be studied, but the exact place where the divisions are placed is arbitrary.
-
My point is that the definition of clade only requires a common ancestor
And your 'point' is completely wrong, as I pointed out earlier:
It is not a question of common ancestry. There are many species with whom we share common ancestry, without sharing the same clade. Please at least read the links you so condescendingly present.
Dinosaurs represent a clade, and birds are part of that clade. Therefore, birds are dinosaurs. Humans and fish, despite distant common ancestry, are nevertheless not the part of the same clade, which is why neither we nor fish are considered fishumans.
-
It is a wild guess to imagine what dinosaurs could have done more than 60 million years ago. It canonly be hypothesis, not zetetic work.
Tectonics is much more interesting because the Earth (lands and seas) have been entirely cartographied and we know for sure that the old world and the new world are drifting apart, at a rate of a couple centimetre each year, which gives, if we rewind the clock, a much more plausible theory of a single continent.
Problem solved!
-
I fail to see why plate tectonics are not compatible with a flat earth. Indeed, the whole idea of Pangea seems to present problems for globularism. Imagine what effect having so much land mass on one side of a spinning, whirling globe would have on it's movement. The wobbling would be alarming. I can't even imagine the stresses on the earth. Would not the spinning prevent such a lopsided creation to begin with? How did a spinning, accreting globe manage to so unevenly accumulate?
What problems I do have with tectonic theory lie in the details. Again, this is not to say that plate tectonics is not true. I rather think it may be or that something very similar may be. Yet I find the assumptions we make the process ridiculous. It (like so many other things) has become scientific dogma. Scientific Orthodoxy refuses to allow itself to doubt. It must assign an answer to everything and shout down any opposing view. The whole idea is only a few decades old, but the idea is already entrenched. I'm willing to bet that you and most have gone through your entire scholastic career(s) without encountering any of the evidence against the prevailing plate tectonic theory, subduction, sea floor spreading, paleomagnetism, etc., without the hint that such evidence might even exist.
The issue demonstrates everything wrong with Scientific Orthodoxy today, and the struggles of the many proponents of alternative theories or variations of tectonic-action to tectonic orthodoxy mirror that of the flat earth movement.
-
I fail to see why plate tectonics are not compatible with a flat earth. Indeed, the whole idea of Pangea seems to present problems for globularism. Imagine what effect having so much land mass on one side of a spinning, whirling globe would have on it's movement. The wobbling would be alarming. I can't even imagine the stresses on the earth. Would not the spinning prevent such a lopsided creation to begin with? How did a spinning, accreting globe manage to so unevenly accumulate?
Same goes with FET.
What problems I do have with tectonic theory lie in the details. Again, this is not to say that plate tectonics is not true. I rather think it may be or that something very similar may be. Yet I find the assumptions we make the process ridiculous. It (like so many other things) has become scientific dogma. Scientific Orthodoxy refuses to allow itself to doubt. It must assign an answer to everything and shout down any opposing view. The whole idea is only a few decades old, but the idea is already entrenched. I'm willing to bet that you and most have gone through your entire scholastic career(s) without encountering any of the evidence against the prevailing plate tectonic theory, subduction, sea floor spreading, paleomagnetism, etc., without the hint that such evidence might even exist.
The issue demonstrates everything wrong with Scientific Orthodoxy today, and the struggles of the many proponents of alternative theories or variations of tectonic-action to tectonic orthodoxy mirror that of the flat earth movement.
It is not what you call "Scientific Orthodoxy". Tectonic is the accepted theory until proven otherwise.
-
No, it's the accepted scientific theory, and damn the evidence that might suggest otherwise.
-
No, it's the accepted scientific theory, and damn the evidence that might suggest otherwise.
What evidence suggests otherwise?
-
I'm willing to bet that you and most have gone through your entire scholastic career(s) without encountering any of the evidence against the prevailing plate tectonic theory, subduction, sea floor spreading, paleomagnetism, etc., without the hint that such evidence might even exist.
I seem especially prescient today...
-
I'm willing to bet that you and most have gone through your entire scholastic career(s) without encountering any of the evidence against the prevailing plate tectonic theory, subduction, sea floor spreading, paleomagnetism, etc., without the hint that such evidence might even exist.
I seem especially prescient today...
No, it's the accepted scientific theory, and damn the evidence that might suggest otherwise.
I'm sorry but I'm confused. Do you have evidence that plate tectonics does not occur or are you saying that you have never encountered evidence that it does? They are two completely different things and I'm not sure of what you're trying to say.
-
There is plenty of "anomalous" evidence that plate tectonics do not work, or do not work in quite the same way proposed by orthodoxy. As I suspected, you don't even know that such evidence exists because it is swept under the rug.
The discussion really highlights what is wrong with the modern religion of "science". As Zark suggest, all evidence and competing theories now need to "disprove" tectonic plates and are not allowed to stand (or fall) on their own merit. Instead, they must achieve the near insurmountable task of "disproving" a theory that gradually perverts itself while never questioning the presumptions that underlie it.
-
There is plenty of "anomalous" evidence that plate tectonics do not work, or do not work in quite the same way proposed by orthodoxy. As I suspected, you don't even know that such evidence exists because it is swept under the rug.
The discussion really highlights what is wrong with the modern religion of "science". As Zark suggest, all evidence and competing theories now need to "disprove" tectonic plates and are not allowed to stand (or fall) on their own merit. Instead, they must achieve the near insurmountable task of "disproving" a theory that gradually perverts itself while never questioning the presumptions that underlie it.
Nice rant; facts now.
Why should there be a lie about tectonics?
-
There is plenty of "anomalous" evidence that plate tectonics do not work, or do not work in quite the same way proposed by orthodoxy. As I suspected, you don't even know that such evidence exists because it is swept under the rug.
Again, what evidence are you referring to?
The discussion really highlights what is wrong with the modern religion of "science". As Zark suggest, all evidence and competing theories now need to "disprove" tectonic plates and are not allowed to stand (or fall) on their own merit. Instead, they must achieve the near insurmountable task of "disproving" a theory that gradually perverts itself while never questioning the presumptions that underlie it.
No, competing theories do not need to disprove anything. They just need to have have better way of explaining the evidence.
-
Nice rant; facts now.
Why should there be a lie about tectonics?
I don't know that there is a lie, per se, about plate tectonics. There is no problem accommodating the theory with a flat earth, in my opinion. I shouldn't be surprised if something very much like the plate tectonic theory is true. What I'm saying is that the idea is so entrenched that opposing theories and contradictory evidence is swept under the rug and ignored. Doubt must never enter the mind of the modern scientist or heaven forbid the plebian and unwashed public. The problem is the scientific community and the aura of infallibility that has been built around several assumptions. It is very much like in cosmology where instead of examining the underlying assumptions in one's model, orthodoxy has now introduced completely undetectable hypothetical matter in such amounts as to represent 90% of the universe to make the facts fit the model and not the other way around. Heaven forbid someone think that maybe if you have to invent nine times the amount of observed matter in the universe (which according to prevailing opinion is "astronomically" huge, mind you) the problem might be with the model and not the data. If you've delved into tectonic theory beyond your wiki-education, you've no doubt seen the same process at work in plate tectonics.
-
What I'm saying is that the idea is so entrenched that opposing theories and contradictory evidence is swept under the rug and ignored.
I hate to echo Markjo, but as someone who admittedly did go through his entire scholastic career being taught that plate tectonics was fact and not being told any of the opposing theories or contradictory evidence, I'm very curious to see some examples.
-
Nice rant; facts now.
Why should there be a lie about tectonics?
I don't know that there is a lie, per se, about plate tectonics. There is no problem accommodating the theory with a flat earth, in my opinion. I shouldn't be surprised if something very much like the plate tectonic theory is true. What I'm saying is that the idea is so entrenched that opposing theories and contradictory evidence is swept under the rug and ignored. Doubt must never enter the mind of the modern scientist or heaven forbid the plebian and unwashed public. The problem is the scientific community and the aura of infallibility that has been built around several assumptions. It is very much like in cosmology where instead of examining the underlying assumptions in one's model, orthodoxy has now introduced completely undetectable hypothetical matter in such amounts as to represent 90% of the universe to make the facts fit the model and not the other way around. Heaven forbid someone think that maybe if you have to invent nine times the amount of observed matter in the universe (which according to prevailing opinion is "astronomically" huge, mind you) the problem might be with the model and not the data. If you've delved into tectonic theory beyond your wiki-education, you've no doubt seen the same process at work in plate tectonics.
You should read some history of the sciences before saying such nonsense.
Look a little big in the story of The big bang and of Fred Hoyle. You'll 2 theories debating and fighting each other, in contradiction with what you think.
-
What I'm saying is that the idea is so entrenched that opposing theories and contradictory evidence is swept under the rug and ignored.
I hate to echo Markjo, but as someone who admittedly did go through his entire scholastic career being taught that plate tectonics was fact and not being told any of the opposing theories or contradictory evidence, I'm very curious to see some examples.
Wikipedia, for example, tells us simply that the lithosphere floats atop a molten asthenosphere Decades of work such as "Jordan (1978). Composition and development of the continental tectosphere", "Jordan, T. H. (1979). The deep structure of the continents", and "Pollack & Chapman (1977). On the regional variation of heat flow, geotherms, and lithospheric thickness" show us that the asthenosphere is quite thin or absent beneath the roots of the plates. Orthodoxy would have the depth of the continental crust at 40-70km thick. Yet most modern seismic topography shows roots of the continents extending at least 400km depth. In some cases like "Gossler, J., & Kind, R. (1996 ). Seismic evidence for very deep roots of continents", we see depths of up to 660km observed. With the absence of the asthenosphere beneath, Nina Pavlenkova (among others) suggests the crust is rooted in the mantle itself and that the long-distance movement of lithospheric plates in one piece is "utterly impossible" to use her words.
Paleomagnetism is another field cited as "proof" of plate tectonics, yet surveys show that the anomalies are ovals, not lines, and that in many cases there are no ridges to accompany them. Many are oblique to the ridge they are found near and less than half are symmetrical to their associated ridges.
It is clear that there is much and more that we have no clue about and no explanation for, yet orthodoxy would give us a simple and arbitrary picture of the continents and pangea in a book without the slightest hint that there are difficulties. Apparently no one here made it through geology class hearing the slightest hint that something might be awry with our understanding of plate tectonics.
-
My point is that the definition of clade only requires a common ancestor
And your 'point' is completely wrong, as I pointed out earlier:
It is not a question of common ancestry. There are many species with whom we share common ancestry, without sharing the same clade. Please at least read the links you so condescendingly present.
Dinosaurs represent a clade, and birds are part of that clade. Therefore, birds are dinosaurs. Humans and fish, despite distant common ancestry, are nevertheless not the part of the same clade, which is why neither we nor fish are considered fishumans.
It is you who should read a little about clades and cladistics. Essentially every living being shares a clade with every other being, and the question is not whether there is a common ancestor, but how far back in history it is.
From the very same place you said I had quoted but not read: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics)
A clade is a group of taxa consisting only of an ancestor taxon and all of its descendant taxa. In the diagram provided (a cladogram), it is hypothesized that all vertebrates, including ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii), had a common ancestor all of whose descendants were vertebrates, and so form a clade. Within the vertebrates, all tetrapods, including amphibians, mammals, reptiles (as traditionally defined) and birds are hypothesized to have had a common ancestor all of whose descendants were tetrapods, and so also form a clade. The tetrapod ancestor was a descendant of the original vertebrate ancestor, but is not an ancestor of any ray-finned fish living today.
Which brings us to the question: Where on Earth did you read that fish and humans are not in the same clade? I have my sources and actually read what I quote. Why don't you?
-
You have yet to justify
we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans.
There are very clear reasons why humans are not considered fish, rats, or orangutans. Having a common ancestor doesn't change that and it never has.
-
You have yet to justify we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans.
There are very clear reasons why humans are not considered fish, rats, or orangutans. Having a common ancestor doesn't change that and it never has.
Have the common courtesy to quote with precision and within context. Since you are not doing so, you do not even deserve an answer. There is a difference between belonging to the same clade and being the same.
-
we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans
-
we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans
Your answer to a request for a quote in full context is the exact quote taken out of context. How mature. I don't even remember saying those words. I did say you are misusing the whole idea of clade. If you still claim I said what you wrote, give us the exact place so we can all see if you took it out of context.
-
How am I misusing the idea of a clade? Please quote anything that suggests such is the case.
-
Okay, this little sub-debate really needs to die.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science.
http://10000birds.com/are-birds-really-dinosaurs.htm
In the meantime, rest assured that not only are birds really dinosaurs, but that this is much less strange than it sounds when you realize that very many dinosaurs, typically not the ones you see on TV and in movies, were actually very bird-like in some rather unexpected ways.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinosaur.html
• Dinosaurs are not extinct. Technically. Based on features of the skeleton, most people studying dinosaurs consider birds to be dinosaurs. This shocking realization makes even the smallest hummingbird a legitimate dinosaur. So rather than refer to "dinosaurs" and birds as discrete, separate groups, it is best to refer to the traditional, extinct animals as "non-avian dinosaurs" and birds as, well, birds, or "avian dinosaurs." It is incorrect to say that dinosaurs are extinct, because they have left living descendants in the form of cockatoos, cassowaries, and their pals — just like modern vertebrates are still vertebrates even though their Cambrian ancestors are long extinct.
See, Trig? According to most people who study dinosaurs, birds are dinosaurs, and no amount of semantic gameplaying on your part is going to change that this is a fact.
-
See, Trig? According to most people who study dinosaurs, birds are dinosaurs, and no amount of semantic gameplaying on your part is going to change that this is a fact.
I am not disputing that in some classifications birds are dinosaurs. That is a judgment call, since every animal we used to call a dinosaur is extinct, and a common ancestor to both the likes of the T. Rex and the modern bird is absolutely accepted to have existed. Whether you believe that common ancestor is close enough to warrant the use of the name "dinosaur" for both is not a matter that keeps me awake.
What I am disputing is the false definition of clade that some in this forum have adopted. They have jumped to say that Jurassic dinosaurs and modern birds are in the same clade (which is true, since there was a common ancestor to both) and that humans and fish are not in the same clade (which is totally false, since there was a common ancestor to both).
If you do not qualify your assertions about clades you have to say that every living being, from the bacteria to the human, belong to the same clade, since it is generally accepted that there is a common ancestor to all living beings.
You can safely say that humans and fish do not belong to any common clade which started after the Cretaceous, but you cannot say that there are no clades with humans and fish. That is, after all, the very definition of a tree (in mathematics).
-
Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.
Here is your misuse of the term "clade". All living beings share genes and structures. So much so, that even some or all bacteria share genes with humans, and this is why they are able to fool human cells into producing bacteria.
You are deciding that, by magic, those species you like fall within your "preserving genes and structures" clause and not the others. That is Biology of the worst kind.
-
Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.
Here is your misuse of the term "clade". All living beings share genes and structures. So much so, that even some or all bacteria share genes with humans, and this is why they are able to fool human cells into producing bacteria.
You are deciding that, by magic, those species you like fall within your "preserving genes and structures" clause and not the others. That is Biology of the worst kind.
In that sentence I have not defined a clade I am simply remarking that because you have a common ancestor doesn't mean 'lolol I can classify things however I want! Bacteria are fish because they have a common ancestor!'
-
Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.
Here is your misuse of the term "clade". All living beings share genes and structures. So much so, that even some or all bacteria share genes with humans, and this is why they are able to fool human cells into producing bacteria.
You are deciding that, by magic, those species you like fall within your "preserving genes and structures" clause and not the others. That is Biology of the worst kind.
In that sentence I have not defined a clade I am simply remarking that because you have a common ancestor doesn't mean 'lolol I can classify things however I want! Bacteria are fish because they have a common ancestor!'
I have quoted the definition of clade, Check here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clade) if you want another definition. You are the one who wants to impose the definition that comes out of your head. Sorry if Merriam-Webster does not agree with you. You are trying to confuse the subject of classification just because you do not like the current classification.
And I have never said bacteria are fish. I said there is a common ancestor to bacteria and fish. Just as there is a common ancestor to T. Rex and modern birds.
T. Rex and modern birds share the same phylum, which says little about the common ancestor of both. And humans and fish also share the phylum Chordata. This just tells us that classification is just a small part of the story. Somebody had to place names for the living beings without the benefit of DNA analysis, so any classification is better than nothing. And your "birds are dinosaurs" claim is just a cry to change the rather poor current classification system to a slightly improved, but still poor classification system.
-
How can I impose a definition if I never gave one?
Actually being a dinosaur requires unique characteristics which makes it very useful. Chordates all share unifying characteristics specific to their grouping. It is important to distinguish them from other organisms without nerve cords in their life cycle. Or do you claim that is not important?
Your whole argument is a bunch of whinging without really saying anything.
"Things conserve DNA sequences!" Well no shit.
Birds are dinosaurs because they exhibit the unique characteristics of dinosaurs.
-
Can we please get back to the dinosaur discussion? Taxonomy is hardly part of FET.
-
I think that it's interesting that the modern day dinosaurs are all of the flying type. Considering the hypothesis that there are walking dinosaurs across the ice plane, could it be that the walking dinosaurs do not allow flying dinosaurs to join their kind? Are dinosaurs racist? There are examples of modern day dinosaurs turned racist against black people, did they get this from their walking brethren?
racist dinosaur (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RmVj9l04J94#t=130s)
-
Did flightless birds not evolve from dinosaurs? I apologize if that was already discussed, but I don't want to go searching back through this thread.
-
Did flightless birds not evolve from dinosaurs? I apologize if that was already discussed, but I don't want to go searching back through this thread.
Flightless dinosaurs can't be found here anymore. You have some lazy dinosaurs though.
-
There are flightless birds/dinosaurs. ???
-
There are flightless birds/dinosaurs. ???
They are lazy. If they wanted they could fly.
-
James,
I post the link for you as a resource for your Theory on Dinosaurs Project. More and more data is becoming available that will be useful.
http://www.amnh.org/explore/science-topics/birds-are-dinosaurs (http://www.amnh.org/explore/science-topics/birds-are-dinosaurs)
Best,
g