James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 379664 Views
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #870 on: September 15, 2010, 03:44:09 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #871 on: September 15, 2010, 03:51:39 PM »
Here is up-to-date photographic evidence of a dinosaur travelling on a wooden boat which it has built:



Since when was a nest a boat? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3555
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #872 on: September 15, 2010, 04:01:57 PM »

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #873 on: September 15, 2010, 04:03:37 PM »
Birds are considered dinosaurs.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
Just like humans are considered fish. So do you have a point?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3555
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #874 on: September 15, 2010, 04:06:15 PM »
Birds are considered dinosaurs.

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.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #875 on: September 15, 2010, 04:06:34 PM »
Birds are considered dinosaurs.

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.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #876 on: September 15, 2010, 04:09:47 PM »
Birds are considered dinosaurs.

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).
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #877 on: September 15, 2010, 04:20:14 PM »
Birds are considered dinosaurs.

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.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #878 on: September 15, 2010, 04:22:31 PM »
Birds are considered dinosaurs.

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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #879 on: September 15, 2010, 04:41:43 PM »
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
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #880 on: September 15, 2010, 06:21:38 PM »
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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #881 on: September 15, 2010, 06:26:26 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #882 on: September 15, 2010, 07:21:36 PM »
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.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #883 on: September 15, 2010, 09:35:56 PM »
for a wolf to turn into a whale

wat

Plus, evolution has evidence, dinosaurs building ocean-going boats does not.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #884 on: September 15, 2010, 11:10:50 PM »
Birds are considered dinosaurs.

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.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #885 on: September 15, 2010, 11:17:16 PM »
Birds are dinosaurs.  Strange, but true.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #886 on: September 15, 2010, 11:34:07 PM »
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.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #887 on: September 15, 2010, 11:41:18 PM »
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.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #888 on: September 16, 2010, 12:08:13 AM »

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #889 on: September 16, 2010, 12:48:43 AM »
Birds are considered dinosaurs.

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?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #890 on: September 16, 2010, 03:03:05 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2010, 10:45:45 AM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #891 on: September 16, 2010, 06:22:49 AM »
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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #892 on: September 16, 2010, 08:37:15 AM »
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.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #893 on: September 16, 2010, 10:39:01 AM »
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.



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.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #894 on: September 16, 2010, 10:52:55 AM »
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.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #895 on: September 16, 2010, 11:01:54 AM »
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.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #896 on: September 16, 2010, 11:10:31 AM »
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.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #897 on: September 16, 2010, 11:35:50 AM »
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.

Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #898 on: September 16, 2010, 11:49:34 AM »
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.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #899 on: September 16, 2010, 12:31:03 PM »
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?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.