James's theory on dinosaurs

Quote from: Thork on March 15, 2011, 05:10:20 PM

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.

Quote from: Around And About on March 15, 2011, 03:15:59 PM

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.

Quote from: General Disarray on March 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM

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.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 15, 2011, 02:59:23 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM

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.

Quote from: General Disarray on March 15, 2011, 06:01:15 PM

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.

Quote from: General Disarray on March 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM

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?

Quote from: markjo on March 15, 2011, 07:35:34 AM

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?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on March 15, 2011, 06:35:18 AM

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

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 16, 2011, 06:42:14 AM

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.

Quote from: berny_74 on March 16, 2011, 07:36:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 16, 2011, 06:42:14 AM

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?

Quote from: berny_74 on March 16, 2011, 07:36:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 16, 2011, 06:42:14 AM

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

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 16, 2011, 08:20:37 AM

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.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 16, 2011, 08:20:37 AM

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.

Quote from: Around And About on March 16, 2011, 10:15:10 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 16, 2011, 08:20:37 AM

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.

Quote from: markjo on March 16, 2011, 08:52:34 AM

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?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 16, 2011, 12:34:11 PM

Quote from: Around And About on March 16, 2011, 10:15:10 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 16, 2011, 08:20:37 AM

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.