James's theory on dinosaurs

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.

Quote from: Pongo on March 29, 2012, 11:25:09 AM

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.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 29, 2012, 11:33:12 AM

Quote from: Pongo on March 29, 2012, 11:25:09 AM

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?

Quote from: trig on March 29, 2012, 07:49:12 AM

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!

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 29, 2012, 01:58:01 PM

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

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 29, 2012, 07:54:10 PM

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?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 29, 2012, 10:31:35 PM

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.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 30, 2012, 08:34:06 AM

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.