James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 380118 Views
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #210 on: November 24, 2009, 11:52:41 AM »
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
That would be a simulation of the fabric of space-time bending back upon itself

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #211 on: November 24, 2009, 11:57:57 AM »

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?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #212 on: November 24, 2009, 12:41:59 PM »

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.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #213 on: November 24, 2009, 12:50:40 PM »
You're way ahead of me in the theory.  I never thought of the colonization voyages being the result of a catastrophic event.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #214 on: November 24, 2009, 01:00:39 PM »

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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #215 on: November 24, 2009, 01:02:35 PM »
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.
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.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #216 on: November 24, 2009, 01:36:36 PM »

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 

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #217 on: November 24, 2009, 02:00:27 PM »

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.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #218 on: November 24, 2009, 03:26:14 PM »

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.
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.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #219 on: November 24, 2009, 03:31:52 PM »
I disagree there.  I don't think advanced metallurgy need be included.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #220 on: November 24, 2009, 04:30:22 PM »
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).
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 #221 on: November 24, 2009, 06:45:57 PM »
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


?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #222 on: November 24, 2009, 07:35:42 PM »
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?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #223 on: November 25, 2009, 04:44:09 AM »
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:


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 want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #224 on: November 25, 2009, 06:51:56 AM »
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.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #225 on: November 25, 2009, 07:19:40 AM »
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.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #226 on: November 25, 2009, 07:32:42 AM »
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.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #227 on: November 25, 2009, 07:44:01 AM »
There's always sails.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #228 on: November 25, 2009, 07:49:20 AM »
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".
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #229 on: November 25, 2009, 09:49:56 AM »
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

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.

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.

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.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #230 on: November 25, 2009, 11:45:56 AM »
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.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #231 on: November 25, 2009, 12:06:13 PM »
I think people are overlooking the significance of Trig's comment about marine fossils being found inland.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #232 on: November 25, 2009, 12:43:32 PM »
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.
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 #233 on: November 25, 2009, 12:50:07 PM »
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..

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #234 on: November 25, 2009, 12:53:31 PM »
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.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #235 on: November 25, 2009, 01:21:28 PM »
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.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #236 on: November 25, 2009, 03:11:27 PM »
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?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #237 on: November 25, 2009, 04:40:11 PM »
Are you equating opposable thumbs with sewing ability?

Yes.  Among other things, such as thread making.
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.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #238 on: November 25, 2009, 04:44:56 PM »
The Bambiraptor is thought to have had opposable thumbs.  If one had them, others could have had them also.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #239 on: November 25, 2009, 04:54:33 PM »
The Giraffe is thought to have had a long neck.  If one had them, others could have had them also.

???