James's theory on dinosaurs

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 01:26:24 PM

"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 

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".

...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...  

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?

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.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:25:20 PM

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

Quote

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.

Quote from: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:33:39 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:25:20 PM

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.

Quote from: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:33:39 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:25:20 PM

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.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:37:42 PM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:33:39 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:25:20 PM

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.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:34:40 PM

Quote

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.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 02:43:05 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:34:40 PM

Quote

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.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 12:08:25 PM

Quote

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?

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:06:26 PM

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

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:06:26 PM

Then you resort to name calling?

You resorted to name calling long ago. Don't think it went unnoticed.

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 cannot provide one instance where I resorted to name-calling. This is absolutely false.

To "Lice Farm"...

I will repeat again, I never said the continents did not move.

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?

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?

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 06:25:33 PM

...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.

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?

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.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 06:26:41 PM

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.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 06:26:41 PM

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.

• 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.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:50:57 PM

You cannot provide one instance where I resorted to name-calling. This is absolutely false.

Orly?

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 02:01:08 PM

To "Lice Farm"...

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:50:57 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 12:42:31 PM

Quote

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.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 04:03:24 PM

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.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 09:40:34 AM

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?

Quote from: JBJosh on December 08, 2009, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 04:03:24 PM

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.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 09:40:34 AM

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.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:33:19 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 08, 2009, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 04:03:24 PM

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.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 09:40:34 AM

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.