Trig, you seem to be the fairest of the RE'rs in this forum. Thank you for your professionalism. I offer you the following:
An invalid argument is one that lacks evidence. I accept many theories that I do not personally favor because the evidence supports them.
My argument regarding the extrapolation of data exists only when the known data is less than 1/100,000,000,000,000 of the frame to which it is applied. I do not believe this is science. You think I am arrogant because of the fallacies in your logic? I have stated the fallacies yet you continue to accept them blindly as truth and use them to support your theory. I do know that calling me ?stupid? because I disagree with the conclusion of your data is not scientific.
I am very familiar with the regurgitation of articles and the same data being parsed in different ways. It has been the same for the last twenty five to thirty years. I know these theories and the data well.
I would like to address your points individually:
Hypothesis ?
Dinosaur fossils exist world-wide because the Earth was once a ?Pangea?
Observation ?
1) there are similar fossils located around the world.
2) South America and Africa seem to fit together.
3) Geological stratum in these ?matching? areas are similar.
4) the polarity of the stratum indicates a precise match.
5) We can measure the movement of the continents.
6) Isotope decay proves the continental drift theory.
Conclusion ? the Earth was once a ?Pangea?
Consider the following:
1) I agree with this.
2) I disagree that they ?fit together?. A close review of the perceived connection demonstrates that this ?fit? is not possible. The northern portion of the continent does not fit in a manner consistent with the remainder of the continent. When you ?zoom out? to a higher level the tessellation seems more acceptable but then you must account for the twisting and tilting that has to occur for the ?fit? to take place. It is not acceptable, in my mind, to play with the continents like a jigsaw puzzle.
3) I agree that geological stratum are consistent in some of these ?matched? areas of the world. How do you explain the consistency of geological stratum in places that do not ?match?? Also, how do you explain the lack of consistency in places where the stratum should ?match?? All areas that should ?match? must be consistent for your theory to be correct. This is not the case.
4) This observation is true in many instances but false in others. The same issues discussed in 3) apply here as well.
5) No, you extrapolated less than one hundred years of movement to a period in excess of three billion years.
6) The decay tables used as a basis for the aging process use similar extrapolation methods where one short time period of decay is applied to a substantially longer time period.
In actuality your only evidence is that the same dinosaur fossils are located around the world. This can be used to prove that their migration occurred in a different manner. I think this is fair.
In science the models are what tell us what can be extrapolated and what cannot. Your dislike does not play any part in the decision.
The model of the nucleus of atoms has been proposed, then tested by experimentation and observation in countless occasions, and in fact has been perfected to the point where the atomic bomb could be developed and much more. We do note extrapolate the concentrations of radioactive substances into the past just because we feel like doing it. We know which conditions alter the half-lives of these substances and we know when our predictions are highly reliable and when they are not.
When you decide that an extrapolation cannot be extended into the remote past without having the model into account you are throwing away the scientific method altogether. Some extrapolations cannot be extended into next (or last) month, like most climate predictions you see in the news, some can be extrapolated almost without limit, like the ones regarding nucleus of atoms that are not being bombarded by significant amounts of radiation.
And you are right about one thing: extrapolating current continental drift, without taking any other evidence into account, is valid only for a few thousand years, or maybe less. The current model of continental drift, including the method of creation of new land, the model of creation of mountains on the opposite side of the tectonic plate, the model of the core of this planet, all together, do support the theory of continental drift that moved land and sea floor for thousands of kilometers. These theories, taken all as a whole, have been used to predict a whole lot of phenomena that has then been seen.
When your "theory" of intelligent dinosaurs becomes a model that can then go through the scientific method you will have something. For now you only have the the "I do not like it " argument, against which we can always tell you to see the evidence as a scientist or keep your theory to yourself.
And if you do not like radioactive decay as explained and used to date rocks, you will have to show the physical forces that change the way radioactive nucleus function, not just say "the known data is less than 1/100,000,000,000,000 of the frame to which it is applied". There are more than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of oxygen in the atmosphere, but I do not say "wait a minute, what if the atoms of oxygen I am breathing today are poisonous?"