James's theory on dinosaurs

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:14:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 18, 2010, 09:15:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 06:00:20 AM

First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.

I'm sorry, but what in the fossil record suggests that any dinosaur had the intelligence and manual dexterity required to build seaworthy boats?  For all the "evidence" you've presented, you could just as easily say that aliens transported and raised the flora and fauna in question and the argument would be just as plausible.

Not true. Just for starters, there is no fossil record of alien life-forms on Earth.

That's because aliens would be smart enough not to get not to get fossilized.

So they were smart enough to get fossilized? 

That's it Tom, focus on the grammatical errors, that's the important thing here.

Willy, you've pointed out that the continents could fit together rather easily, therefore it is easy to understand how they could have all been connected once upon a time. Then go on to state that the whole theory is impossible? Whilst maintaining that Dino-yachts existed?

Get a grip, you're a walking contradiction, and it's not contributing to the discussion.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:48:55 PM

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".

Quote from: Canadark on January 18, 2010, 02:13:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:48:55 PM

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".

Nit-picking over semantics has no place in this serious forum.

Quote from: Canadark on January 18, 2010, 02:13:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:48:55 PM

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".

Yes, but "scholarly" implies a greater level of critical analysis (and therefore a higher likelihood of truth) than just claiming "it is because I say it is", does it not?

Quote from: James on January 19, 2010, 12:09:25 PM

Quote from: Canadark on January 18, 2010, 02:13:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:48:55 PM

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".

Nit-picking over semantics has no place in this serious forum.

It's not 'nit-picking'. Canadark is treating 'scholarly' sources as if they have more merit than anything James has written. The point is, there is no greater standard than truth. Plenty of 'scholarly' research is totally incorrect, in any field.

It's not 'nit-picking'. Canadark is treating 'scholarly' sources as if they have more merit than anything James has written. The point is, there is no greater standard than truth. Plenty of 'scholarly' research is totally incorrect, in any field.

Canadark's use of the word "scholarly" clearly carries the intended meaning of being sources with extremely good credentials in the field of learning. Yeah, technically that might not be the exact correct usage of the word, but jumping on him for that IS nit-picking semantics.
I think in a debate where the only argument is "oh yes it is" versus "oh no it isn't" with equal weight to either side, it makes more logical sense to side with the debater with the most demonstrably correct past history, as the probability of them being correct is greater, even though they may be wrong sometimes. Since James is only a few millimetres away from the box marked Crazed Lunatic, it makes the chances of anything he writes having any merit whatsoever extremely slim. A man who makes the claim that the Moon through a telescope resembles a flat disc and not a spherical object with terrain features is not a reliable witness for anything at all.

It's not 'nit-picking'. Canadark is treating 'scholarly' sources as if they have more merit than anything James has written. The point is, there is no greater standard than truth. Plenty of 'scholarly' research is totally incorrect, in any field.

As the Jedi master once said, truth is often a matter of your point of view.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 19, 2010, 02:40:25 PM

Quote from: James on January 19, 2010, 12:09:25 PM

Quote from: Canadark on January 18, 2010, 02:13:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:48:55 PM

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".

Nit-picking over semantics has no place in this serious forum.

It's not 'nit-picking'. Canadark is treating 'scholarly' sources as if they have more merit than anything James has written. The point is, there is no greater standard than truth. Plenty of 'scholarly' research is totally incorrect, in any field.

I wasn't equating the two terms, although perhaps "evidence" would have been a better word than "proof". However, if I have two doctors who are trying to prescribe me two different forms of medication and one of the doctors has a medical degree, a medical license, and years of experience in the medical field and the other one bases his suggestion on assumptions about physical anatomy that have been rejected by modern medicine for the better part of the last millennium (as well as what he reads on really strange forums on the internet), I'm going to side with the first guy. There isn't a 50-50 chance that one is right and the other is wrong; I want the quack to take a hike.

It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".

Wikipedia is not referencing bana undergraduate dissertations.

Nothing you have produced is "true" by any stretch of the imagination.

If it were it might have got some scholarly attention.

Hypothesis or theory,  it merits more than just compulsive skepticism disguised as clear-sightedness.  I support James and I think there are others, Ski for instance.

I do not personally subscribe to the sea-faring dinosaur theories, nor do I have a problem with plate tectonics. I do find James's hypothesis to be plausible, however, and worth some thought.

I really can't subscribe to a theory that requires boats to exist for millions of years. I own a boat and it doesn't look like it could last that long. Any explanation for this?

I really can't subscribe to a theory that requires boats to exist for millions of years. I own a boat and it doesn't look like it could last that long. Any explanation for this?

Dinosaurs had hands that were adapted to barnacle scraping and brushing on tar. As shown in this image:



Fossil evidence proves that they adapted wings as primitive brushes and hardened claws to scrape barnacles. They also used their brushes to shave, because sea voyages would last a long time. You do not have a barnacle scraping tar brush hand. This proves conclusively that dinosaurs built boats.

Quote from: Raist on January 24, 2010, 07:19:29 AM

I really can't subscribe to a theory that requires boats to exist for millions of years. I own a boat and it doesn't look like it could last that long. Any explanation for this?

Dinosaurs had hands that were adapted to barnacle scraping and brushing on tar. As shown in this image:



Fossil evidence proves that they adapted wings as primitive brushes and hardened claws to scrape barnacles. They also used their brushes to shave, because sea voyages would last a long time. You do not have a barnacle scraping tar brush hand. This proves conclusively that dinosaurs built boats.

Did you not read my post? I somehow doubt boats could exist for that long.

Quote from: Crustinator on January 24, 2010, 09:33:37 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 24, 2010, 07:19:29 AM

I really can't subscribe to a theory that requires boats to exist for millions of years. I own a boat and it doesn't look like it could last that long. Any explanation for this?

Dinosaurs had hands that were adapted to barnacle scraping and brushing on tar. As shown in this image:



Fossil evidence proves that they adapted wings as primitive brushes and hardened claws to scrape barnacles. They also used their brushes to shave, because sea voyages would last a long time. You do not have a barnacle scraping tar brush hand. This proves conclusively that dinosaurs built boats.

Did you not read my post? I somehow doubt boats could exist for that long.

I believe he was using humor to show the fallacy of James' reasoning and how his arguments are clearly sad attempts to show that a physical trait of a dinosaur was used for a highly specialized purpose, while completely lacking evidence of such. 

Crustinator's only gaffe was his obvious lack of knowledge of dinosaurs discovery of fire, which they had observed in nature for millions of years.  As they had far longer to study and adapt with this tool it is only logical that they became master metal workers and that the increase in dino-piracy would have made a more likely dino-ship appear as below.

Quote from: Raist on January 24, 2010, 08:35:22 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on January 24, 2010, 09:33:37 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 24, 2010, 07:19:29 AM

I really can't subscribe to a theory that requires boats to exist for millions of years. I own a boat and it doesn't look like it could last that long. Any explanation for this?

Dinosaurs had hands that were adapted to barnacle scraping and brushing on tar. As shown in this image:



Fossil evidence proves that they adapted wings as primitive brushes and hardened claws to scrape barnacles. They also used their brushes to shave, because sea voyages would last a long time. You do not have a barnacle scraping tar brush hand. This proves conclusively that dinosaurs built boats.

Did you not read my post? I somehow doubt boats could exist for that long.

I believe he was using humor to show the fallacy of James' reasoning and how his arguments are clearly sad attempts to show that a physical trait of a dinosaur was used for a highly specialized purpose, while completely lacking evidence of such. 

Crustinator's only gaffe was his obvious lack of knowledge of dinosaurs discovery of fire, which they had observed in nature for millions of years.  As they had far longer to study and adapt with this tool it is only logical that they became master metal workers and that the increase in dino-piracy would have made a more likely dino-ship appear as below.

How could dinosaurs have studied fire? Fire last for a few hours at most, and that was, again, millions of years ago.

How could dinosaurs have studied fire? Fire last for a few hours at most, and that was, again, millions of years ago.

In the exact same way that they built a series of ocean going vessels, created a mercantile community, became farmers and raised livestock.  (They didn't)

Though, I do think fire lasts more than a few hours.

Quote from: Raist on January 25, 2010, 07:42:21 AM

How could dinosaurs have studied fire? Fire last for a few hours at most, and that was, again, millions of years ago.

In the exact same way that they built a series of ocean going vessels, created a mercantile community, became farmers and raised livestock.  (They didn't)

Though, I do think fire lasts more than a few hours.

Perhaps, but definitely not millions of years, the fuel requirements would be enormous and would require fossil fuels which dinosaurs did not have. Also their muscle structures were poorly suited for repeated quick back and forth movements needed to start fires.

Perhaps, but definitely not millions of years, the fuel requirements would be enormous and would require fossil fuels which dinosaurs did not have. Also their muscle structures were poorly suited for repeated quick back and forth movements needed to start fires.

Why does fire need to last millions of years? It is quite likely that the biggest dino-cities had watchpoints with torches that were never extinguished, these could be refueled as and when required. But even the best guesses say these would usually stay lit for 6 months, or a few years in the northern cities.

As Its a Sphere correctly points out Dinosaurs had mastered fire. They also had an abundant supply of trees and were naturally adept at using axes and the two man crosscut saw, as shown in this historical reconstruction of dinosaur techniques:



This is where we get the word "saw" from. It is a corruption of "'saur".

This proves beyond all doubt that dinosaurs were a sea faring mercantile race.

Quote from: Raist on January 25, 2010, 08:03:05 AM

Perhaps, but definitely not millions of years, the fuel requirements would be enormous and would require fossil fuels which dinosaurs did not have. Also their muscle structures were poorly suited for repeated quick back and forth movements needed to start fires.

Why does fire need to last millions of years? It is quite likely that the biggest dino-cities had watchpoints with torches that were never extinguished, these could be refueled as and when required. But even the best guesses say these would usually stay lit for 6 months, or a few years in the northern cities.

As Its a Sphere correctly points out Dinosaurs had mastered fire. They also had an abundant supply of trees and were naturally adept at using axes and the two man crosscut saw, as shown in this historical reconstruction of dinosaur techniques:



This is where we get the word "saw" from. It is a corruption of "'saur".

This proves beyond all doubt that dinosaurs were a sea faring mercantile race.

Fire can't last for millions of years. It would be incredibly old and would appear decayed.

Fire can't last for millions of years. It would be incredibly old and would appear decayed.

Wrong old fire can appear just the same as new fire. Burn a lump of coal. It is millions of years old. This was a secret understood by the dinosaurs: evidence indicates their market values for old and new fire was exactly the same.

Quote from: Raist on January 25, 2010, 09:22:00 AM

Fire can't last for millions of years. It would be incredibly old and would appear decayed.

Wrong old fire can appear just the same as new fire. Burn a lump of coal. It is millions of years old. This was a secret understood by the dinosaurs: evidence indicates their market values for old and new fire was exactly the same.

Coal IS dinosaurs. The fire isn't millions of years old, the stored energy is. Also, how can we trust the dinosaurs to tell the truth about anything especially now that we know they are causing global warming with all of their carbon?

Coal IS dinosaurs. The fire isn't millions of years old, the stored energy is. Also, how can we trust the dinosaurs to tell the truth about anything especially now that we know they are causing global warming with all of their carbon?

The dinosaurs were a noble race with many great philosophers who aside from inventing concepts such as government and freedom also took time to develop an electric individual rapid short range transportation device which predates the Segway by several billions of years. If they were capable of these feats I see no reason why we should assume they would lie.

I like this thread and the way its going now.

Quote from: Raist on January 25, 2010, 09:31:03 AM

Coal IS dinosaurs. The fire isn't millions of years old, the stored energy is. Also, how can we trust the dinosaurs to tell the truth about anything especially now that we know they are causing global warming with all of their carbon?

The dinosaurs were a noble race with many great philosophers who aside from inventing concepts such as government and freedom also took time to develop an electric individual rapid short range transportation device which predates the Segway by several billions of years. If they were capable of these feats I see no reason why we should assume they would lie.

Well, the segway is a safe energy alternative to burning dead dinosaurs in your car, so I will concede your point. They do sound like a noble race.

Coal IS dinosaurs.

No.  Coal is plants.

Coal begins as layers of plant matter accumulate at the bottom of a body of water.

Quote from: Raist on January 25, 2010, 09:31:03 AM

Coal IS dinosaurs.

No.  Coal is plants.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Coal begins as layers of plant matter accumulate at the bottom of a body of water.

And it can contain both plant and animal matter.
http://thecarbonmiracle.com/coal.html

Oooh!  A Google fight!

Quote from: Crustinator on January 25, 2010, 09:24:43 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 25, 2010, 09:22:00 AM

Fire can't last for millions of years. It would be incredibly old and would appear decayed.

Wrong old fire can appear just the same as new fire. Burn a lump of coal. It is millions of years old. This was a secret understood by the dinosaurs: evidence indicates their market values for old and new fire was exactly the same.

Coal IS dinosaurs. The fire isn't millions of years old, the stored energy is. Also, how can we trust the dinosaurs to tell the truth about anything especially now that we know they are causing global warming with all of their carbon?

Perhaps in the people-dinosaur-people-dinosaur-people cycle the coal that the dinousaurs burned was people.  It was known as soylent coal and was green in color as opposed to the black coal we burn.

Quote from: markjo on January 25, 2010, 11:20:38 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 25, 2010, 09:31:03 AM

Coal IS dinosaurs.

No.  Coal is plants.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Coal begins as layers of plant matter accumulate at the bottom of a body of water.

And it can contain both plant and animal matter.
http://thecarbonmiracle.com/coal.html

Oooh!  A Google fight!

Sure, there can be animal matter in coal, but unless dinos were buried in mass graves, I don't think that very much of the coal is indeed made of animal materail.

Socrates and Darwin were mocked for their theories too, but now who's laughing?