James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 379687 Views
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #600 on: February 15, 2010, 03:00:00 AM »
I disagree.
"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

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #601 on: February 15, 2010, 05:33:38 AM »
We should be very careful in our suppositions of the digital dexterity of dinosaurs.  The dexterity of the panda is undeniable and this is achieved by a mere small bone and a pad that works like a thumb.  We might like to suppose that the anatomical arrangement of opposable thumbs  gives us a leg up in dexterity but other configurations could have been just as serviceable.   

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #602 on: February 15, 2010, 08:08:11 AM »
In fact, other configurations have been just as successful - the nest building of birds, who have no hands let alone thumbs, as well as the extensive tool use of otters are two prime modern examples that you don't need thumbs to build things.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #603 on: February 15, 2010, 09:04:08 AM »
But yet no other modern equivalent of construction of complex machines by any of the species you mentioned.
"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 #604 on: February 15, 2010, 10:54:29 AM »
Quite obviously, observations of the tool-oriented behaviour of dinosaurs are now beyond us, however the TOB of crows is now receiving the kind and depth of study that may help us bridge that expanse of time.  "Self-conceit is our natural hereditary disease" as Montaigne opined and this human ego has been responsible for previous underestimations of the talents and abilities of other species.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #605 on: February 15, 2010, 10:58:16 AM »
I disagree.

I've never heard any credited paleontologist say that dinosaurs were physically capable of doing the tasks James says they can.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #606 on: February 15, 2010, 11:21:43 AM »
I disagree.

I've never heard any credited paleontologist say that dinosaurs were physically capable of doing the tasks James says they can.


Credited paleontologists can't even make up their minds about whether dinosaurs had feathers, or if they were warm blooded or cold blooded. It is a field where conjecture rules supreme.
"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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #607 on: February 15, 2010, 12:13:19 PM »
I disagree.

I've never heard any credited paleontologist say that dinosaurs were physically capable of doing the tasks James says they can.


Credited paleontologists can't even make up their minds about whether dinosaurs had feathers, or if they were warm blooded or cold blooded. It is a field where conjecture rules supreme.

What do the presence of feathers or the temperature of a dinosaur's blood have to do with their ability to build ships?
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17934
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #608 on: February 15, 2010, 02:36:07 PM »
If a bird can weave a water tight nest, I see no reason why a dinosaur couldn't build a boat.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #609 on: February 15, 2010, 03:23:24 PM »
In fact, boats are like large nests in many respects.

Boats are the next logical step for a nest-building society as it advances.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #610 on: February 15, 2010, 03:37:32 PM »
I see no reason badgers cannot make machine guns.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #611 on: February 15, 2010, 03:50:13 PM »
I disagree.

I've never heard any credited paleontologist say that dinosaurs were physically capable of doing the tasks James says they can.


Credited paleontologists can't even make up their minds about whether dinosaurs had feathers, or if they were warm blooded or cold blooded. It is a field where conjecture rules supreme.

This has nothing to do with the fact that not one credited paleontologist has suggested that the dinosaurs were capable of making the technologies James has said. If any dinosaurs anatomy even had a slight hint of the capabilities that you say they have, I would think someone would have said so by now.

Just because there is no absolute way to prove that they didn't build boats, it doesn't mean that you should act like they did. There is no absolute way to prove a T-Rex couldn't fire-bend. Does this mean we should assume it did?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #612 on: February 15, 2010, 06:31:12 PM »
The size of their cortex and cerebellum hinted at by their skulls definitely does not leave room for the cognitive abilities they would need to build a boat.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #613 on: February 15, 2010, 06:58:46 PM »
If a bird can weave a water tight nest, I see no reason why a dinosaur couldn't build a boat.

A nest is not a boat.  At best, a nest is a raft.
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.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #614 on: February 15, 2010, 07:12:53 PM »
The size of their cortex and cerebellum hinted at by their skulls definitely does not leave room for the cognitive abilities they would need to build a boat.

"Hinted at" says it all - we can't reliably induce anything substantial from dinosaur skull size.

Furthermore, how can you possibly estimate the physical amount of brain-matter required to have boat-building cognitive abilities? Is this the grand unveiling of Raist, dinosaur psychic? Face it, there's no way such highly specific behaviours could be ruled out by any contingencies of physical brain size, or even cortex size. At best, you might reasonably expect to make extremely broad generalisations about overall cognitive capacity, but this would be utterly muted by our complete chronological isolation from any dinosaur. We have to rely on hard fossil evidence here - and there are hundreds of coastal fossil specimens testifying to the pre-mortem Odysseys of their living embodiments.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17934
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #615 on: February 15, 2010, 07:17:01 PM »
If a bird can weave a water tight nest, I see no reason why a dinosaur couldn't build a boat.

A nest is not a boat.  At best, a nest is a raft.

And a raft is a boat.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #616 on: February 15, 2010, 07:23:42 PM »
If a bird can weave a water tight nest, I see no reason why a dinosaur couldn't build a boat.

A nest is not a boat.  At best, a nest is a raft.

And a raft is a boat.

Would you rather take a raft across the ocean, or a boat?
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.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #617 on: February 15, 2010, 07:25:17 PM »
If a bird can weave a water tight nest, I see no reason why a dinosaur couldn't build a boat.

A nest is not a boat.  At best, a nest is a raft.

And a raft is a boat.

Would you rather take a raft across the ocean, or a boat?

If I took a raft across the ocean, I would have taken a boat across the ocean.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #618 on: February 15, 2010, 07:37:00 PM »
If I took a raft across the ocean, I would have taken a boat across the ocean.

If you took a raft across the ocean, you would likely wind up at the bottom of the ocean.
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.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #619 on: February 15, 2010, 07:40:48 PM »
If I took a raft across the ocean, I would have taken a boat across the ocean.

If you took a raft across the ocean, you would likely wind up at the bottom of the ocean.

Although lots of people have crossed the ocean in rafts.

Anyway, I think the raft/boat distinction might be tripping us up a bit here. The key claim is that certain species of dinosaur built large wooden structures which crossed the ocean. What we call these crafts may not necessarily matter all that much.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #620 on: February 15, 2010, 07:41:53 PM »
The size of their cortex and cerebellum hinted at by their skulls definitely does not leave room for the cognitive abilities they would need to build a boat.

"Hinted at" says it all - we can't reliably induce anything substantial from dinosaur skull size.

Furthermore, how can you possibly estimate the physical amount of brain-matter required to have boat-building cognitive abilities? Is this the grand unveiling of Raist, dinosaur psychic? Face it, there's no way such highly specific behaviours could be ruled out by any contingencies of physical brain size, or even cortex size. At best, you might reasonably expect to make extremely broad generalisations about overall cognitive capacity, but this would be utterly muted by our complete chronological isolation from any dinosaur. We have to rely on hard fossil evidence here - and there are hundreds of coastal fossil specimens testifying to the pre-mortem Odysseys of their living embodiments.

Well, since we can deduce how much matter can fit inside a skull, we can accurately see how large each area of a dinosaur brain would be. We also have analogues in the modern day world such as crocodiles that have very similar brain structures. Amount of matter is hardly relevant though, it is in fact the relative size of each area of the brain along with how complicated the nerve cells in the brain are.

Considering they lack a decent sized cortex, it doesn't matter how smart they were, they couldn't combine sensory input with rational thought.

If you believe that this is impossible, we can easily see this in humans when there is blindness caused by brain damage in the frontal lobe. In some cases a vestigial region of the brain near the brain stem will take over for the damaged vision center. This new arrangement bipasses the cortex. In these cases the patient will be able to catch objects that are thrown, to them, guess the facial expressions of those around them, but are unable to process this visual input in the conscious part of their brain. This leads them to believe that they are completely blind.

A dinosaur would be stuck at the same level as these people if it did not have a sufficiently large cortex to allow communication between the upper and lower brain.

I don't have to be psychic to understand the basic functions of a brain. Nice attempt at ridicule though.


*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #621 on: February 15, 2010, 07:48:53 PM »
Well, since we can deduce how much matter can fit inside a skull, we can accurately see how large each area of a dinosaur brain would be. We also have analogues in the modern day world such as crocodiles that have very similar brain structures. Amount of matter is hardly relevant though, it is in fact the relative size of each area of the brain along with how complicated the nerve cells in the brain are.

Crocodiles simply are not dinosaurs - our best possible guess is that dinosaurs shared more (but still, little) with modern birds than with modern crocodiles. Also, how do you propose we figure the complexity of nerve cells from cranial remains which completely lack these cells?

Considering they lack a decent sized cortex, it doesn't matter how smart they were, they couldn't combine sensory input with rational thought.

Based entirely on faulty induction from the brain structures of modern, stupider animals.

If you believe that this is impossible, we can easily see this in humans when there is blindness caused by brain damage in the frontal lobe. In some cases a vestigial region of the brain near the brain stem will take over for the damaged vision center. This new arrangement bipasses the cortex. In these cases the patient will be able to catch objects that are thrown, to them, guess the facial expressions of those around them, but are unable to process this visual input in the conscious part of their brain. This leads them to believe that they are completely blind.

A dinosaur would be stuck at the same level as these people if it did not have a sufficiently large cortex to allow communication between the upper and lower brain.

Thanks for the phrenology lesson, but we have no good reason to suspect that dinosaur minds worked anything like human minds. We can't even be wholly sure that the brain itself was shaped similarly, let alone speculate about their actual psychology. As I have said, we must stick to solid fossil evidence here.

I don't have to be psychic to understand the basic functions of a brain. Nice attempt at ridicule though.

You're welcome, it is always a pleasure to deride the wild and farcical beliefs of the globularist.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #622 on: February 15, 2010, 08:21:24 PM »
Quote from: Ski
I suspect that the enlarged nerve plexus of all sauropods may have allowed more of the proper brain and medio-rostral neostriatum/hyperstriatum ventrale and a form of nidopallium to control cognitive function. Did you know the nerve plexus I referenced was roughly 20 times the size of their brain? That leaves a lot of room for a nidopallium in the skull. The brain of a crow is relatively small but the crow has shown the ability to make tools; something that even primates (apart from humans) have not demonstrated. The size of the nidopallium in a dinosaur would be several times as large.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #623 on: February 15, 2010, 08:28:14 PM »
As I have said, we must stick to solid fossil evidence here.


Yes, that there is no proof of any form of technology that is comparable to boats that was around at the same time as dinosaurs.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #624 on: February 15, 2010, 08:44:49 PM »
Well, since we can deduce how much matter can fit inside a skull, we can accurately see how large each area of a dinosaur brain would be. We also have analogues in the modern day world such as crocodiles that have very similar brain structures. Amount of matter is hardly relevant though, it is in fact the relative size of each area of the brain along with how complicated the nerve cells in the brain are.

Crocodiles simply are not dinosaurs - our best possible guess is that dinosaurs shared more (but still, little) with modern birds than with modern crocodiles. Also, how do you propose we figure the complexity of nerve cells from cranial remains which completely lack these cells?

Considering they lack a decent sized cortex, it doesn't matter how smart they were, they couldn't combine sensory input with rational thought.

Based entirely on faulty induction from the brain structures of modern, stupider animals.

If you believe that this is impossible, we can easily see this in humans when there is blindness caused by brain damage in the frontal lobe. In some cases a vestigial region of the brain near the brain stem will take over for the damaged vision center. This new arrangement bipasses the cortex. In these cases the patient will be able to catch objects that are thrown, to them, guess the facial expressions of those around them, but are unable to process this visual input in the conscious part of their brain. This leads them to believe that they are completely blind.

A dinosaur would be stuck at the same level as these people if it did not have a sufficiently large cortex to allow communication between the upper and lower brain.

Thanks for the phrenology lesson, but we have no good reason to suspect that dinosaur minds worked anything like human minds. We can't even be wholly sure that the brain itself was shaped similarly, let alone speculate about their actual psychology. As I have said, we must stick to solid fossil evidence here.

I don't have to be psychic to understand the basic functions of a brain. Nice attempt at ridicule though.

You're welcome, it is always a pleasure to deride the wild and farcical beliefs of the globularist.

So, they had similar dna, similar shaped brains, but they just happened to work in completely different ways. So are you implying coevolving systems that completely changed function after they had already formed to a completely functional point (at the shared ancestor between crocs and dinosaurs).

That's very very unlikely.

Dinosaurs also had a lot less evolutionary drive for intelligence due to the lack of a dexterous limp. A grasping claw may be usable for tools, but it is not very useful for the steps leading up to tool use. (Manipulation of objects, etc.)

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #625 on: February 15, 2010, 10:11:13 PM »
Logical steps to deduce and conclude (correctly) that dinosaurs building boats is an incredibly unrealistic/stupid idea.

1) What would dinosaurs have built boats with?
If your answer is 'wood', see point 2.
If your answer is 'metal', see point 3.

2) How would they have felled trees and obtained lumber?
If your answer is 'head-butt trees then use claws to carve it down', see point 4.
If your answer is 'they are clever enough to build boats, they used axes to cut them down and make timber' see point 3.

3) Where would they have obtained metal? (For the ship and axe blade)
Obviously, the most common metal available is iron. However, it exists as Fe(II)3O2 or Fe(III)2O3. It must be purified by a redox reaction involving the reduction of the iron ore and the oxidation of the reducing agent. The simplest way to obtain refined iron from iron ore, is from a furnace. Coke or carbon is often used to reduce the iron ore. Since furnace temperatures can get extremely high (in the magnitude of many thousands of degrees), ceramic bricks such as magnesium carbonate or covalent substances insulate the furnace. In the furnace, iron MELTS, and is tapped off into bars of pig iron or whatever. Is there any evidence of 100-million year old furnaces such as this? Did dinosaurs live in a society with an education system, with schools where high school chemistry was taught? Does anything like this exist? No. Therefore, we can conclude that i) Dinosaurs did not build ships OR ii) Dinosaurs did not build ships with METAL. For those (unfortunately) still believing that there is a possibility that dinosaurs can build ships, see point 4.

4) Ok, they use wood only to build ships. How do they prevent the wood from being damaged from MONTHS of exposure to salty water?
Commercial timber is vacuum/pressure treated. I think it was the ancient greeks? (might have been another ancient civilization) that doused wood in olive oil to preserve it. But that does not prevent damage against salty water for months on end. And the ancient greeks never travelled long and far anyway. I could go on about some more chemical processes to preserve wood, but I won't because SURELY, the answer would be clear by now. Anyway, where would dinosaurs get the olive oil to treat their wood? Did they have a hierarchical system of slaves to collect olives and grind them in olive mills and presses?



Also, if dinosaurs were discovered to be able to build things like ships (or even rafts!), wouldn't that be a pretty big discovery? Surely ONE paleontologist would have discovered it by now? Wait! Every paleontologist, excavator, and people in related professions are ALL part of the conspiracy! Even the professors! OR large men with fair hair wearing sunglasses and a dark coat approached each and every one of them and told them to 'drop it'!

Yup.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #626 on: February 15, 2010, 10:23:25 PM »
What point do I go to if I answer 'reeds?'

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #627 on: February 15, 2010, 10:26:17 PM »
What point do I go to if I answer 'reeds?'

You go back to primary school.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #628 on: February 16, 2010, 12:05:47 AM »
What point do I go to if I answer 'reeds?'


I'd imagine the poor dinosaur would make holes in it.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #629 on: February 16, 2010, 04:42:33 AM »
A nest is not a machine. 

Tool use does not equal building machines. 

This is not a raft:

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