James's theory on dinosaurs

A nest is not a machine. 

Tool use does not equal building machines. 

This is not a raft:

No, it is a boat, and I am claiming that dinosaurs built boats. Rafts are a type of boat. The nomenclature here is irrelevant. If you construct a wooden vessel for oceanic travel, you are doing what we are talking about.

Quote from: Its a Sphere 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:

No, it is a boat, and I am claiming that dinosaurs built boats. Rafts are a type of boat. The nomenclature here is irrelevant. If you construct a wooden vessel for oceanic travel, you are doing what we are talking about.

All rafts are boats, but not all boats are rafts.  That is not a raft and a raft is not a complex machine.  What you show is a complex machine.  Tool use does not equal the building of machines. 

A house could be considered a type of nest, though not every nest can be considered a house.  Just because a bird can build a nest doesn't mean it can build a structure containing machines.

So what you're saying is you concede that dinosaurs had the ability to build rafts?

So what you're saying is you concede that dinosaurs had the ability to build rafts?

I am doing nothing of the sort.
Are you conceding that dinosaurs did not have the ability to build complex machines such as the one you implied they were capable of building?

So what you're saying is you concede that dinosaurs had the ability to build rafts?

Raft implies intent. They had the ability to blindly follow instincts and base urges.

Quote from: Raist on February 15, 2010, 07:41:53 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?

Quote from: Raist on February 15, 2010, 07:41:53 PM

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.

Quote from: Raist on February 15, 2010, 07:41:53 PM

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'm going to post this again.

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?

Same argument goes for the dino brains.

Everyone ignores my post?

Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.

EDIT: added untreated

Everyone ignores my post?

Wood would not last in the water for that long.

Let alone the dinosaurs appetite


Dinosaurs weren't hibernating creatures

Everyone ignores my post?

Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.

EDIT: added untreated

How long would it last for then exactly?

Everyone ignores my post?

Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.

EDIT: added untreated

Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant.  What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.

Quote from: SeductaS on February 16, 2010, 10:10:55 PM

Everyone ignores my post?

Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.

EDIT: added untreated

Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant.  What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.

Even if they were buoyant....

ndividual Triceratops are estimated to have reached about 7.9 to 9.0 m (26.0–29.5 ft) in length, 2.9 to 3.0 m (9.5–9.8 ft) in height,[7][8] and 6.1–12.0 tonnes (13,000–26,000 lb) in weight.

Now, that's one animal. There's gonna be a female, not to mention vast amounts of food (that they need to gather and prepare beforehand so that they do not die), food must be non-perishable to survive the months (did they vacuum pack raisins?), and many many 'couples' need to travel, so a lot of reed bundles, cos I mean, the ocean isn't going to stay nice and flat for months at a time so dinosaurs can get across right?

And you believe this happened for EVERY DINOSAUR SPECIES FOUND ON MATCHING COASTLINES?

Even if they did make it (which they did not), they would have to adapt instantly into their new environment, without disturbing ecological processes and find a habitat, food source etc right away, i.e. find their own niche. Instantly.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on February 17, 2010, 09:50:51 AM

Quote from: SeductaS on February 16, 2010, 10:10:55 PM

Everyone ignores my post?

Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.

EDIT: added untreated

Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant.  What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.

Even if they did make it (which they did not), they would have to adapt instantly into their new environment, without disturbing ecological processes and find a habitat, food source etc right away, i.e. find their own niche. Instantly.

I'm gonna just argue with this part because this rest seemed sound.
Who says they can't disturb the ecological process to find a niche. Snakes are not natural to Hawaii and yet the are live there quite well now. Rabbits aren't naturally in Australia and now they are surviving there extremely well.

Quote from: SeductaS on February 16, 2010, 10:10:55 PM

Everyone ignores my post?

Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.

EDIT: added untreated

Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant.  What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.

Heyerdahl's boat was balsa wood (just a bit more technology there) and even the Spanish guy that tried a reed boat in '99 had it half eaten by mollusks. And those boats only had to support a few hundred pounds and could have even supported a horse, much less a larger creature.

Quote from: SeductaS on February 17, 2010, 07:50:25 PM

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on February 17, 2010, 09:50:51 AM

Quote from: SeductaS on February 16, 2010, 10:10:55 PM

Everyone ignores my post?

Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.

EDIT: added untreated

Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant.  What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.

Even if they did make it (which they did not), they would have to adapt instantly into their new environment, without disturbing ecological processes and find a habitat, food source etc right away, i.e. find their own niche. Instantly.

I'm gonna just argue with this part because this rest seemed sound.
Who says they can't disturb the ecological process to find a niche. Snakes are not natural to Hawaii and yet the are live there quite well now. Rabbits aren't naturally in Australia and now they are surviving there extremely well.

They stand out because such cases are.. not very common. But yea ok, there are occasionally animals which have a large variety of prey and can adapt more easily (like humans, omnivorous). But every dinosaur species? Just ridiculous.

If dinosaurs were so intelligent, why didn't they evolve hands with opposable thumbs so that they could build boats?

Quote from: SeductaS on February 16, 2010, 10:10:55 PM

Everyone ignores my post?

Wood untreated would not last in the water for that long.

EDIT: added untreated

Reed bundles are both buoyant and water resistant.  What's more reed water-craft have been tested in cross-Pacific voyages. Everyone learns this in primary school.

Got a picture of one of those reed rafts?

Whilst I'm sure many smaller dinosaurs did build canoes from reeds, I don't see how we can discount the fact that they built wooden boats too, given the logistical challenge of transporting larger livestock (such as saurolophus yearlings, etc.) on crafts made from reeds.

It's likely that fleets would have had a variety of different boats of different sizes for specific different jobs, just like modern navies do.

So the claim is that dinosaurs were capable of building complex machines?

What do you propose they were held together with?

Did dinosaurs have metal nails? And hammers?

If they were made of wood, how were they made watertight? Did they use some sort of pitch to seal them with?

There is not a single shred of evidence for just about anything you have proposed in this thread, and you call yourself a zeteticist?

You should write a book. Not a factual one, of course. Fiction. It'd be hilarious, you have quite an imagination.

There is not a single shred of evidence for just about anything you have proposed in this thread, and you call yourself a zeteticist?

To re-affirm your point, remember that this "theory", without a shred of evidence, is just as solid as the following:

• The extraterrestrials did it, and then erased any evidence they left
• Humans existed at that time and made the rafts
• Meteorites levelled large portions of ancient woods, leaving the dinosaurs stranded on the ocean, surrounded by felled trees
• The God Thor, with his hammer, sent the dinosaurs flying through the skies
• several other idiotic "theories" proposed in this thread for the purpose of showing this exact point

Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?

Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?

Fossil evidence suggests either sea-migrating dinosaurs or moving continents.

Sea-migration isn't really that far fetched. There is a chain of islands across the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska spread about 20 miles apart, visible to each other, which are easily swimable.

Island proximity has nothing to do with dinosaurs building complex machines.

Tom believes that the dinosaurs swam the oceans in order to make their new homes, which is why the proximity of islands is salient.

Tom believes that the dinosaurs swam the oceans in order to make their new homes, which is why the proximity of islands is salient.

I looked up the dictionary definition of "untrue". The entry read, "Everything believed by Tom Bishop".

If dinosaurs were so intelligent, why didn't they evolve hands with opposable thumbs so that they could build boats?

... /facepalm

You really don't understand evolution do you.

Island proximity has nothing to do with dinosaurs building complex machines.

Quote from: trig on February 18, 2010, 12:59:11 PM

Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?

Fossil evidence suggests either sea-migrating dinosaurs or moving continents.

Sea-migration isn't really that far fetched. There is a chain of islands across the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska spread about 20 miles apart, visible to each other, which are easily swimable.

Tom raises a valid point to your observation.

Disregarding the argument concerning opposable thumbs, which by the way one of mine is not yet I am still able to function under my own brain power, James' argument can still be sound even if applied to modern day thinking and so called scientific evidence.

There is undisputed agreement amongst the modern scientific community that there is proven migration of species over short term distances across bodies of water by means of swimming or piggybacking on driftwood.

If we take Tom's observations and Jame's conjecture can we not build a simple model of creatures migrating across open bodies of water by accident and then, as all creatures do, of the learning process taking effect and accelerating.

I'm not proposing that pterodactyls built themselves aircraft carriers but it is entirely feasible, given modern understanding of, for instance, how a raptor operated and integrated with it's peers that a level of comprehension was evident that would allow for understanding and evaluation of a given situation which could lead to a conscious decision to travel across open water to seek prey. 

Quote from: trig on February 18, 2010, 12:59:11 PM

Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?

Fossil evidence suggests either sea-migrating dinosaurs or moving continents.

Sea-migration isn't really that far fetched. There is a chain of islands across the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska spread about 20 miles apart, visible to each other, which are easily swimable.

Tom, have you ever tried swimming 20 miles across the Bering Straight?  Try it some time and tell us how easy it really is.

Tom, have you ever tried swimming 20 miles across the Bering Straight?  Try it some time and tell us how easy it really is.

This polar bear didn't have trouble with this 200 mile Arctic swim: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour

Martin Strel didn't have a problem swimming down the length of the Amazon River: http://www.amazonswim2007.com/main.php?S=1&Folder=2&L=2

Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2010, 07:15:36 PM

Tom, have you ever tried swimming 20 miles across the Bering Straight?  Try it some time and tell us how easy it really is.

This polar bear didn't have trouble with this 200 mile Arctic swim: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour

Martin Strel didn't have a problem swimming down the length of the Amazon River: http://www.amazonswim2007.com/main.php?S=1&Folder=2&L=2

That amazon guy impresses me very much. Amazon River is a very scary place to swim.

I'v done 32 miles over the channel.

I'm not saying it was an easy gig, in fact I spent the majority of it cheating by regularly spinning onto my back and blaming the prevailing currents.

Point is my leg muscles are in nowhere near as good condition as a top league predator from the Jurassic or the Cretaceous which is the periods that would be most likely to produce predators with the mental capacity to undertake such trips.