James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 379669 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #690 on: February 23, 2010, 12:11:49 PM »
Some might say the same of James' posts.
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.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #691 on: February 23, 2010, 02:06:08 PM »
Some might say the same of James' posts.

Arguably its his theory so he can say what ever he wants.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #692 on: February 23, 2010, 02:08:47 PM »
Some might say the same of James' posts.

Arguably its his theory so he can say what ever he wants.

So if I proposed a theory that 99% of other forum members felt was ludicrous, I could say whatever the hell I liked about it without it being subject to moderation? Even if I deliberately started parodying?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #693 on: February 24, 2010, 11:59:02 AM »
Whilst your attempts at mockery do an excellent job of obeying the letter of the law, Licefarm, I am going to officially ask you to stop posting these obvious parody-posts. They undermine the tone and purpose of this board.

Dinosaurs building boats is reasonable, hot air balloons is unreasonable? I'd like to see some justification.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #694 on: February 24, 2010, 12:06:10 PM »
Whilst your attempts at mockery do an excellent job of obeying the letter of the law, Licefarm, I am going to officially ask you to stop posting these obvious parody-posts. They undermine the tone and purpose of this board.

Dinosaurs building boats is reasonable, hot air balloons is unreasonable? I'd like to see some justification.
What would they use for fuel? Since they are our fossil fuels, what would they have used.

It's obviously unreasonable.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #695 on: February 24, 2010, 12:09:06 PM »
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #696 on: February 24, 2010, 12:35:41 PM »
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
Not if all they had were boats. Our society is just getting around to doing that. You have to assume dinosaur society was somewhere a few hundred years behind our current one.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #697 on: February 24, 2010, 12:42:48 PM »
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
Not if all they had were boats. Our society is just getting around to doing that. You have to assume dinosaur society was somewhere a few hundred years behind our current one.

That's the point being debated.  Why assume all they had were boats?  Why assume they were behind our current socitey

The dinosaurs got advanced enough by natural selection, just like humans did. The dinosaurs had countless millenia more to do so, too.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #698 on: February 24, 2010, 12:44:27 PM »
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
Not if all they had were boats. Our society is just getting around to doing that. You have to assume dinosaur society was somewhere a few hundred years behind our current one.

That's the point being debated.  Why assume all they had were boats?  Why assume they were behind our current socitey

The dinosaurs got advanced enough by natural selection, just like humans did. The dinosaurs had countless millenia more to do so, too.
General lack of proof?
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #699 on: February 24, 2010, 01:46:27 PM »
Anything can be used as a fuel. If ants can make fire then I don't see why dinosaurs can't.

When do ants make fire?!?!?!
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #700 on: February 24, 2010, 03:02:57 PM »
Anything can be used as a fuel. If ants can make fire then I don't see why dinosaurs can't.

When do ants make fire?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ant

So when do the ants make fire again?
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.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #701 on: February 24, 2010, 03:35:27 PM »
Whilst your attempts at mockery do an excellent job of obeying the letter of the law, Licefarm, I am going to officially ask you to stop posting these obvious parody-posts. They undermine the tone and purpose of this board.

Dinosaurs building boats is reasonable, hot air balloons is unreasonable? I'd like to see some justification.
What would they use for fuel? Since they are our fossil fuels, what would they have used.

It's obviously unreasonable.

Did organisms not live before the dinosaurs? They would have been the dinosaurs' fuel as they are for us.
There is no reason why dinosaurs could not have used fossil fuels.

Some might say the same of James' posts.

Arguably its his theory so he can say what ever he wants.

So if I proposed a theory that 99% of other forum members felt was ludicrous, I could say whatever the hell I liked about it without it being subject to moderation? Even if I deliberately started parodying?

Precisely. If you had a thread called, "Thermal Detonator's Theory on Teeth" I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to get to say what is considered part of your theory and what isn't.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2010, 03:37:26 PM by EnglshGentleman »

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #702 on: February 24, 2010, 03:41:53 PM »
They used wood for their fuel.


Burning wood works well for making hot.

*

Tusk

  • Official Member
  • 3615
  • Guidance is internal
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #703 on: February 24, 2010, 05:32:50 PM »
They used wood for their fuel.


Burning wood works well for making hot.

You're not taking this entirely seriously are you?
Hang on, I'll just check my personal care factor for this week : nope still don't give a fuck

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #704 on: February 24, 2010, 06:27:21 PM »
Anything can be used as a fuel. If ants can make fire then I don't see why dinosaurs can't.

When do ants make fire?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ant
Did you not read your own link? That was the dumbest thing I have seen on this site yet.

BTW, for those of you that are confused about the origin of fossil fuels, they come primarily from decayed plant material, with a bit of fauna biomass included.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #705 on: February 24, 2010, 06:50:10 PM »
They used wood for their fuel.


Burning wood works well for making hot.

You're not taking this entirely seriously are you?

Look at the topic, how can you.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #706 on: February 24, 2010, 08:15:44 PM »
They used wood for their fuel.


Burning wood works well for making hot.

You're not taking this entirely seriously are you?
If you do not wish to participate in serious debate please leave the upper fora.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #707 on: February 24, 2010, 09:47:17 PM »
They used wood for their fuel.


Burning wood works well for making hot.

As I said on the last page, fossil fuels existed far before dinosaurs were around, so there is no reason they didn't use them just as we are.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #708 on: February 25, 2010, 04:16:12 AM »
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
Not if all they had were boats. Our society is just getting around to doing that. You have to assume dinosaur society was somewhere a few hundred years behind our current one.

That's the point being debated.  Why assume all they had were boats?  Why assume they were behind our current socitey

The dinosaurs got advanced enough by natural selection, just like humans did. The dinosaurs had countless millenia more to do so, too.
General lack of proof?

The same general lack of proof for dinosaurs having boats, right?
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #709 on: February 25, 2010, 06:17:45 AM »
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned.  I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #710 on: February 25, 2010, 09:56:56 AM »
They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.
Not if all they had were boats. Our society is just getting around to doing that. You have to assume dinosaur society was somewhere a few hundred years behind our current one.

That's the point being debated.  Why assume all they had were boats?  Why assume they were behind our current socitey

The dinosaurs got advanced enough by natural selection, just like humans did. The dinosaurs had countless millenia more to do so, too.
General lack of proof?

The same general lack of proof for dinosaurs having boats, right?
If they were wooden boats or rafts, is it unreasonable to assume it has decayed?
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #711 on: February 25, 2010, 10:02:52 AM »
If they were wooden boats or rafts, is it unreasonable to assume it has decayed?

So they're counting on a lack of evidence to support the theory?  ???
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.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #712 on: February 25, 2010, 10:04:08 AM »
So we're talking about the same general lack of proof.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #713 on: February 25, 2010, 10:07:18 AM »
So we're talking about the same general lack of proof.
If they had metal artifacts they most likely would have been found. It is reasonable to then assume that they only made things of wood.

If they were wooden boats or rafts, is it unreasonable to assume it has decayed?

So they're counting on a lack of evidence to support the theory?  ???
Correct.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #714 on: February 25, 2010, 11:06:57 AM »
Both cases, lacking proof, got it.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #715 on: February 25, 2010, 11:08:31 AM »
Both cases, lacking proof, got it.
yes.

Is it reasonable to assume that we'd find metal tools made by dinosaurs, since we've found dinosaur fossils?
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #716 on: February 25, 2010, 11:13:45 AM »
a)Irrelevant.

b)I never claimed any metal tools existed.

c)What evidence is there to suggest that the tools could survive that long?
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #717 on: February 25, 2010, 02:20:22 PM »
Vegetation fossils aren't exactly hard to come by, so why haven't we found any that resemble boats or rafts.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #718 on: February 25, 2010, 10:07:47 PM »
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned.  I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.

You should probably move this thread to the proper forum then as it has absolutely nothing to do with fe theory.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #719 on: February 26, 2010, 05:56:24 AM »
Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned.  I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.

You should probably move this thread to the proper forum then as it has absolutely nothing to do with fe theory.

It is a major contribution to FE canon and has substantial explanatory power with regard to issues in zetetic geology and geography. As a fervent globularist I would not expect you to understand its merit.

Vegetation fossils aren't exactly hard to come by, so why haven't we found any that resemble boats or rafts.

It's hardly surprising if you consider the ratio of plants found to plants which existed. There would have to have been a staggeringly large number of boats in order for it to be statistically probable that one would be found. Current evidence is not anomalous in light of the approximate proportions of fossils found to fossilisable artifacts which were produced.

However, that's not to say the boats aren't out there. I personally think we should be looking for them much harder than we currently are.
"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