Plate Tectonics?

Who is to say that dinosaurs were not a civilized people?

Who is to say that they were?

I've never seen a huge difficulty between tectonic plates and FET, but I suppose that is just me. I would think any Pangea-like construct would be far more damning to RET -- Imagine how the uneven distribution of weight would effect a globular world spinning at some one thousand miles per hour.

james are you serious? you must of been reading west of eden and if you havnt you should! nobody transported millions of shells inland dont be an idiot 

in respose to the speculation of 1 super contenent: who knows what it was like or how things will become. thats beside the point we are just giving evidence of the movement of the earths crust. why doesnt FET support this anyway?

Quote from: New Earth on January 16, 2011, 12:34:48 AM

James, the nearest coastline is Southern California, its about 270 miles from Las Vegas to the ocean. Dinosaurs traveled that far from the sea with corals in their jaws? LOL

No, I would imagine the put them in baskets, which they strapped to the backs of pack animals (probably saurolophus).

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

nobody transported millions of shells inland dont be an idiot 

No human did, but a dinosaur did.

As I'm in my final year of a Geology degree, I feel qualified to have a go at this one...

James, come back when you have some physical evidence.
Continental drift/Plate Tectonics is essentially proven.  Movement rates have been measured (a swift google image search will supply a plate tectonic map with movement rates marked on).  The plates themselves can be seen as bathymetric or topographic features, and align beautifully with earthquakes.
As for fossils inland, it must be noted that the fossils are only found in rocks where you would expect the creatures to have lived.  There is no evidence whatsoever for anything carrying shells and what have you inland.
Do you dispute the techniques used to date these fossils?  Or perhaps the fact that one can correlate the same rock unit and fossil bed across miles of ocean?  Or than one can trace the evolution of a species by moving upward through the rock record?
If dinosaurs had been a civillised society, one would expect to find evidence of their settlements primarily on unconformities in the rock record, rather than scattered throughout. 

I've never seen a huge difficulty between tectonic plates and FET, but I suppose that is just me. I would think any Pangea-like construct would be far more damning to RET -- Imagine how the uneven distribution of weight would effect a globular world spinning at some one thousand miles per hour.

Thank you Ski, for some (relative) sanity!  A point well made.
Any supercontinent is, inevitably, geologically unstable, and as such they usually don't last too long before they rift apart.
As for the weight balance, I suspect it does have an effect on the Milankovitch cycles (although I've not read any literature to support/refute).
Isostatic readjustment plays a role in equalising the densities of the planet.  In simple terms, a big continent squeezes plastic mantle out of the way and sinks a bit.  Plus, oceanic crust has a higher density than continental.

(may come back and edit when I've read the rest of this thread...)

Continental drift/Plate Tectonics is essentially proven.  Movement rates have been measured (a swift google image search will supply a plate tectonic map with movement rates marked on).  The plates themselves can be seen as bathymetric or topographic features, and align beautifully with earthquakes.

I should perhaps clarify, I am not deny the existence of geological plates, I am deny that they float all about conveying the continents this way and that throughout history. Additionally, I find your description of Earthquakes as beautiful to be more than a little perverse.

As for fossils inland, it must be noted that the fossils are only found in rocks where you would expect the creatures to have lived.  There is no evidence whatsoever for anything carrying shells and what have you inland.

This is only true if you presuppose your own conclusion (i.e., that the topography of the Earth radically changed through history), since in fact many fossils are found in places which would be incredible were it not for the civilized practices and industries of the dinosaurs.

Do you dispute the techniques used to date these fossils?

No.

Or perhaps the fact that one can correlate the same rock unit and fossil bed across miles of ocean? 

Not quite sure what you mean by this, but no.

Or than one can trace the evolution of a species by moving upward through the rock record?

No. Why would I deny any of these things?

If dinosaurs had been a civillised society, one would expect to find evidence of their settlements primarily on unconformities in the rock record, rather than scattered throughout. 

But in every age, dinosaurs had to eat. We are specifically discussing evidence of their seafood consumption.

I do apologise, I never got my head round splitting a great load of quotes up...

Still, the existence of the Wilson cycle and movement of geological plates has been measured.  Present day oceans are opening and closing, the Himalayas are still growing, and part of California is breaking off due to the movement along the San Andreas Fault.
(I shall clarify, the "beautiful" comment applies to the flawless correlation of major earthquake zones and location of plate boundaries.  Look at a map of the Pacific Ring of Fire, for example!)
Movement of the plates can be observed onland in Iceland.


One must conclude the topography of Earth has changed drastically throughout geological time.
You cannot ignore the environment of deposition of rock units, even on a FE.  Present day, reef systems are building, muds are being deposited on the sea floor, etc.  To get the rocks produced from those sentiments, change must have occurred.  A good example is the White Cliffs of Dover.  Chalk, deposited in relatively shallow water, made up primarily of coccolithophores (microscopic algae shells) is now found reaching many meters above sea level.
The Cyprus Ophiolite is probably a better example - it shows rock from the very Mantle exposed at the top of Mount Olympus. 
I shall also clarify "Or perhaps the fact that one can correlate the same rock unit and fossil bed across miles of ocean?".  Poor wording on my part.  The same rock unit can be found exposed above sea level an ocean apart (often with the same fossils contained within).  How can this be without the movement of geological plates?


You appear to have avoided that last question somewhat.  Never mind.
"But in every age, dinosaurs had to eat. We are specifically discussing evidence of their seafood consumption."
I do not dispute for one second dinosaurs fed on seafood.  I do, however, dispute the idea that dinosaurs collected shells/animals and brought them inland for consumption.  Simply, there is no evidence for it.  As I have stated, this would mean shells would be found in environments they would never be found in naturally. 

(Many thanks for a well written and polite reply.  Always nice to see on these forums, too often a rarity)

ok im new to all of this and still unsure on the site but....

Now To think of the earth as flat or round plate tectonics wouldn't really be an issue for either of them. the plates would either be moving around on a ball or on a flat plate not a problem with that.
plate tectonics is a "conspiracy"? what purpose would it serve? how would that make NASA money?
And James.... The dinosaurs transported the fish and shells? did they make there baskets with their teeth or are NASA forging fossils to show that they dont have thumbs and fingers and just have their claws that wouldn't of been able to grip to make these things? to support the thery that dinosaurs where just animals and not intelligent like humans.... James how did the Dinosaurs die out?

Quote from: Joeval on January 17, 2011, 03:17:16 AM

As for fossils inland, it must be noted that the fossils are only found in rocks where you would expect the creatures to have lived.  There is no evidence whatsoever for anything carrying shells and what have you inland.

This is only true if you presuppose your own conclusion (i.e., that the topography of the Earth radically changed through history), since in fact many fossils are found in places which would be incredible were it not for the civilized practices and industries of the dinosaurs.

And your theory is only true if you presuppose your own conclusion (i.e., that dinosaurs were civilized and industrious).

Dinosaurs have not died out. 

It is interesting that 'bird brain' should no longer be considered a derogatory.

http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=798

Towards the end of the article it does reference tool making abilities of some dinosaurs but not the relevant ones to the plate movement issue.

Dinosaurs have not died out. 

It is interesting that 'bird brain' should no longer be considered a derogatory.

http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=798

Towards the end of the article it does reference tool making abilities of some dinosaurs but not the relevant ones to the plate movement issue.

Then you still need to presuppose the conclusion "that dinosaurs were civilized and industrious"

Dinosaurs have not died out. 

It is interesting that 'bird brain' should no longer be considered a derogatory.

http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=798

Towards the end of the article it does reference tool making abilities of some dinosaurs but not the relevant ones to the plate movement issue.

Then that article is completely irrelevant, isn't it?

Quote from: Joeval on January 17, 2011, 03:17:16 AM

Or than one can trace the evolution of a species by moving upward through the rock record?

No. Why would I deny any of these things?

Because every other sane and logical conclusion that supports RET is denied in an instant.

If I were to organize the theories that you accept and reject, they would simply fall into 2 sections:

• Does the theory or fact support RE and reject FE? If yes, then the theory is a conspiracy or just plain wrong on all accounts
• Does the theory or its consequences have no effect on the FET? If yes, then I don't care, it's probably true, why would I deny any of these things?

I often see dinosaurs in my back garden.

I often see dinosaurs in my back garden.

I always see a tree in my garden.

Wtf does that have to do with anything

He's just trolling. Stop feeding him.

We are discussing dinosaurs, which I can assure you I have seen up close.

What do birds have to do with plate tectonics?

What do birds have to do with plate tectonics?

On page two, New Earth was asking about the corals which ancient dinosaurs used to carry with them as talismans, in the hills in America. A bird is a type of dinosaur.

Quote from: markjo on February 03, 2011, 01:25:05 PM

What do birds have to do with plate tectonics?

On page two, New Earth was asking about the corals which ancient dinosaurs used to carry with them as talismans, in the hills in America. A bird is a type of dinosaur.

Since a bird is not an ancient dinosaur, they are irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote from: James on February 03, 2011, 01:27:45 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 03, 2011, 01:25:05 PM

What do birds have to do with plate tectonics?

On page two, New Earth was asking about the corals which ancient dinosaurs used to carry with them as talismans, in the hills in America. A bird is a type of dinosaur.

Since a bird is not an ancient dinosaur, they are irrelevant to the discussion.

Some birds are very ancient dinosaurs, for example the dodo and the terror bird.

Quote from: markjo on February 03, 2011, 03:36:12 PM

Quote from: James on February 03, 2011, 01:27:45 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 03, 2011, 01:25:05 PM

What do birds have to do with plate tectonics?

On page two, New Earth was asking about the corals which ancient dinosaurs used to carry with them as talismans, in the hills in America. A bird is a type of dinosaur.

Since a bird is not an ancient dinosaur, they are irrelevant to the discussion.

Some birds are very ancient dinosaurs, for example the dodo and the terror bird.

I despair, I really do...

The point you so expertly avoid, is that the pigeon flying round outside certainly isn't a dinosaur.

Now, can we cease with off the topic discussion of birds, and back to the plate tectonics question at hand?

A pigeon is a species of modern dinosaur, but you are right, our discussions of geological antiquity concern only the ancient dinosaurs. Their culture and society was responsible for the spread of corals and sea-animals all around the place, even on dry land, and their maritime explorations are responsible for the distribution of their corpses over different continents.

Their culture and society was responsible for the spread of corals and sea-animals all around the place, even on dry land, and their maritime explorations are responsible for the distribution of their corpses over different continents.

I'm sorry to say that you have still failed to provide evidence of the advanced dinosaur civilization that would have caused these phenomena. There is, however, evidence that the continents are drifting and changing. While I wholly admit that I cannot prove or disprove what the continents ever looked like or what they will ever look like, I find it easy to believe that this drift and change has been happening for an exceptionally long time and that the present-day geography of the Earth has similarly changed dramatically when compared to what it likely was millions of years ago. As a result, I find it far more likely that it was an inland sea or ocean, rather than dinosaurs, that caused the "spread of corals and sea-animals" that we see today.

A pigeon is a species of modern dinosaur, but you are right, our discussions of geological antiquity concern only the ancient dinosaurs. Their culture and society was responsible for the spread of corals and sea-animals all around the place, even on dry land, and their maritime explorations are responsible for the distribution of their corpses over different continents.

I'm afraid I have yet to see any real evidence for this so called "civilisation" aside from your entries on this forum.
The theory of continental drift, on the other hand, is pretty airtight.
Corals are found, geologically, in areas that appear to have been climatically and environmentally similar to the places they're found today.  I would expect to find them all over the place if they'd been transported by dinosaurs.
The distribution of both land and sea creatures can be explained perfectly well with continental drift, especially over geological time.  Creatures living on a large landmass, dying out, and the landmass splitting apart, so millions of years later they are found on two separate continents.  Coincidentally, the geological strata match up as well, regardless of the present day depositional environments.
Your explanation does not explain the presence of Laagerstatten (the Burgess Shale is a good example)
Or simple things like large scale thrust zones and subduction zones formed as continents collide (the coast of west USA, the Moyne Thrust in Scotland)
The list goes on...

The dinosaurs only took the corals when travelling through the mountains, since mountains are the antithesis of the ocean.

The dinosaurs only took the corals when travelling through the mountains, since mountains are the antithesis of the ocean.

What about all of the clams for their keggers?

They took clams too, as we have discussed in a previous thread on this matter.

They took clams too, as we have discussed in a previous thread on this matter.

The dinosaurs only took the corals when travelling through the mountains, since mountains are the antithesis of the ocean.

Make up your mind, will you?