The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: offensivebias on May 24, 2009, 06:09:13 PM
-
Do you believe they existed if so how did the become extinct?
-
How is this relevant to the flat Earth theory?
-
How would a flat earth be inhabitable for dinosaurs? I fail to see what it is that caused you to ask your question.
-
If the earth is flat and and heat rises from the ground as you believe then the theory that a gaint meteor hit the earth and the dust blocked the sun and made the earth colder which slowly killed them couldn't be true so how else could you explain their extinction?
-
You seem to have this all figured out. Why do you even ask us questions if you know all the answers?
-
The dust could block out the sun, stop photosynthesis and destroy the entire food chain?
-
Don't question him. He knows everything there is to know about dinosaurs. We are so glad that he came to tell us the only possible way that dinosaurs became extinct. I didn't even know dinosaurs existed before he brought them up.
-
I never claimed to know everything this is the accepted theory by the scientific community now I know you will say they have been wrong before but in the layers of the earth it shows a drop in temperature but if convection is true it would heat up.
The dust could block out the sun, stop photosynthesis and destroy the entire food chain?
But wouldnt mammals also be effected by the loss of oxygen and die which means we wouldnt be here
-
Don't question him. He knows everything there is to know about dinosaurs. We are so glad that he came to tell us the only possible way that dinosaurs became extinct. I didn't even know dinosaurs existed before he brought them up.
lol.
He doesnt know...So the insults begin.
-
How would a flat earth be inhabitable for dinosaurs? I fail to see what it is that caused you to ask your question.
So now there has never been dinosaurs? Where did the fossils come from?
-
Did you read my reply or did you just assume that I didn't believe dinosaurs existed?
-
If the earth is flat and and heat rises from the ground as you believe then the theory that a gaint meteor hit the earth and the dust blocked the sun and made the earth colder which slowly killed them couldn't be true so how else could you explain their extinction?
The dinosaurs were highly intelligent beings. They built ships and colonized the world. That is why there are fossils scattered around the continents since continental drift is a dogmatic lie implanted by the Conspiracy. It is likely a Globularist Conspiracy existed back in their day as well. Their blind acceptance of the Globularist lie and Satanic motives of the Conspiracy probably ultimately led to the dinosaurs' extinction. A sad lesson for our times.
-
My guess is that dinosaurs perfected space flight but left sharks behind be cause they are dicks and eat everything.
-
This is actually relevant to the topic... bare with me
Firstly, do FE'ers believe in tectonic plates? If not ignore this post, and carry on the discussion
-
Wait continental drift is a lie???? So how do earth quakes happen???
-
When did I say it was a lie? im asking the FE'ers that very question duh
-
This is actually relevant to the topic... bare with me
Firstly, do FE'ers believe in tectonic plates? If not ignore this post, and carry on the discussion
This question comes up a lot, but I don't think it is in the FAQ. I'll have to check. But there is no reason to think a FE could not have plates. No one has brought evidence to suggest they don't exist. The plates, though, would have to be flat.
-
It is our belief that Dinosaurs were intelligent creatures who had a sea-faring, maritime civilisation.
-
Their maritime civilization was dwarf by the achievement of colonizing space. And all this with out thumbs mind you, smart bastards.
-
You seem to have this all figured out. Why do you even ask us questions if you know all the answers?
A simple, 'I don't know' would do nicely....
Dick.
-
You seem to have this all figured out. Why do you even ask us questions if you know all the answers?
A simple, 'I don't know' would do nicely....
Dick.
Look Dick,
He's presuming we are religious fundamentalists and think god created everything at one time. Now he's pretending to know something that happened millions of years ago that he doesn't understand. I'm being facetious because he's an ignoramus.
-
If the earth is flat and and heat rises from the ground as you believe then the theory that a gaint meteor hit the earth and the dust blocked the sun and made the earth colder which slowly killed them couldn't be true so how else could you explain their extinction?
Even assuming we do believe that, it wouldn't be a question of heat, but light. Without light, plants die, and hence animals die.
-
It's more complex that that Neeman. The cloud would surely block and reflect light into space. It would cause water to freeze and the ice would reflect much of the light back as well. But this theory would cause a run away iceing of the world. Unless there was an unfrozen patch of the world, the would would be a big ice ball.
Anyway, he doesn't even give a reason why this can't happen on a flat earth as well. Weather works surprisingly similar in the two models. He just doesn't know what he is talking about.
-
My guess is that dinosaurs perfected space flight but left sharks behind be cause they are dicks and eat everything.
Sorry, but sustained space flight is impossible according to FET. Even for the dinosaurs.
-
Well, just a point about the tectonic plates...
Whether or not you believe in RE or FE or "nonagon earth" as some idiot in the angry ranting section believes, the evidence for tectonic plates is, well completely proves they exist really, leaving no doubt
Theres quakes, mountains and volcanoes along faultlines. Then theres the point about how the plants and animals of my country, Australia are completely different to anything anywhere else in the world (kangaroos, koalas etc.) because we are in the middle of a plate.
Then BACK to the original point fossils of dinosaurs and plants and animals, they have been found in places meaning tectonic plates and continental drift is the only probable cause.
Again to talk about the plates, what could have caused a mountain range to form on the edge of the earth at the ice wall? Because in this location there is no place where a fault could have occured, or a monocline (bending upwards of the earth). I have fairly good knowledge of geology and i dont see how a mountain range could form.
Perhaps this needs a new topic...
-
Then BACK to the original point fossils of dinosaurs and plants and animals, they have been found in places meaning tectonic plates and continental drift is the only probable cause.
Like I said, we believe that dinosaurs had a maritime society, and that they were far more intelligent than is typically believed. Here's a topic where it was discussed at length, which, incidentally, I found using the search function:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21863.0
-
sorry when i hear society i just think, like human society but i know what you mean. So you mean intelligent like us or intelligent like say a dolphin?
-
Then BACK to the original point fossils of dinosaurs and plants and animals, they have been found in places meaning tectonic plates and continental drift is the only probable cause.
Like I said, we believe that dinosaurs had a maritime society, and that they were far more intelligent than is typically believed. Here's a topic where it was discussed at length, which, incidentally, I found using the search function:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21863.0
If dinosaurs were meant for using tools to a large degree, they would have proper arms and a brain larger than a peanut. Or are the archeologist in on the conspiracy too?
-
Then BACK to the original point fossils of dinosaurs and plants and animals, they have been found in places meaning tectonic plates and continental drift is the only probable cause.
Like I said, we believe that dinosaurs had a maritime society, and that they were far more intelligent than is typically believed. Here's a topic where it was discussed at length, which, incidentally, I found using the search function:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21863.0
I thought that whole thing about dinosaurs using boats was just a joke...please tell me I'm right.
-
Don't be ridiculous. We've presented a large body of evidence and passionately defended that thesis over and over again for the last three or four years. Why would it be a joke? If it was a joke, how else would the distribution of fossils be explicable?
-
Don't be ridiculous. We've presented a large body of evidence and passionately defended that thesis over and over again for the last three or four years. Why would it be a joke? If it was a joke, how else would the distribution of fossils be explicable?
By continetal drift. If dinosaurs were meant for using tools to this degree, they would have proper arms and a brain larger than a peanut.
-
By continetal drift. If dinosaurs were meant for using tools to this degree, they would have proper arms and a brain larger than a peanut.
A large brain and "proper arms" are prerequisite for complex tool use, are they?
Would you care to explain the plain fact that a great number of birds, which not only do not possess "proper arms" but in fact possess no arms at all are capable of extensive tool use and construction? Would you care to explain how otters, who by comparison to humanity are phenomenally stupid, are able to manipulate rocks with their crude, clawed forelegs in order to open oysters and other shellfish?
As has already been pointed out, continental drift is impossible. If it occured on any large scale, the Earth would break apart. Clearly, this has not occured.
-
By continetal drift. If dinosaurs were meant for using tools to this degree, they would have proper arms and a brain larger than a peanut.
A large brain and "proper arms" are prerequisite for complex tool use, are they?
Would you care to explain the plain fact that a great number of birds, which not only do not possess "proper arms" but in fact possess no arms at all are capable of extensive tool use and construction? Would you care to explain how otters, who by comparison to humanity are phenomenally stupid, are able to manipulate rocks with their crude, clawed forelegs in order to open oysters and other shellfish?
As has already been pointed out, continental drift is impossible. If it occured on any large scale, the Earth would break apart. Clearly, this has not occured.
Do you realise the difference between using a small stick to find a worm, and building huge boats to sail with`? Did I not say "using tools to this degree"? Clearly someone with a peanut brain and so small arms can't build boats. ::)
Clearly this has occured. The world have "broken apart". Continental drift.
-
Peanut sized brain you say...
-
Peanut sized brain you say...
Yes their brains was VERY very small compared to their bodies, which is what matters. The EQ of a dinosaur is roughly 5 times lower than that of an elephant, and 50 times lower than that of a human. Very few dinosaurs were as smart as todays wild beasts, but only a few of them. How would they go about colonization and building boats? ::) This is just as stupid as the Flat Earth Theory
Even a regular human isn't smart enough to build a boat. It takes some studying to build a boat that can carry a big load and won't sink or break.
-
Peanut sized brain you say...
Yes their brains was VERY very small compared to their bodies, which is what matters. The EQ of a dinosaur is roughly 5 times lower than that of an elephant, and 50 times lower than that of a human. Very few dinosaurs were as smart as todays wild beasts, but only a few of them. How would they go about colonization and building boats? ::) This is just as stupid as the Flat Earth Theory
The size of a brain does not dictate its intelligence, although in some species it can be indicative of it. The cereberal cortex, a relatively small part of the brain, plays a crucial role in the intelligence of an animal, the size and configuration of which do not necessarily correlate with the size of the whole brain. You have no idea how dinosaurs compared in intelligence to modern animals.
Even a regular human isn't smart enough to build a boat. It takes some studying to build a boat that can carry a big load and won't sink or break.
Not at all. Back when I ran the South West of England FES group, we would often provide counterexample to this ridiculous claim (I assure you, you are not the first to dispute the thesis that dinosaurs built boats) by taping together, on each hand, our thumbs to our index fingers, and our middle fingers to our ring fingers, and then proceeding to construct crude watercraft. Building a raft with some logs and withies is incredibly easy, and with our hands taped together to prevent us using our opposable thumbs, small groups were usually able to collaborate and construct rafts with relative ease.
-
Oh, I didn't film this particular adventure, it was a demonstration for the benefit of sceptics who were present at the meeting. You needn't worry, though, as the experiment is easily replicable, and fun too. All you need is some masking tape, some friends, some logs and some withies! It really is one of the most simple experiments to perform without any expensive equipment or expertise.
-
Oh, I didn't film this particular adventure, it was a demonstration for the benefit of sceptics who were present at the meeting. You needn't worry, though, as the experiment is easily replicable, and fun too.
No it is your experiment. I want to see you perform it. I will accept a youtube link.
You don't understand - I did not film this experiment, I said so already!
If you seriously don't believe that a bunch of people with their hands taped together can build a raft, you really ought to try it yourself. I assure you it is incredibly easy. Tie a slip knot in one withy, using it as a noose, tighten it around one of the logs, and then weave it between the other ones. At the other end of the raft, secure the withy with a second knot. You might find that using your teeth helps to manipulate the withy, but with a bit of practice it's quite easy to hold it between your "claws" especially if someone else holds it steady with their "claws" whilst you tie the knot. Simply repeat this process at a number of intervals down the logs until your raft is complete. Then push it towards a lake or river and set sail!!
-
Look, I told you, twice, I didn't film it. I can't comply with your request because it's impossible, no such footage exists.
-
Peanut sized brain you say...
Yes their brains was VERY very small compared to their bodies, which is what matters. The EQ of a dinosaur is roughly 5 times lower than that of an elephant, and 50 times lower than that of a human. Very few dinosaurs were as smart as todays wild beasts, but only a few of them. How would they go about colonization and building boats? ::) This is just as stupid as the Flat Earth Theory
The size of a brain does not dictate its intelligence, although in some species it can be indicative of it. The cereberal cortex, a relatively small part of the brain, plays a crucial role in the intelligence of an animal, the size and configuration of which do not necessarily correlate with the size of the whole brain. You have no idea how dinosaurs compared in intelligence to modern animals.
Even a regular human isn't smart enough to build a boat. It takes some studying to build a boat that can carry a big load and won't sink or break.
Not at all. Back when I ran the South West of England FES group, we would often provide counterexample to this ridiculous claim (I assure you, you are not the first to dispute the thesis that dinosaurs built boats) by taping together, on each hand, our thumbs to our index fingers, and our middle fingers to our ring fingers, and then proceeding to construct crude watercraft. Building a raft with some logs and withies is incredibly easy, and with our hands taped together to prevent us using our opposable thumbs, small groups were usually able to collaborate and construct rafts with relative ease.
Who cares if you can build a little raft without your thumbs? Try building a raft with your mouth or your feet, and we'll see if you succed. Oh, and try do that with your eyes closed to simulate how stupid dinosaurs were.
"The size of a brain does not dictate its intelligence, although in some species it can be indicative of it. The cereberal cortex, a relatively small part of the brain, plays a crucial role in the intelligence of an animal, the size and configuration of which do not necessarily correlate with the size of the whole brain. You have no idea how dinosaurs compared in intelligence to modern animals."
The EQ, as I just said... so yes, I have a pretty good idea how dinousaurs compared in intelligence to moderne animals
-
Who cares if you can build a little raft without your thumbs? Try building a raft with your mouth or your feet, and we'll see if you succed. Oh, and try do that with your eyes closed to simulate how stupid dinosaurs were.
Many dinosaurs had clawed hands. The taping simulates this adversity they would have faced.
"The size of a brain does not dictate its intelligence, although in some species it can be indicative of it. The cereberal cortex, a relatively small part of the brain, plays a crucial role in the intelligence of an animal, the size and configuration of which do not necessarily correlate with the size of the whole brain. You have no idea how dinosaurs compared in intelligence to modern animals."
The EQ, as I just said... so yes, I have a pretty good idea how dinousaurs compared in intelligence to moderne animals
No, you are wrong. The configuration of the cerebral cortex can potentially affect intelligence far more than brain-body ratio. Dolphins, for example, have a very high brain-body ratio, but they are also phenomenally stupid.
-
Who cares if you can build a little raft without your thumbs? Try building a raft with your mouth or your feet, and we'll see if you succed. Oh, and try do that with your eyes closed to simulate how stupid dinosaurs were.
Many dinosaurs had clawed hands. The taping simulates this adversity they would have faced.
"The size of a brain does not dictate its intelligence, although in some species it can be indicative of it. The cereberal cortex, a relatively small part of the brain, plays a crucial role in the intelligence of an animal, the size and configuration of which do not necessarily correlate with the size of the whole brain. You have no idea how dinosaurs compared in intelligence to modern animals."
The EQ, as I just said... so yes, I have a pretty good idea how dinousaurs compared in intelligence to moderne animals
No, you are wrong. The configuration of the cerebral cortex can potentially affect intelligence far more than brain-body ratio. Dolphins, for example, have a very high brain-body ratio, but they are also phenomenally stupid.
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/education/course/descr/EAS109/109-Lec10.pdf
Maybe this would be soemthing for you then.
Oh, and I don't see Dolphins actually BUILDING complex things...
-
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/education/course/descr/EAS109/109-Lec10.pdf
Maybe this would be soemthing for you then.
Pretty much all the evidence there is circumstantial or just plain wrong. How can having horns be construed as indicative of primitive social behaviour? Is the presence of teeth and nails in humans evidence for it? No.
Herding is used as another example, but herding is a great idea. People herd too, a lot of activities are much easier to accomplish in groups.
I'm not going to post rebuttals to every single flawed point in that lengthy screed, but perhaps if you'd like to post your favorites I could demolish those for you.
Oh, and I don't see Dolphins actually BUILDING complex things...
That was my exact point. Despite their excellent brain-body ratio, dolphins are completely thick. They are absolutely inanely stupid, which shows that a good brain-body ratio doesn't mean squat.
-
Look, I told you, twice, I didn't film it. I can't comply with your request because it's impossible, no such footage exists.
Then I cannot accept your claim that making a boat with thumbs taped up is possible seeing as I'm too lazy and/or too stupid to try it myself.
Fixed that for you.
-
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/education/course/descr/EAS109/109-Lec10.pdf
Maybe this would be soemthing for you then.
Pretty much all the evidence there is circumstantial or just plain wrong. How can having horns be construed as indicative of primitive social behaviour? Is the presence of teeth and nails in humans evidence for it? No.
Herding is used as another example, but herding is a great idea. People herd too, a lot of activities are much easier to accomplish in groups.
I'm not going to post rebuttals to every single flawed point in that lengthy screed, but perhaps if you'd like to post your favorites I could demolish those for you.
Oh, and I don't see Dolphins actually BUILDING complex things...
That was my exact point. Despite their excellent brain-body ratio, dolphins are completely thick. They are absolutely inanely stupid, which shows that a good brain-body ratio doesn't mean squat.
Humans have an EQ of 7 while dolphins have an EQ of only slightly above 2. Dinosaurs have an EQ of ~0.1 and most wild animals have an EQ of 0.1-1.
Do you now see why dolphins don't build anything complex like humans do? Or why dinosaurs don't either?
That PDF file is only ? a page long, between the "Evidence of intelligence" down to "How fast did they go?"
We know more about dinosaurs than you think we know, it seems.
-
Once Dogplatter has produced his evidence in the form of youtube video I will perform my own investigation.
I don't have time to cover the same ground again, and my old group has disbanded. If you really have a massive problem believing that the relatively simple procedure of constructing a crude raft is possible with the digits of your hands taped together, you can perform the experiment yourself, otherwise you can continue to believe whatever idiotic denial of the obvious you want. I don't particularly care what you, anonymous internet globularist, think about my dinosaur experiment.
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/education/course/descr/EAS109/109-Lec10.pdf
Maybe this would be soemthing for you then.
Pretty much all the evidence there is circumstantial or just plain wrong. How can having horns be construed as indicative of primitive social behaviour? Is the presence of teeth and nails in humans evidence for it? No.
Herding is used as another example, but herding is a great idea. People herd too, a lot of activities are much easier to accomplish in groups.
I'm not going to post rebuttals to every single flawed point in that lengthy screed, but perhaps if you'd like to post your favorites I could demolish those for you.
Oh, and I don't see Dolphins actually BUILDING complex things...
That was my exact point. Despite their excellent brain-body ratio, dolphins are completely thick. They are absolutely inanely stupid, which shows that a good brain-body ratio doesn't mean squat.
Humans have an EQ of 7 while dolphins have an EQ of only slightly above 2. Dinosaurs have an EQ of ~0.1 and most wild animals have an EQ of 0.1-1.
Do you now see why dolphins don't build anything complex like humans do? Or why dinosaurs don't either?
That PDF file is only ? a page long, between the "Evidence of intelligence" down to "How fast did they go?"
We know more about dinosaurs than you think we know, it seems.
Your citation of those EQs only further demonstrates my point. The EQ of an otter or a bird is far lower than a dolphin, yet both otters and birds are adept at tool use, and dolphins are completely incapable by virtue of their incredible stupidity. Out of interest, what is the suspected EQ of a chimp? I'm genuinely interest to know.
-
Your citation of those EQs only further demonstrates my point. The EQ of an otter or a bird is far lower than a dolphin, yet both otters and birds are adept at tool use, and dolphins are completely incapable by virtue of their incredible stupidity. Out of interest, what is the suspected EQ of a chimp? I'm genuinely interest to know.
No if dolphins HAD to use tools in order to survive, they would have developed arms or a proper mouth for tool-use. But the thing is: they have had no reason at all to use tools. Oh, and why are you saying dolphins are stupid? They are quite smart as seen by the tricks they can easily learn and how they interact with humans and other dolphins.
Some birds have to use tools to build a little nest or something. There is a HUGE difference between building a simple nest so your eggs/kids is protected, compared to building a boat, even if it was just a simple boat ::) Do you know why humans use tools to such a large degree? Because we use our brains to survive instead of our big muscles. Did dinosaurs use their brains instead of their muscles to survive? No, if they did they would have had a larger brain.
The EQ of a chimp is 2-3.
Do you realise that alligators is one of the most ancient animals, who lived when dinosaurs was there too if I recall correctly? Do you see him building boats? He is just as smart as all other reptiles - dumb as a brick. How did crocodiles and alligators come almost all over the world?
Oh, and how exactly do you think this guy is going to build a boat? If he was designed for building things, he WOULD HAVE HAD SOME PROPER ARMS AND A PROPER BRAIN. I really can't see how you can believe a guy like this lived in a social colonization.
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefPQox1KQK8AMrqjzbkF/SIG=129f30fnf/EXP=1243542864/**http%3A//www.dinoart.com/images/license/carnotaurus.jpg)
-
No if dolphins HAD to use tools in order to survive, they would have developed arms or a proper mouth for tool-use. But the thing is: they have had no reason at all to use tools.
Otters don't have to use tools either, but they do because it makes sense, showing they are more intelligent than dolphins.
Oh, and why are you saying dolphins are stupid? They are quite smart as seen by the tricks they can easily learn and how they interact with humans and other dolphins.
So can parrots and dogs, both of which are also incredibly stupid by human standards.
Some birds have to use tools to build a little nest or something. There is a HUGE difference between building a simple nest so your eggs/kids is protected, compared to building a boat, even if it was just a simple boat ::)
Nests are very similar to boats, structurally and conceptually. Building a boat to find new resources or avoid overpopulation is equivalent in importance to protecting your young by making them a nest. If your young will die because they have to compete for highly scarce resources amongst an overcrowded population, it makes sense to any rational animal to seek out new resources in different locations.
Do you know why humans use tools to such a large degree? Because we use our brains to survive instead of our big muscles. Did dinosaurs use their brains instead of their muscles to survive? No, if they did they would have had a larger brain.
The dichotomy you are trying to present between brains and brawn is highly misleading. Most successful species, humans included, recruit a combination of both in ensuring their survival. Of course, dinosaurs would have done the same.
Do you realise that alligators is one of the most ancient animals, who lived when dinosaurs was there too? Do you see him building boats?
Alligators aren't a type of dinosaur. Coexisting with intelligent beings doesn't make you yourself intelligent as a species, as evidenced by
the fact that dogs, dolphins, etc., coexist with humans and yet are completely moronic. The fact of the matter is, as a lethal and effective predator which was perfectly adapted to its environment, the prehistoric alligator would not have faced the kinds of evolutionary selection pressures which forced dinosaurs to develop intelligence in order to overcome the challenges which they faced.
He is just as smart as all other reptiles - dumb as a brick.
But dinosaurs aren't reptiles.
How did crocodiles and alligators come almost all over the world?
Dinosaurs would have transported the ancestors of the modern alligator and crocodile with them as livestock and/or pets. Also, both alligators and crocodiles are excellent swimmers, which explains a large amount of their local migration by water.
Oh, and how exactly do you think this guy is going to build a boat? If he was designed for building things, he WOULD HAVE HAD SOME NON-STUBBY ARMS AND A PROPER BRAIN. I really can't see how you can believe a guy like this lived in a social colonization.
Dinosaurs of different kinds had a wide range of biological configurations which would have lent themselves to different technical proficiencies. Actually, you point out the short arms of the dinosaurs which were bipedal. In my opinion, this serves as further evidence of specialisation along the same lines as humanity. Bipedalism frees up the forelimbs for operations such as tool creation and use, and the adjustment of the lungs in bipedal land animals (of which humans are currently the only real example) actually allows for a wider range of noises to be produced, a prerequisite for verbal communication. Bipedal dinosaurs such as compsognathus, velociraptor and deinonychus were ideal candidates for the evolutionary trappings of civilisation.
-
That's not how science works. You produce evidence of your experimentation and then we verify it. I will accept a youtube link to a video of you taping your thumbs up and then trying to build a raft.
Dolphins aren't "incredibly stupid". And they do use tools.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0607_050607_dolphin_tools.html
They just haven't got round to building boats yet.
That's pretty cool, didn't know that actually. Dolphins are some of the smartest animals besides humans :)
-
That's not how science works. You produce evidence of your experimentation and then we verify it. I will accept a youtube link to a video of you taping your thumbs up and then trying to build a raft.
You don't have the faintest idea how science works. Regardless, this isn't a matter of science, it's a petty argument which is going nowhere because you want me to send you a link which doesn't exist. YOU can replicate the experiment if you wish. That is the only option.
Dolphins aren't "incredibly stupid". And they do use tools.
Have you ever interacted with a dolphin? They cannot communicate coherently, they spend their entire lives mating, eating and inanely frolicing in the waves. They are by the standards of humanity completely and utterly dense.
The link you provide is mainly based on conjecture after what sounds like a chance observation of some retarded dolphin hijinks. Some idiot dolphin got a bit of sponge stuck on its face? Stop the presses, we've just found the Einstein of the ocean! ::)
-
Otters don't have to use tools either, but they do because it makes sense, showing they are more intelligent than dolphins.
Yes they have to use tools in order to crack open the shells to get their food. It is like a crab using a shell as a "backpack". Doesn't make it smart.
I doubt you realise the difference between using a stick or rock to crack something open with food in it for thousands of years, compared to building complex structures like boats for no short-term reason.
Nests are very similar to boats, structurally and conceptually. Building a boat to find new resources or avoid overpopulation is equivalent in importance to protecting your young by making them a nest. If your young will die because they have to compete for highly scarce resources amongst an overcrowded population, it makes sense to any rational animal to seek out new resources in different locations.
No they are not! They are not the same at all! We humans have built "houses" for as long as we have existed, but have only begun builting boats that can sail very far the last couple of thousand years, and small river-boats have only existed for a few ten-thousands years.
It doesn't make sense that a T-Rex would think "Hey we are running a little dry on ressources. You, cryphotaus, get me some wood. You, hopalitaus, get me a hammer. I'm going to build a boat so we can sail over the ocean into the unknown." ::)
Why exactly would they use months/years building a boat, when they have no idea what's out there, and they instead could just WALK over the land or kill the other predators in their land.
The dichotomy you are trying to present between brains and brawn is highly misleading. Most successful species, humans included, recruit a combination of both in ensuring their survival. Of course, dinosaurs would have done the same.
No. We humans have almost no muscle-power. We have our brains instead. If we were to have the same muscle-power as an ape together with our brain, we would need way over 5000 calories daily to not lose weight. So we would probably need 6-7000 calories daily to gain weight to survive the cold winter. That is why we don't have large muscles - because we can't have both. That is also why so few animals have large brains. Because they consume alot of calories. I have heard that in a class, where you focus 100%, you can burn several hundreds kcal an hour.
the fact that dogs, dolphins, etc., coexist with humans and yet are completely moronic. The fact of the matter is, as a lethal and effective predator which was perfectly adapted to its environment, the prehistoric alligator would not have faced the kinds of evolutionary selection pressures which forced dinosaurs to develop intelligence in order to overcome the challenges which they faced.
Dogs, dolphins etc don't co-exist with humans. They are wild animals, that have nothing to do with humans. An alligator is a dinosaur, just like most birds are. They haven't changed much.
"develop intelligence in order to overcome the challenges which they faced"
Oh, like what?
But dinosaurs aren't reptiles.
Yes they are.
Dinosaurs would have transported the ancestors of the modern alligator and crocodile with them as livestock and/or pets. Also, both alligators and crocodiles are excellent swimmers, which explains a large amount of their local migration by water.
Why am I even debating with you? ::) Holding croc's as livestock? Come one.....
Dinosaurs of different kinds had a wide range of biological configurations which would have lent themselves to different technical proficiencies. Actually, you point out the short arms of the dinosaurs which were bipedal. In my opinion, this serves as further evidence of specialisation along the same lines as humanity. Bipedalism frees up the forelimbs for operations such as tool creation and use, and the adjustment of the lungs in bipedal land animals (of which humans are currently the only real example) actually allows for a wider range of noises to be produced, a prerequisite for verbal communication. Bipedal dinosaurs such as compsognathus, velociraptor and deinonychus were ideal candidates for the evolutionary trappings of civilisation.
Their arms was NOT meant for using tools. They were most likely used when running to "move" like we use our arms, or they were simple meathooks, or maybe they were just something that didn't have any purpose at all - after all we have many things in our body with no purpose at all. Like the "tail-bone". The thing is, many dinosaurs broke their arms very often. They simply didn't need them that much.
Their arms had VERY limited range of motion. They could barely be bended
-
Have you ever interacted with a dolphin? They cannot communicate coherently, they spend their entire lives mating, eating and inanely frolicing in the waves. They are by the standards of humanity completely and utterly dense.
Much like most humans?
-
If you seriously don't believe that a bunch of people with their hands taped together can build a raft, you really ought to try it yourself.
Your experiment is scientifically flawed.
New experiment, I am going to repeatedly hit you in the head as hard as I can with a baseball bat, and then you can go tape up your fingers and try and build a raft. Lets see what happens.
Added: I guess I should elaborate. Dinosaurs do not have the same joins as us. You cannot compare your bone structure to theirs. Taping fingers does not make you a dinosaur.
-
Yes they have to use tools in order to crack open the shells to get their food. It is like a crab using a shell as a "backpack". Doesn't make it smart.
Not at all, there are plenty of other food sources available for otters, they just choose to use tools to maximise the food they can get. It's a completely contingent decision.
I doubt you realise the difference between using a stick or rock to crack something open with food in it for thousands of years, compared to building complex structures like boats for no short-term reason.
I am not equating the two. I raise the tool-use of otters purely as a counterexample to the wrongful claims that opposable thumbs or a high EQ are requirements for tool use.
Nests are very similar to boats, structurally and conceptually. Building a boat to find new resources or avoid overpopulation is equivalent in importance to protecting your young by making them a nest. If your young will die because they have to compete for highly scarce resources amongst an overcrowded population, it makes sense to any rational animal to seek out new resources in different locations.
No they are not! They are not the same at all! We humans have built "houses" for as long as we have existed, but have only begun builting boats that can sail very far the last couple of thousand years, and small river-boats have only existed for a few ten-thousands years.
No we haven't. For much of human history, our ancestors wandered in the open as shelterless nomads. We've been building boats almost since we left Africa, there is strong archaeological evidence that the aboriginal population of Australia used boats to travel there from mainland Eurasia. This was before the last Ice Age. We're not talking about a few thousand years here, this is ancient prehistory. Building boats is totally easy and has been done for much of human prehistory.
It doesn't make sense that a T-Rex would think "Hey we are running a little dry on ressources. You, cryphotaus, get me some wood. You, hopalitaus, get me a hammer. I'm going to build a boat so we can sail over the ocean into the unknown." ::)
What exactly is implausible about this scenario besides the use of vocal English and the involvement of a human tool?
Why exactly would they use months/years building a boat, when they have no idea what's out there, and they instead could just WALK over the land or kill the other predators in their land.
For the exact same reasons that humans did. Scarcity of resources, overpopulation, inherent sense of adventure.
The dichotomy you are trying to present between brains and brawn is highly misleading. Most successful species, humans included, recruit a combination of both in ensuring their survival. Of course, dinosaurs would have done the same.
No. We humans have almost no muscle-power. We have our brains instead. If we were to have the same muscle-power as an ape together with our brain, we would need way over 5000 calories daily to not lose weight. So we would probably need 6-7000 calories daily to gain weight to survive the cold winter. That is why we don't have large muscles - because we can't have both. That is also why so few animals have large brains. Because they consume alot of calories. I have heard that in a class, where you focus 100%, you can burn several hundreds kcal an hour.
Many adult men involved in the kind of exertion levels that would have typified prehistoric life (i.e. modern soldiers, athletes, etc.) do require massive calorific intakes in order to fulfill their energy needs. Also, brains consume hardly any calories. You have heard incorrectly. Rigorous scientific testing by a number of scientific institutions has demonstrated that the amount of energy used in intense concentration scarcely differs from that used in normal homeostasis.
the fact that dogs, dolphins, etc., coexist with humans and yet are completely moronic. The fact of the matter is, as a lethal and effective predator which was perfectly adapted to its environment, the prehistoric alligator would not have faced the kinds of evolutionary selection pressures which forced dinosaurs to develop intelligence in order to overcome the challenges which they faced.
Dogs, dolphins etc don't co-exist with humans. They are wild animals, that have nothing to do with humans. An alligator is a dinosaur, just like most birds are. They haven't changed much.
"develop intelligence in order to overcome the challenges which they faced"
Oh, like what?
But dinosaurs aren't reptiles.
Yes they are.
Their hip configurations mean that they aren't. Legged reptiles walk with the hips such that the legs are not directly below the body (as with alligators, lizards, etc.). Dinosaurs had hips which enabled them to walk with the legs directly underneath the body, distinguishing them from the modern class of animals known as reptiles. An alligator is absolutely NOT a dinosaur. Birds are descended from dinosaurs, but are not dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs would have transported the ancestors of the modern alligator and crocodile with them as livestock and/or pets. Also, both alligators and crocodiles are excellent swimmers, which explains a large amount of their local migration by water.
Why am I even debating with you? ::) Holding croc's as livestock? Come one.....
Do you have an actual rebuttal to this claim? Humans both modern and in antiquity have kept crocodiles as pets. What is so unintuitive about dinosaurs keeping them in much the same way as people keep dogs and cattle?
Dinosaurs of different kinds had a wide range of biological configurations which would have lent themselves to different technical proficiencies. Actually, you point out the short arms of the dinosaurs which were bipedal. In my opinion, this serves as further evidence of specialisation along the same lines as humanity. Bipedalism frees up the forelimbs for operations such as tool creation and use, and the adjustment of the lungs in bipedal land animals (of which humans are currently the only real example) actually allows for a wider range of noises to be produced, a prerequisite for verbal communication. Bipedal dinosaurs such as compsognathus, velociraptor and deinonychus were ideal candidates for the evolutionary trappings of civilisation.
Their arms was NOT meant for using tools. They were most likely used when running to "move" like we use our arms, or they were simple meathooks, or maybe they were just something that didn't have any purpose at all - after all we have many things in our body with no purpose at all. Like the "tail-bone". The thing is, many dinosaurs broke their arms very often. They simply didn't need them that much.
Their arms had VERY limited range of motion. They could barely be bended
You're just wildly conjecturing now. Which is it? You just pulled three made-up characterisations of dinosaur arms out of thin air. I'm not sure we can continue to have a serious discussion if you're just going to make things up all the time in order to prop up your ailing thesis.
Furthermore, you can't possibly generalise about the ranges of motion of dinosaur arms, because as I have pointed out, a large number of different configurations for the anatomy of dinosaurs existed. Some were even quadripedal.
-
If you seriously don't believe that a bunch of people with their hands taped together can build a raft, you really ought to try it yourself.
Your experiment is scientifically flawed.
New experiment, I am going to repeatedly hit you in the head as hard as I can with a baseball bat, and then you can go tape up your fingers and try and build a raft. Lets see what happens.
For threatening me with armed physical violence, I have banned you from the forums for one week.
Added: I guess I should elaborate. Dinosaurs do not have the same joins as us. You cannot compare your bone structure to theirs. Taping fingers does not make you a dinosaur.
The experiment specifically illustrates that opposable thumbs are not a prerequisite for tool use and construction. This is the aim of the experiment, and it generally yields results which confirm the hypothesis.
-
For threatening me with armed physical violence, I have banned you from the forums for one week.
You are retarded.
-
For threatening me with armed physical violence, I have banned you from the forums for one week.
You are retarded.
For circumventing the ban with a dummy account, I have banned the dummy account and extended the ban on your main account to one month. Further efforts to circumvent the ban, upon discovery, will result in progressive increases in the total amount of time your main account is banned for.
-
For threatening me with armed physical violence, I have banned you from the forums for one week.
You are retarded.
For circumventing the ban with a dummy account, I have banned the dummy account and extended the ban on your main account to one month. Further efforts to circumvent the ban, upon discovery, will result in progressive increases in the total amount of time your main account is banned for.
He is right, you are retarded it seems. Believing dinosaurs, who clearly had the size of a walnut and arms that had no purpose at all, was intelligent enough to build complex structures (that is NOT the same as using very simple tools to do very simple stuff, because most animals do that) and had a social colonization with every other dinosaur sort. It is the stuff you hear in a childrens book. It is just as retarded as believing the Earth to be flat when you can clearly look out your window and see the exact thing RET describes, and calling people for liars and fraudelents with no proof at all (the space agencies) - which is actually a pretty serious crime.
"New experiment, I am going to repeatedly hit you in the head as hard as I can with a baseball bat, and then you can go tape up your fingers and try and build a raft."
is not the same as
"For threatening me with armed physical violence, I have banned you from the forums for one week."
I don't think you realise how happy I am that no Flat Earther have any meaningful position in society, like scientists, lawyers, politicians etc. The world would be completely fucked.
-
He is right, you are retarded it seems. Believing dinosaurs, who clearly had the size of a walnut and arms that had no purpose at all, was intelligent enough to build complex structures (that is NOT the same as using very simple tools to do very simple stuff, because most animals do that) and had a social colonization with every other dinosaur sort. It is the stuff you hear in a childrens book. It is just as retarded as believing the Earth to be flat when you can clearly look out your window and see the exact thing RET describes,
I'm interested to know if you've encountered the Quine-Duhem thesis of underdetermination. W V O Quine, specifically, states that the particulars which make up any given theory can be rearranged to match observable evidence no matter how integral they are, because we can never know the extent to which the logical connections between these articles of knowledge transmit the necessity of revision in the case that one particular is revised. If this thesis is true, looking out of your window and seeing exactly what RET describes (which, incidentally, is exactly what FET describes as well) means nothing for the absolute veracity of RET. Round Earth theory can plausibly be reconstructed and rearranged to meet any observable evidence, and it routinely is reconstructed so.
and calling people for liars and fraudelents with no proof at all (the space agencies) - which is actually a pretty serious crime.
It's not a crime if I sincerely believe it to be true. I'm fairly sure that slander and libel require the defendant to knowingly promulgate falsehoods, though I'm no lawyer. Anyway, the Space Conspiracy is completely off topic for this thread, please return to the matter at hand ('What about the Dinosaurs?').
"New experiment, I am going to repeatedly hit you in the head as hard as I can with a baseball bat, and then you can go tape up your fingers and try and build a raft."
is not the same as
"For threatening me with armed physical violence, I have banned you from the forums for one week."
I don't think you realise how happy I am that no Flat Earther have any meaningful position in society, like scientists, lawyers, politicians etc. The world would be completely fucked.
Let's keep the language decent in the serious discussion fora please.
-
Here are some images of the dromaeosaur races Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, and their common ancestor, Deinonychus:
Adasaurus, pictured gingerly cradling its young in its nimble clawed hands.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/adasauro.jpg)
Dromaeosaurus, a cousin of the Adasaurus, who would have existed during the same period as the Adasaurus (the late cretacious), but on different continents.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Avian_Dromaeosaurus_03_10.jpg)
Deinonychus, the ancestor of the Dromaeosauruses and the Adasauruses.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/walters_deinonychus.jpg)
The natural history of the dromaeosaurs is a good example of the kinds of developments which the dinosaurs as a whole would have undergone. Fossil evidence indicates that Deinonychus originated in North America during the early cretacious period.
Deinonychus are thought to have been highly social, organising themselves into complex communities in order to work together. During their development, Deinonychus evolved an iconic five-inch claw on the foot, which was highly dexterous, and could be retracted and moved back and forth. Initially, this would have served a purpose in hunting and combat, though it would later have been useful in the performance of complex motor skills such as puncturing fabrics, making written inscriptions and so on. The special success of this early dromaeosaur is partly explicable by its long tail, which acting as a counterbalance allowed the use of both the hands and feet in dexterous activity.
The distribution of Deinonychus' descendants, the Adasuruses and Dromaeosauruses, suggests that one or more colonial expeditions sailed from the West Coast of North America and colonised the far East, probably landing in Japan and China and then spreading across the eastern part of Eurasia.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/npo.jpg)
Above: The Pacific Ocean
Travel between the colonies during this period seems to have been very limited, because the two previously homogenous groups of dromaeosaur began to evolve minor racial adaptions which distinguished them from one another, though they retained all of the major characteristics of the dromaeosaur species. The fact that these groups proceeded to evolve on the micro scale along different lines despite their immediate proximity in the faulty "pangea" model is testament to the fact that ocean seperated them, much as it does today.
The colonist Deinonychuses who reached the far east adapted in a number of ways. Adasauruses, probably due to massively increased tool usage and the removal of the necessity to be involved in violence as their civilisation progressed, developed much smaller foot-claws than their ancestors. A smaller claw would have been much more suitable for precision tasks like inscription, manipulation of cloth and fine materials and so on, and marks the transition from its role as a mechanism of hunting and combat to its role as an additional dexterous digit. In the absence of the selection pressures brought on by the development of a civilisation, and the mastery of the surrounding wildlife and other hazards, Adasauruses' bodies became smaller than those of their Deinonychus ancestors, who had needed to be larger because their lifestyle was primarily one based around hunting and conflict. Fossil evidence suggests that the Saurolophus, a herbiverous, docile grazing dinosaur, originating in North America, also appeared in the far East at roughly the same time, making it likely that the first Deinonychian colonists brought specimens with them on the transcontinental voyage, and probably began to farm them for food (they would have previous been hunted by tribes of Deinonychus living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the American continent). The advent of an agrarian society based on the pasturing of Saurolophus would remove the necessity for the brutalities of hunting. In order to bring down a wild Saurolophus, tribal warriors would have needed considerable bulk and might as well as cunning, but their agrarian descendants needed no such unneccessary brawn, which explains their shrinking - the average Adasaurus living during the late cretacious was around 8 feet long, whereas a North American Deinonychus of the early cretacious period, who would have had to hunt the large wild Saurolophus and Tenontosaurus (probably hunted to extinction by early Deinonychian hunters, explaining why it was not exported to the far east along with Saurolophus) would have measured 11 feet long.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/pacific_ocean_image_t1677.jpg)
Above: The west coast of North America. Groups of pioneering Deinonychus, who would later microevolve into the Asasauruses, would have set sail from shores such as these.
The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines. The Dromaeosaurus, from which the species derives its name, were Deinonychus who remained in North America. Their adaption did not include such an acute reduction in claw size as the the Adasaurus, but their body size decreased significantly, to around 6 feet long. Again, this is attributable to the development of farming, primarily of the tamed Saurolophus. That the Dromaeosauruses did not develop the highly precise small-claw of the Adasauruses suggests that they may not have involved themselves so heavily in activities such as writing. Dromaeosauruses developed a coat of downy feathers, which might suggest that colder climates prevailed in North America at this time. Their smaller size than the Adasaurus could also be indicative of evolutionary adaption in order to conserve heat. If temperatures did drop for the Dromaeosaurs entering the Late Cretacious, perhaps their society was a more rugged one, and the harsh realities of surviving the cold winters precluded such an extensive focus on writing, hence the lack of precision small-foot-claw adaption shown in the Adasaurus. The evolution of their tails gave greater flexibility and may have been indicative of adaption in favour of some civilised activity, since the balancing capability of the tail enables enhanced use not only of the forelimbs but also the foot claw.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/saurolophusC.jpg)
Above: Saurolophus. These gentle giants were probably first hunted by the North American Deinonychus, and later herded and grazed by them when farming entered their culture just prior to the colonisation era, and splitting of Asasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, the two Deinonychus descendant races.
So, fossil remains suggest that as intelligent Deinonychus became highly successful hunter-gatherers during the Early Cretacious, conquering the entire North American continent with such rampant success that they drove one of their main prey animals, the Tenontosaurus, to extinction. It is likely that the advent of Saurolophus domestication roughly coincided with, or just preceded, the maritime renaissance and colonisation period. The tendency of agrarian societies to promote massive population growth is clear, and in this scenario, facing scarcity of land and dropping temperatures, some of the Deinonychus would have begun their colonisation of China and the far East, taking with them livestock as well as elements of the budding culture of North America. Fossil evidence suggests that the Adasaurus society was massively successful, placing some of their near relatives as far afield as Denmark. An empire the size of Alexander the Great's would no doubt have been underpinned by careful organisation and a culture steeped in the written word and refinements of erudition. Meanwhile, as the Late Cretacious brought colder climates in North America, the remaining American Deinonychus grew smaller, hairier and more rugged as they faced the elements as best they could, thought they still retained their agriculture and some vestements of civilisation.
-
Deinonychus are thought to have been highly social, organising themselves into complex communities in order to work together.
During their development, Deinonychus evolved an iconic five-inch claw on the foot, which was highly dexterous, and could be retracted and moved back and forth. Initially, this would have served a purpose in hunting and combat, though it would later have been useful in the performance of complex motor skills such as puncturing fabrics, making written inscriptions and so on. The special success of this early dromaeosaur is partly explicable by its long tail, which acting as a counterbalance allowed the use of both the hands and feet in dexterous activity
Above: The Pacific Ocean
We really need to get Trey Parker and Matt Stone down here to do something about this.
If you really believe this, you would be able to show us some proof or evidence. But you cant.
Where are the writings, drawings or inscriptions from these dinosaurs? They don't exist.
Where is the proof that they built boats? There would definitely be some proof left over! They must have used tools, which would have left evidence of so!
-
Where are the writings, drawings or inscriptions from these dinosaurs? They don't exist.
Where would suggest I find a 65 million year-old parchment in readable condition? My local library?
Where is the proof that they built boats? There would definitely be some proof left over! They must have used tools, which would have left evidence of so!
Of all the dinosaurs, who existed ever, what percentage have been found in fossilised remains? Tools made of wood or anything remotely biodegradable, papers, parchments, wood carvings, fabrics, etc. would be incredibly unlikely to survive into the fossilisation stage, based on the tiny percentage of ANYTHING which does. Of the literal billions of dromaeosaurs which would have existed throughout their history, the number of ones which have been preserved probably scarcely pushes one hundred.
-
Then we're all agreed. You have no evidence that that dinosaurs built boats.
Thankyou for contributing to the debate!
Actually, I do! The fossil distributions of Deinonychus' descendants, Adasaurus (in the Far East) and Dromaeosaurus (in North America) testify that though they shared a common ancestor they evolved distinct characteristics reflecting their diverging cultures and seperation by ocean. If Pangea existed, and they did not colonise by water, then how would you be able to explain the fact that the Deinonychus gene pool split so sharply? No Dromaeosaurus fossils that I know of have been found in the Far East, and no Adasaurus fossils in the Americas. Plus, no Deinonychus fossils have been found in Asia either, corroborating the colonisation hypothesis.
According to the Pangea theory, the Deinonychus would have walked back and forth between China and America and would never even have evolved distinct cultures and consequent physical adaptions because they would never have been seperated. I.e., the theory of Pangea is INCOMPATIBLE with the observable evidence from the fossil record.
-
Of all the FE bullshit this is the worst yet.
It sounds like The Land Before Time
-
No the theory of Pangea is entirely compatible with observable evidence from the fossil record.
As to Deinonychus, Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus. It's called evolution.
The domestic cat is a descendent of lions and tigers. Therefore cats built boats.
Your debating skills suck big time.
Yes, it is called evolution. Did you read my post? If you did, you certainly didn't comprehend it properly. The fact that Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus evolved along seperate lines on a micro-level is evidence that the two populations were seperated. Pangea theory necessitates that they lived in the same place. If Pangea theory is true, there would have been a single homogenous Deinonychus population.
But still, for comedy's sake, why don't you post your evidence that dinosaurs built boats.
I just did, but apparently you're too much of a dumbshoe to actually understand it. Do you get it? All modern observations suggests that populations seperated by ocean micro-evolve along different lines depending on their different selection pressures, whereas homogenous populations face the same selection pressures and evolve as a single population. Pangea theory posits that a single population of Deinonychus habitated a conjoined continent of North America and Far East Asia. Fossil evidence proves that two discrete populations of Dromaeosaur descended from Deinonychus existed, one in North America, one in Asia, and over time evolved differently because they were seperated in that manner.
-
There is so much nonsense being spouted by RE'ers in this thread. Can someone explain to me why building a nest is more complex than building a raft? One involves creating a sound structure out of wood, and the other... the same thing. There have been numerous scientific experiments in the last few years which have shown that crows are capable not only of creating and manipulationg tools from memory, but that they can 'invent' new tools to serve a specific purpose when a given a completely new task.
The way I see it, anything a bird can do, a dinosaur can. If a bird can build nests and create tools, then a dinosaur, with superior muscle strength and limb control, would surely be able to acheive more. Not to mention the fact that the actual biology of dinosaur brains is largely guess-work on the part of scientists, as all we have to go on is the relatively scant fossil record. Nobody has ever seena dinosaur brain, and whilst skull shapes can reveal quite a bit, they cannot reveal everything.
If birds can build nests and use tools, then I believe that dinosaurs, with large muscles, powerful claws and sharp teeth, could easily build ocean going rafts or simple boats.
-
Two populations diverged on the same continent. Just like lions / tigers / domestic cats. How does this give us a Dinotopia civilisation with TRex dockers again?
So why are there NO Adasaurus fossils in the Americas and NO Dromaeosaurus fossils in Asia? If the species diverged on your mythical super-continent, there would be no rigid division of fossil remains based on the ocean boundary which you claim didn't even exist at the time. There is completely rigid division between the Adasaurus, which is EXCLUSIVELY FOUND in East Asia, and the Dromaeousaurus, which is EXCLUSIVELY FOUND in America, not a single counterexample exists.
If Dromaeosaurus and Adasaurus coexisted on the same supercontinent, the remains of both would be found in both North America and East Asia. They are not. One is found exclusively in Asia, one is found exclusively in America. Get this into your head.
-
Can someone explain to me why building a nest is more complex than building a raft?
Is it the buoyancy problems, the stablility problems, the propulsion problems, the navigation problems or the rationing problems which you don't understand?
Navigation? Pah. Every year, millions upon millions of birds navigate across huge distances, proving that they have the ability to navigate, probably based on celestial movements. If they can do it, so could dinoaurs.
Buoyancy, stability, propulsion... you are making this sound overly complex. When the first humans built boats, I doubt they had that kind of terminology. I know what I'd do if I was building a raft. I'd think 'hey wooden stuff floats!', and than I'd tie some of it together and see if floated. I'd experiment, and then by trial an error, figure out the best way to do it... just like birds do with nests and tools. Then I'd spread that knowledge and pass it on.
The reason birds can't build boats is, surprise surprise, because they can fly. Their species has never faced a situation where they could not travel by flight. Land-based dinosaurs did not have that capability, and thus may have faced population pressures that could only be eased by travelling over water. Who knows how it began? It could have been with river or lake crossings, then eventually, shoreline travel, and after that, who knows?
-
Building and using boats is just about one of the easiest things in the world. In an exploration context, once you've built the boat, you just get on it and sail until you hit land. Navigation is completely irrelevant if you don't even know what you're navigating towards.
-
I defer to the first response, What do dinosaurs have to do with a flat earth?
And i'll go further, why do any FE'ers defend any position on dinosaurs? I didn't know FE'ers were experts on dinosaurs. This argument is moot isn't it?
Weather the dinosaurs built gas powered warships or floated on the backs of sea turtles to migrate or followed huge icy bridges to the ice wall then around to a different continent, it doesn't add or negate from a flat earth or round earth theory does it?
I guess the question is how does the intelligence, or existence of any dinosaur, or creature have anything to do with the shape of the planet? Seems moot to me.
-
Show me a bird that can build a boat. If you like, I'll let you untie its thumbs.
I've already answered this (frankly stupid) question by saying that the population pressures necessary to provoke seaa-faring 'behaviour' have never existed for birds, because they can fly. It's like asking me to show you a dolphin that can swim breast-stroke.
-
Out of context and out of arguments: the tell-tale signs of a beaten RE'er.
Another victory for FE!
-
Out of context and out of arguments: the tell-tale signs of a beaten RE'er.
Nope its perfectly within the context. It was you who drew up the parallel between dinosaurs and birds. Then it was you who said that such a comparison, with regard to boat building, was frankly stupid.
Cut by your own sword.
You're resorting to a childish interpretation of what I said, which is even more stupid than the original question. Obviously there are lots of things dinosaurs can do which birds can't, if you're going to take the statement literally. It was clearly an expression, and the point was equally obvious: at the very least, dinosaurs had mental faculties equal to that of modern birds. I would argue that they probably had greater mental faculties, and a better natural advantage in tool making.
However, unlike birds, dinosaurs faced limitations on their movement which birds did not. Birds can fly, whereas most dinosaurs were land-based creatures. The stupid, lumbering, monstrous dinosaur is a hollywood creation. If birds can fashion hooks to reach food on the first attempt in a set scenario, then isn't it possible that over time, dinosaurs could have used felled logs to cross rivers? Over time, could they not have developed an ability to craft proper rafts, perhaps even simple boats?
Modern humans are only about 200,000 years old. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for about 160 million years. Over that kind of timeline, any behaviour pattern is possible.
-
You're resorting to a childish interpretation of what I said, which is even more stupid than the original question. Obviously there are lots of things dinosaurs can do which birds can't, if you're going to take the statement literally. It was clearly an expression, and the point was equally obvious: at the very least, dinosaurs had mental faculties equal to that of modern birds. I would argue that they probably had greater mental faculties, and a better natural advantage in tool making.
However, unlike birds, dinosaurs faced limitations on their movement which birds did not. Birds can fly, whereas most dinosaurs were land-based creatures. The stupid, lumbering, monstrous dinosaur is a hollywood creation. If birds can fashion hooks to reach food on the first attempt in a set scenario, then isn't it possible that over time, dinosaurs could have used felled logs to cross rivers? Over time, could they not have developed an ability to craft proper rafts, perhaps even simple boats?
Modern humans are only about 200,000 years old. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for about 160 million years. Over that kind of timeline, any behaviour pattern is possible.
Then why have we not found any archeological evidence to support that dinosaurs had tools? Also keep in mind that the human brain size to body size ratio is close to 10 times that of any other animal, including dinosaurs, thus the reason we made tools in 150,000 years and they likely didn't in 160 million. You're also greatly underestimating the complexity of a craft required to cross an ocean. Without and form of power other than a sail it could take several months to cross an ocean and for a creature the size of a dinosaur, it would take several tons of food to survive for that length of time.
...This is all assuming you're actually serious and not joking(I haven't read the first 4 pages of this thread).
-
Lets compare the intelligence of dinosaurs to the average human. Could the average human build a boat and sail across the ocean? not without drowning halfway because of a poorly built craft.
Dinosaurs weigh an awful lot more than an average human. There is not the slightest chance they could build a boat get on, sail somewhere and get off. Surely you have a less stupid sounding example than this.
What did they do?
Build a fucking Noah's Ark and sail across the Atlantic? hahahahaha
-
If you look at a FE map...
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)
...you'll see that there are very few places where a months-long sea voyage would actually be necessary. Most travel would be by land, with only short sea voyages.
-
Still requires construction of a boat big enough to carry 100 tonnes of dinosaur
-
Lets compare the intelligence of dinosaurs to the average human. Could the average human build a boat and sail across the ocean? not without drowning halfway because of a poorly built craft.
Absolutely. Australia was seperated from Eurasia (even according to Pangea theory) at the time when the first humans colonised it (the Aborigines). They sailed hundreds of miles on crude rafts and boats made with very basic tools out of wood. Their boats would have been pretty terrible considering they had no prior experience building them, nor any concepts of engineering or physics beyond wildly inaccurate myths and fables.
Still requires construction of a boat big enough to carry 100 tonnes of dinosaur
Our test case, the Early-Cretacious North American Deinonychus, would have weighed a maximum of 73 kilograms, based on the very largest specimens which have ever been discovered. I weigh 76 kilograms, and I assure you, I have travelled on many boats without causing them to sink. I've actually travelled, even, on a crude raft of my own construction. It didn't sink.
As for large dinosaurs, let us turn our attention the Jurassic sauropod giants, Apatosaurus and Diplodocus, which would have preceded the Dromaeosaurs by several million years. Specimens of these two creatures, who of course would have great trouble traversing the ocean, are found exclusively on the North American continent. They were most probably not even sentient, and evidence suggests that they did not colonise by boat (or else they would also be found in Asia).
What about Saurolophus, the veritable cattle of the Cretacious? Adults of this species would have weighed roughly 1.9 tonnes, but specimens appear in both the Far East and America. However, we've already established that these animals were farmed by Deinonychus and the descendant forms, so the logistical problems associated with transporting them would have fallen upon the pioneers of the Asian colonisation. I think it's very likely that infant Saurolophus were transported in those colonial ships rather than full-grown adults, because as you say, a 1.9 tonne dinosaur does not make a brilliant skipper.
Funnily enough, the Asian species of Saurolophus is distinct in size (and consequently meat yield) from its North American counterpart. Highly improbable in the case of a single, wild homogenous population on a single Pangean super-continent. Highly explicable by two distinct populations, seperated by ocean and subject to agrarian selective breeding by another species.
-
Highly improbable
This quote just about sums up this whole dinosaur thing.
(http://www.nwboattravel.com/pictures/dinosaur.jpg)
I try to be open minded about all the FE excuses science, but this dinosaur thing I cannot see happening. I have never actually laughed about any FE science, but this just seems ridiculous. Its just a dinosaur is so stupid and this was before more evolution into intelligent species. Even after millions of years of evolution the only species capable of building something like a boat is a human. How would a dinosaur of known that it could pile some wood together, tie it up somehow (this would be difficult) and put it on water and know they would float away somewhere. I try not to use the terms magical and fantasy when talking about FE, but its hard in this instance. For gods sake its like The Land Before Time.
It seems in this case it would be better for your theory to somehow change what you believe to incorporate a better idea. Whether or not the earth is round or flat the evidence for plate tectonics and continental drift is overwhelming.
-
The rest of your post is groundless speculation and shaky parallels. Just like Dogplatters. The only way to resolve this is for Dogplatter to post his evidence of Dinosaur boat building and civilisation.
I have posted a large body of evidence in favour of my thesis. Since you appear to have been unable to give it a synoptical reading, allow me to summarise each item of evidence. Further explanation of each is to be found in the several large posts which I have already made in this thread.
- Fossil records demonstrating that Deinonychus evolved on the North American continent
- Fossil records demonstrating that the descendants of Deinonychus developed on two seperate lines, one of which is exclusively found on the North American continent, one of which is exclusively found in Asia
- Fossil records demonstrating that Saurolophus, a prey animal to Deinonychus and its descendants, developed on two seperate lines, one on the North American continent, one in Asia, consistent with selective breeding
- Fossil records demonstrating that Apatosaurus and Diplodocus, two species unlikely to have been capable of maritime travel, are found exclusively on the North American continent, suggesting that simply walking to Asia was impossible
- Evidence that opposable thumbs are not a prerequisite for tool use
- Evidence that opposable thumbs are not a prerequisite for boat building
I'm not sure if that's a completely exhaustive list of all the evidence I have provided, but it's certainly a starting point for you since you seem not to have actually read the thesis I exhorted in previous posts. Perhaps while you're reading it you could see if there are any other pieces of evidence which I presented, but which I forgot to include in this list!
-
Can I just ask if this is a recent "discovery" in FE history or have you always believed this?
Surely there is another more plausible method for dinosaurs to traverse water. Swimming somehow? Hitching a ride on the back of a water dinosaur? Usually FE is quite good at coming up with some good explanations but I really just dont like this one.
Why cant plate tectonics exist on FE?
Sorry to sound like Tom Bishop but Evidence that opposable thumbs are not a prerequisite for tool use
Evidence that opposable thumbs are not a prerequisite for boat building
Proof?
Its probably already been presented, but I am very impatient and cant read a whole thread sorry
-
Can I just ask if this is a recent "discovery" in FE history or have you always believed this?
Surely there is another more plausible method for dinosaurs to traverse water. Swimming somehow? Hitching a ride on the back of a water dinosaur? Usually FE is quite good at coming up with some good explanations but I really just dont like this one.
Why cant plate tectonics exist on FE?
The notion that the dinosaurs were intelligent is not peculiar to the FE community, nor is it universally held by its members. I know myself and Michael to believe it, and though I'm not sure, Tom Bishop may also entertain the idea, John Davis certainly might as well. I would have to let these scholars speak for themselves.
Anyway, I know globular theorists to also have exhorted the notion.
Plate tectonics do exist. However, it is my opinion that they cannot affect the continents to such an extent that they might float all across the world and bunch together or rip apart as globularism claims, because the Earth would be rent in two, and this clearly has not happened.
Sorry to sound like Tom Bishop but Evidence that opposable thumbs are not a prerequisite for tool use
Evidence that opposable thumbs are not a prerequisite for boat building
Proof?
Its probably already been presented, but I am very impatient and cant read a whole thread sorry
Sorry you don't have time to read the whole thread, but anyway, an experiment determining these two facts is easily performed by a small group of people. Tape together the thumb and index finger, and the middle and ring finger, on each hand, and have your colleagues do the same. You will find that constructing a raft out of withies and logs is perfectly acheivable, I have done this test myself on a number of occasions.
-
Sorry you don't have time to read the whole thread, but anyway, an experiment determining these two facts is easily performed by a small group of people. Tape together the thumb and index finger, and the middle and ring finger, on each hand, and have your colleagues do the same. You will find that constructing a raft out of withies and logs is perfectly acheivable, I have done this test myself on a number of occasions.
Wierdo... lol
Yeah I guess that seems like a fair enough test, just this would require a bit more intelligence, because it would be more difficult. Intelligence which the dinosaurs probably didnt have
-
KillaBee, if they had "just diverged" on a supercontinent, we would find specimens of both species in Asia AND America. We do not, we only find one in America and only find the other in Asia. Stop skirting the issue and answer this charge! Why do we ONLY find Adasaurus in Asia and ONLY find Dromaeosaurus in America if those continents were a single continent at the time? This is strong evidence against the Pangea thesis. You are refusing to answer this issue because you have no reasonable explanation in accordance with the Pangea theory.
-
KillaBee, if they had "just diverged" on a supercontinent, we would find specimens of both species in Asia AND America. We do not, we only find one in America and only find the other in Asia. Stop skirting the issue and answer this charge! Why do we ONLY find Adasaurus in Asia and ONLY find Dromaeosaurus in America if those continents were a single continent at the time? This is strong evidence against the Pangea thesis. You are refusing to answer this issue because you have no reasonable explanation in accordance with the Pangea theory.
Why is there some "recent" animals we today only find in South Africa and not North Africa, or in Russia and not Denmark? Surely they would have to be all over the continent because there is nothing stopping them from walking a couple years north or south. ::)
-
Why is there some "recent" animals we today only find in South Africa and not North Africa, or in Russia and not Denmark? Surely they would have to be all over the continent because there is nothing stopping them from walking a couple years north or south. ::)
Climate precludes some species habitating certain areas. If the West coast of America and the East coast of Asia were right next to eachother, surely they'd have the same climate.
-
Why is there some "recent" animals we today only find in South Africa and not North Africa, or in Russia and not Denmark? Surely they would have to be all over the continent because there is nothing stopping them from walking a couple years north or south. ::)
Climate precludes some species habitating certain areas. If the West coast of America and the East coast of Asia were right next to eachother, surely they'd have the same climate.
What makes you say they were right next to eachother? Seems pretty far away from eachother to me
(http://www.platetectonics.com/book/images/Pangaea.gif)
Oh, and South Africa and North Africa is right next to eachother. Or Germany and Denmark.
Why am i even trying to argue with someone that believes dinosaurs was as smart or smarter than humans?? ::)
-
North America and Asia are conjoined right up until the end of the Cretaceous in Pangea theory. Our case study takes place during the Early Cretaceous, during which time Pangea theory alleges that these continents were conjoined, as shown on the map you posted.
-
I already told you. Why are there only tigers in India and lions in Africa?
India and Africa are seperated by water, silly.
I'm still waiting for your youtube video evidence of you building a boat without thumbs.
IT DOESN'T EXIST.
-
Its not just the thumbs as well. Theres intelligence. Teamwork (did the dinosaurs carpool, like some jurassic Noah's Ark? serious question). Coordination. Balance
-
Its not just the thumbs as well. Theres intelligence. Teamwork (did the dinosaurs carpool, like some jurassic Noah's Ark? serious question). Coordination. Balance
I've addressed these points already, I wish people would read the thread. I'm posthulating that the dinosaurs had an agrarian civilisation capable of travelling by boat. Does it not strike you that intelligence and collaboration are kind of implied by that thesis?
Regarding coordination and balance, please read my extensive post on the migration of early cretaceous Deinonychus, in which I explain the capacity for fine motor skills of the Deinonychus and its descendant sub-species, both in terms of their bipedalism enabling the use of the forelimbs and also in terms of the existence of a highly dexterous claw on the foot. I also explain the evolution of a more flexible tail which allows greater use of the feet (and foot-claw).
-
North America and Asia are conjoined right up until the end of the Cretaceous in Pangea theory. Our case study takes place during the Early Cretaceous, during which time Pangea theory alleges that these continents were conjoined, as shown on the map you posted.
"West coast of America and the East coast of Asia"
There is a huge difference between that, and North America being joined with Europe. Just because a continent is joined doesn't mean creatures will automtically populate ALL of it. As seen on Denmark vs Germany, South Africa vs North Africa etc etc. The climates is also pretty much the same in those examples.
Or we can take the example you want! Asia and Europe is connected now, as they was back then. Why is there such a huge difference in creatures between Asia and Europe then? According to you they would have travelled "everywhere".
-
What lives in Demark that doesn't live in Germany, apart from Danes?
-
I already told you. Why are there only tigers in India and lions in Africa?
(http://www.asdk12.org/schools/romig/pages/asia2/Animals%20of%20Asia/Lion/facts.jpg)
Nice theory, but, this is an Asian lion.
-
What lives in Demark that doesn't live in Germany, apart from Danes?
Beavers fx. But you are avoiding my questions. Why is there such a big difference between Asian and European wildlife? They were connected back then in Pangae, and they are still connected today. Why haven't the creatures "travelled the world"?
-
Because of climate difference over the thousands of miles between Asia and Europe.
-
I'm still waiting for your youtube video evidence of you building a boat without thumbs.
IT DOESN'T EXIST.
Ah. So you don't actually have any evidence that a boat can be built without thumbs. Oh dear.
You seem to be saying that scientific evidence didn't exist before YouTube.
-
Dogplatter didn't say ALL species of dinosaur built boats to get across. Some probably liked where they were living, or were stopped by the difference in climate / food supply.
Why is it so hard to believe that over millions of years a dinosaur figured out how to build a boat?
Dogplatters lack of evidence does not prove it didn't happen. It doesn't even make it less likely that it did happen. It's currently unknowable by either side, and there is no reason to remain close minded to the idea.
When dogplatter says boat, you probably instantly think of a human boat. What makes you think a dinosaur would build a boat remotely similar to a craft constructed by a human? I'll give you a scenario that might help you understand how it could in fact have taken place.
You know pummus floats, you may even be aware of floating islands like found today in our marshes and swamps. You have probably seen on the discovery channel where rockslides create tremendous amount of wind pressure that up-root trees and send them flying in the same direction.
Here we have a stage set for a pre-historic volcanic time where it's not to hard to imagine large chunks of floating land and grouped floating trees could collect in a watery outlet to the ocean.
Birds are very good at creating nests with sticks and garbage, why is it such a leap to think a dinosaur wouldn't gather items and do the same to give stability to his floating vessel.
Food? Why can't he fish. Strong currents could help traverse the sea, and these currents still provide a rich food source. Although the dinosaur may not have known where he was going it doesn't mean he didn't. It doesn't mean several didn't. That doesn't mean that every dinosaur of his species did though, not every one would have had these advantages. Just like today most of us can't build a boat.
On the other hand nothing says the ice wall wasn't much larger then and covered more of the earth allowing dino's to simply walk across the oceans. If you believe in ice age stuff, which i doubt FE's could because there would be no shift in planet axis for them.
The idea of pangea itself is a little hard to swallow. Tech-tonic plates and all, it's just interesting to me that on all the earth there was at one time, only 1 land mass. That would imply the rest of the world was lower than sea level and this one spot had all the volcanos or mountains. It would be a very odd occurrence if you look at a topographical map of say, any other planet. Mars, Moon. If I had to argue for pangea then maybe I could say something like billions of years ago our sun was larger and it melted one side of the planet like mercury, maybe that would explain.
-
You seem to be saying that scientific evidence didn't exist before YouTube.
Dogplatters proof comes from practical science. He says he and a group of others built a boat with their thumbs tied up. This is the kind of thing one needs to observe first hand, however I'm willing to accept a youtube link as a compromise.
You're welcome to duplicate the experiment yourself and therefore observe it first hand. Dogplatter told you how he did it. It's unreasonable of you to demand youtube proof when he's told you multiple times it wasn't captured on video. And honestly, given the vast number of youtube videos showing something unbelievable that are well-known to have been faked, it's a bit absurd that you would accept such a thing as evidence anyway. You're really reaching.
-
Do you believe they existed if so how did the become extinct?
Ever Hear of fossils. If you even say that they are fake. I find them in my back yard everyday.
-
Do you believe they existed if so how did the become extinct?
Ever Hear of fossils. If you even say that they are fake. I find them in my back yard everyday.
This is what happens when you don't read past the first post. At least you're staying true to form.
-
You're resorting to a childish interpretation of what I said
No. It's a direct quote. Here let me help you with that.
The way I see it, anything a bird can do, a dinosaur can.
Then when you're pulled up on this you turn round and say its a frankly stupid parallel to make. *shrugs*
The rest of your post is groundless speculation and shaky parallels. Just like Dogplatters. The only way to resolve this is for Dogplatter to post his evidence of Dinosaur boat building and civilisation.
First of all, don't be so dense. If you like, I'll go back and say that I don't believe dinosaurs can do ANYTHING a bird can do, because that would mean I believe that dinosaurs existed in the 1980s, simply because birds did. If that will satisfy your childish semantic nit-picking, then I'll do it, but please, stop being so obtuse, because it only hurts your argument. But I do believe that dinosaurs had mental faculties similar to birds, and anything a bird is mentally capable of, a dinosaur is/was.
As for this youtube fixation of yours, it's yet another stupid idea you've decided to latch onto, seemingly in the vain hope that by scoring a single point, you will somehoe win the debate. Even putting aside the fact that the video does not exist, the whole point about valid experiments is that they are repeatable. A video of Dogplatter's experiment would prove nothing other than that Dogplatter videotaped what he claimed to be an excercise in boat/raft-buliding without thumbs. In theory, any amount of subterfuge could be involved. The reason we give credence to many experiments carried out in the 19th century is that they are repeatable; they didn't suddenly become valid because they were put on video.
Dogplatter has carried out an experiment, and given the results (which really are pretty plausible). If you want to refute his claims, prove that the experiment cannot be repeated. Claiming that just because a video of it doesn't exist the experiment is worthless is ridiculous, and you would never find a scientist to go along with you on that point, even if they had no time for FET.
In summary, stop trying to derail this valid discussion with stupid arguments over words and ridiculous demands for videos of experiments. By your logic, every single experiment conducted prior to 1870 was worthless.
-
I don't have an issue with plate tectonics really, and while I'm skeptical to claims that dinosaurs were sea-fairing, I certainly don't think we can rule it out. It isn't as far fetched as it is being presented here by some.
-
Out of curiousity i taped my thumb to my finger just now, and well I couldnt do much, could hardly pick up a pen let alone build a boat. When I could do something its only because I could sort of cheat wiggling my thumb to support. Remembering that this is by a human with proper arms. I believe I am also far far more intelligent than a dinosaur ever could of hoped to of been (I swear if I hear any snide comments about that last sentence)
-
Out of curiousity i taped my thumb to my finger just now, and well I couldnt do much, could hardly pick up a pen let alone build a boat. When I could do something its only because I could sort of cheat wiggling my thumb to support. Remembering that this is by a human with proper arms. I believe I am also far far more intelligent than a dinosaur ever could of hoped to of been (I swear if I hear any snide comments about that last sentence)
Just curious, being smarter than the dinosaurs did you use all your available parts to pick things up?
Did you try your teeth? How about your feet with your hands?
When your tring to do things a human does in the way a human does it without human features then of course it's going to be more difficult. Dinosaurs weren't humans though, and never had to unlearn using their thumbs. Now try picking something up as if you were not a human but a dumb animal. I bet you can get it.
-
Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?
-
I think the term "boat" is causing a great deal of confusion here. In the context of this discussion it means "something capable of floating with the weight of at least one passenger." At least that's how I read it.
-
Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?
And what would be wrong with using mouth and neck? Like number4 said, it wouldn't have to be pretty.
-
Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?
And what would be wrong with using mouth and neck? Like number4 said, it wouldn't have to be pretty.
It would if you intended to cross oceans with it. You're not going to throw some p.o.s craft together with little strings and a couple of tree trunks and cross the ocean. Along with being able to store enough food for the trip, hopefully some form of steering, and blind luck that you don't go in circles, you would need a minimum of 2-300 to not have those that land successfully on a new continent die out gradually. You cannot repopulate with fewer than 200-300, and even that is stretching it.
-
Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?
And what would be wrong with using mouth and neck? Like number4 said, it wouldn't have to be pretty.
Again, is the range of motion known for the various body parts involved? Would those various body parts have enough strength and dexterity to manipulate the materials and/or any tools required? A dino boat wouldn't have to be pretty, but it would have to be sturdy.
-
It would if you intended to cross oceans with it. You're not going to throw some p.o.s craft together with little strings and a couple of tree trunks and cross the ocean. Along with being able to store enough food for the trip, hopefully some form of steering, and blind luck that you don't go in circles, you would need a minimum of 2-300 to not have those that land successfully on a new continent die out gradually. You cannot repopulate with fewer than 200-300, and even that is stretching it.
Throwing together a low-quality raft and then sailing to, and populating, a continent, is exactly what the Australian Aborigines are known to have done beyond a shadow of a doubt thanks to extensive genetic evidence.
This fascinating documentary tracks the route taken by the first colonists of humanity. I would highly recommend watching the whole thing, but I'm posting the salient section here. Watch from about 7:00 minutes onward, in which the amazing maritime journey of the Aborigines is charted.
Based on the complexity and quality of marine vessels constructed by the modern Aborigines (i.e. at the first contact with Europeans), we can safely assume that they weren't building galleons and cruise ships. The events of the Aboroginal colonisation occured some 45000 years before the first use of metals by humanity. This was before a single homo sapien had ever set foot in the Americas, Europe, Russia or anywhere apart from Africa and the Middle East. For heaven's sake, it preceded the first written language by tens of thousands of years! It preceded AGRICULTURE by over 10000 years. That's right, on the scale of technological simplicity, intercontinental travel by boat is easier than organised farming. In other words, it's completely possible to travel hundreds of miles over open ocean on crude rafts made essentially by hand out of all-natural materials by individuals in the most basic social structures conceivable.
-
I am from Australia and i can tell you all Aboriginals i have seen have thumbs.
That was a really dumb observation of you Dogplatter. Aboriginals are HUMANS too, not dinosaurs
-
Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?
And what would be wrong with using mouth and neck? Like number4 said, it wouldn't have to be pretty.
Again, is the range of motion known for the various body parts involved? Would those various body parts have enough strength and dexterity to manipulate the materials and/or any tools required? A dino boat wouldn't have to be pretty, but it would have to be sturdy.
Yes the range of motion for T-Rexs arms is known. It is very very limited, it is barely bendable. Most think it was just used as a meat-hook or a "stabilisator", and they were fragile enough to very often break.
-
I am from Australia and i can tell you all Aboriginals i have seen have thumbs.
That was a really dumb observation of you Dogplatter. Aboriginals are HUMANS too, not dinosaurs
It wasn't "dumb". It proves that only simple boats are required for intercontinental travel. Dogplatter has performed an experiment which shows that simple boats can be constructed without thumbs.
-
Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?
And what would be wrong with using mouth and neck? Like number4 said, it wouldn't have to be pretty.
Again, is the range of motion known for the various body parts involved? Would those various body parts have enough strength and dexterity to manipulate the materials and/or any tools required? A dino boat wouldn't have to be pretty, but it would have to be sturdy.
The way I see it, birds are capable of small-scale construction with far greater limitations on their movement. They may not have human levels of dexterity, but I personally believe they had enough to construct simple rafts or log boats.
-
I am from Australia and i can tell you all Aboriginals i have seen have thumbs.
That was a really dumb observation of you Dogplatter. Aboriginals are HUMANS too, not dinosaurs
The observation regarding Aboriginal colonisation is only intended to imply that crude boats built with very low level technology are sufficient for intercontinental travel.
I have already demonstrated that crude boats with very low level technology can be constructed without opposable thumbs.
The simple argument is deductive, and logically valid, and takes the following form:
Crude boats with low level technology are sufficient for crossing oceans.
A crude boat with low level technology can be built without opposable thumbs.
_________
A boat sufficient for crossing oceans can be built without opposable thumbs.
The two premises are true. The premises logically entail the conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion is true.
-
Everybody should have figured out by now that all this FET is just trolls.
Nobody can be so dumb that they believe dinosaurs would be as smart as humans, or that the Earth is flat - and it's just that noone have figured it out yet.
-
The way I see it, birds are capable of small-scale construction with far greater limitations on their movement. They may not have human levels of dexterity, but I personally believe they had enough to construct simple rafts or log boats.
Now read this:
I'll go back and say that I don't believe dinosaurs can do ANYTHING a bird can do
What's your point? There's no contradiction there.
I've seen no demonstration. Did you post the youtube link I asked for?
Have you seen how I dismantled this youtube fixation of yours? Get over it, you've lost the argument. When you have something relevant to say, get back to us, but until then, I'm going to ignore your pointless chittering.
-
Here, so that there can literally be no doubt, I've formalised my proof into Fitch-style first-order logic. Anybody with an understanding of first-order logic will see that there is literally no way that this can be false.
Let
Crude(x) = x is a crude boat,
LowTech(x) = x requires a low level of technology to build,
Seaworthy(x) = x is sufficient for intercontinental travel,
NoThumbs(x) = x does not require opposable thumbs to build.
1|∀x ((Crude(x) ∧ LowTech(x)) → Seaworthy(x))
2|∃x (Crude(x) ∧ LowTech(x) ∧ NoThumbs(x))
|___
3||c Crude(c) ∧ LowTech(c) ∧ NoThumbs(c))
||___
4||(Crude(c) ∧ LowTech(c)) → Seaworthy(c) [Universal Elimination: 1]
5||Crude(c) ∧ LowTech(c) [Conjunction Elimination: 3]
6||Seaworthy(c) [Material Conditional Elimination: 4, 5]
7||NoThumbs(c) [Conjunction Elimination: 3]
8||Seaworthy(c) ∧ NoThumbs(c) [Conjunction Introduction: 6, 7]
9||∃x (SeaWorthy(x) ∧ NoThumbs(x)) [Existential Introduction: 8]
10|∃x (SeaWorthy(x) ∧ NoThumbs(x)) [Existential Elimination: 2, 3-9]
As you can see, the following premises:
"Crude boats with low level technology are sufficient for crossing oceans"
"A crude boat with low level technology can be built without opposable thumbs"
logically entail the following proposition:
"A boat which is sufficient for crossing oceans can be built without opposable thumbs".
The first premise must be true, or the Aborigines could not have colonised Australia.
The second premise must be true, or taping your thumbs to your forefingers would prevent you building a crude boat.
If both the premise are true, and the argument is logically valid (it is, see my formal proof), the conclusion must be true.
-
Now that we all know it should be possible for dino's to cross the ocean via boat the question of why would they want to comes in to play.
Why would a dinosaur think he would make it to something other than more water when he starts his journey?
What motivation would there be to explore?
Was their travel intentional or accidental?
-
My belief is that this skill initially developed in the attempt to cross rivers or large lakes/gorges. They might then have taken to exploring the coastline, and using it to travel relatively free of attack. Then, having developed these skills, some dinosaurs may have been forced to migrate due to population pressure. There may be have been competition with other tribes, a sudden shortage of food- the same reasons that persuaded ancient humans to migrate.
Remember, humans didn't have any reason to believe they would make it to something other than water either.
-
Now that we all know it should be possible for dino's to cross the ocean via boat the question of why would they want to comes in to play.
Why would a dinosaur think he would make it to something other than more water when he starts his journey?
What motivation would there be to explore?
Was their travel intentional or accidental?
You could easily ask the same questions of the earliest human explorers.
-
Now that we all know it should be possible for dino's to cross the ocean via boat the question of why would they want to comes in to play.
Why would a dinosaur think he would make it to something other than more water when he starts his journey?
What motivation would there be to explore?
Was their travel intentional or accidental?
Specifically in the case of the Deinonychus, I believe overpopulation to have been an issue. As I mentioned the rise of agriculture focussed on the meat farming of Saurolophus and other species would no doubt have caused a population explosion on the North American continent during the early cretaceous. Dwindling land and resources and increased overcrowding would have driven pioneers to seek new habitats.
By the way, in reference to a particular argument raised earlier, I would like to clarify that the EQ of Dromaeosaurids has been estimated at 5.8, several times higher than many animals alive today. It's interesting to know that even globularists scholars believe the Deinonychus and associated species to essentially have been smarter than dolphins and chimpanzees (I am still moderately sceptical of EQ as a reliable means for determining intelligence, but it's a relief to know that even if it is reliable, it doesn't rule out Dromaeosaurid civilisation).
-
You state things you think birds can do. And then say that there are things a bird can do that a dinosaur can't. Thus invalidating your parallel between dinosaurs and birds. I doubt you'll get this first time around so I'm prepared to have to repeat it later.
I have seen no evidence for this. You keep stating it as fact yet have posted no evidence. I will accept a youtube link of you (and friends) trying to build a boat with your thumbs taped up.
I have something better than a you-tube video for you, I have an example you can try at home. Fill the bathtub with water, and place a bar of soap on the side of the tub. Now we have set up a micro setting of what could be the ocean and something that floats. Now use your knee to knock the bar of soap into the water. Voila - You have made a boat ! An Exceptionally crude boat, but a boat.
I think you'll have to give them this one. It does not take brains or special body parts to make something float or even sea-worthy.
Why do you imagine the travel to be so hard ? Are you imagining a hurricane in the ocean and wondering how a stupid dino could have made a boat to withstand it? Maybe he couldn't, nobody here has said they were 100% in crossing the ocean. I'm sure if it happened at all that many of these dinosaurs didn't make the journey.
I might ask, if this particular dinosaur was a seafaring critter why don't we see their fossils in more parts of the world?
Some quick easy answers would include, we simply haven't found the fossils yet but they are there, or they died out before finding the next ocean.
-
I have seen no evidence for this. You keep stating it as fact yet have posted no evidence. I will accept a youtube link of you (and friends) trying to build a boat with your thumbs taped up.
Oh dear. Somebody is having a problem with reading comprehension. Let's recapitulate:
Oh, I didn't film this particular adventure, it was a demonstration for the benefit of sceptics who were present at the meeting.
You don't understand - I did not film this experiment, I said so already!
Look, I told you, twice, I didn't film it. I can't comply with your request because it's impossible, no such footage exists.
I don't have time to cover the same ground again, and my old group has disbanded. If you really have a massive problem believing that the relatively simple procedure of constructing a crude raft is possible with the digits of your hands taped together, you can perform the experiment yourself
I'm still waiting for your youtube video evidence of you building a boat without thumbs.
IT DOESN'T EXIST.
You're welcome to duplicate the experiment yourself and therefore observe it first hand. Dogplatter told you how he did it. It's unreasonable of you to demand youtube proof when he's told you multiple times it wasn't captured on video.
As for this youtube fixation of yours, it's yet another stupid idea you've decided to latch onto, seemingly in the vain hope that by scoring a single point, you will somehoe win the debate. Even putting aside the fact that the video does not exist, the whole point about valid experiments is that they are repeatable. A video of Dogplatter's experiment would prove nothing other than that Dogplatter videotaped what he claimed to be an excercise in boat/raft-buliding without thumbs.
-
The arguments against Dogplatters thesis continue to be in the same vein. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to comprehend what Dogplatter has previously said, that humans have been around for merely a tiny fraction of the time that dinosaurs were around for. Any "family" that has been around for that period of time has a probability of becoming intelligent enough to move away from an overpopulated area to a less populated, more favorable area over water.
You just can't seem to move away from the (I hate to bring this up because its an overused, stale flat earth argument but...) conspiracy theory that all dinosaurs are thick. Grow up and get over Jurassic Park! But then again, you seem to believe that anything on video is obviously true; I suggest you give this factual video a watch.
I made that to prove that sharks can fly out the water and bite aeroplanes.
Get real KillaBee; own up to the fact that you have countlessly had your arguments dissected, digested then excreted upon your person. You really gotta starting to smell by now...
-
Hmmmmm is it just me, or is KillaBee the RE Tom Bishop?
-
Is it me or is KallaBee a little bit... "slow"...
-
Sounds like Tom as well...
-
Haha. No comment...
-
Then we are agreed. You have no evidence for such an outlandish claim, and so have no right to repeat as fact something you have no evidence for.
As several other Round Earthers have already tried to point out to you, it's moronic to doubt that building a raft with your fingers taped together is impossible. Everyone else believes that it's possible, you're the only one who allegedly doubts it, you might as well drop it, because even other Round Earthers disagree with you.
-
Well thats not entirely true. I believe its possible, but difficult for a human. A dinosaur though? no way. I had a go at taping my thumb to my fingers, and well I dont think it quite gives the same result as no thumbs at all. And because I am not going to lop my thumbs off with hedge clippers to prove my point, we shall have to continue this argument in another way.
-
It is entirely true, then. You didn't deny my proposition (the second premise of my formal proof) that opposable thumbs are not required to build a boat. When your thumbs are taped to your index fingers, they are not opposable. You have stated that you believe building a boat is possible for a human with their thumbs taped together. Therefore, you concede that opposable thumbs are not required to build a boat.
Other Round Earthers in this thread have already been telling KillaBee to drop it.
-
Well thats not entirely true. I believe its possible, but difficult for a human. A dinosaur though? no way. I had a go at taping my thumb to my fingers, and well I dont think it quite gives the same result as no thumbs at all. And because I am not going to lop my thumbs off with hedge clippers to prove my point, we shall have to continue this argument in another way.
I still don't understand why it is so hard for you to get how it is possible that the dinosaurs were more intelligent than you assume...
-
If they believe it is possible, then it's without foundation. You have yet to post any evidence of this practical experiment of yours.
Why? Why is it impossible? Tell me why you think this easy task is impossible. You need to provide a reason for believing what intuitively seems to everybody else, globularist and zeteticist, a completely possible task, to be impossible. What is likely to prevent you from building a raft in the manner I have described when you have thumbs taped? What possible impediment are you going to come across in an activity which has no component parts which cannot be performed without the use of thumbs?
You know full well that the experiment is possible, I venture that you also suspect that the experiment occured. You are hammering away at a ridiculous denial purely because it's the only pitiful argument you can muster. Other, more mature globularists are willing to accept a completely plausible premise and take as fact my reporting of what is essentially an unremarkable and mundane event and critique other aspects of my argument in this thread, but you, being too puerile to engage in rational discussion except on the most basic level of petty naysaying, insist on repeatedly demanding something which doesn't exist. Put a sock in it, now.
Your tireless and repetitive contribution is a great displeasure to read for everybody involved, Round Earther or Flat. Other globularists are raising interesting points which warrant response and development along non-trivial lines of discussion. For this reason, I will no longer respond to any post you make in this thread which includes a request for a YouTube video. I will treat such requests as though they simply do not exist, since I have indicated, in this thread, a total of seven (7) times that such a video is not available. I highly encourage all the other posters involved in this discussion to do the same, so that we may continue the debate in an enjoyable and informative manner and make genuine progress towards evaluating the issue of the dinosaurs.
-
Ancient dinosaur depictions:
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/ancient1.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/ancient2.jpg)
Bernifal Cave, France
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/horse.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/castlesm.jpg)
Ishtar Gate
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/ethnographicalth.jpg)
Sumatra: Bodrogi, Tibor, Art of Indonesia, plate #10, 1973
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/collection.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/ancient53.jpg)
Zhou dynasty Fong, Wen ed., The Great Bronze Age of China, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980, p. 285
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/shangdynastyjadesm.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/saurolophussm.jpg)
Jade: Shang dynasty
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/pterosaurth.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/pterosaurth.jpg)
Mesopotamia 3300 i.e.n.: Moortgart, Anton, The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia, 1969, plate 292
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/muralsm.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/tanystrosm.jpg)
Mosaic Roman: 200 e.n.
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/nilemosaicth.jpg)
Mosaic Palestrina: Finley, The Light of the Past, 1965, p. 93
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/nativesm.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/warrior.jpg)
Petroglif: North American Anasazi Indians
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/ancient8.jpg)
Kuku Yalanji aboriginal tribe of Far North Queensland, Australia: CEN Technical Journal, Vol.12, No. 3, 1998, p. 345
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/buddhisttemplesandstone2sm.jpg)
Stegosaurus: Ta Prohm temple, Cambodgia
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/ancient9.jpg)
Wooden sculpture, Franta
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/bambarahornedsm.jpg)
Tribul Bambara, Mali
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/anc4sm.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/anc6sm.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/anc5sm.jpg)
Nazca tombs, South America pottery
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/pottery.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/anc8sm.jpg)
Moche tribe pottery
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/anc1sm.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/anc3sm.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/anc2sm.jpg)
Acambaro figurines, Mexico
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/prayerstick.jpg)
Manitou Springs, Colorado: Indian prayer figurines
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/french6sm.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/french5sm.jpg)
Ch?teau de Blois tapestry
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/drawing.jpg)(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/kircher3sm.jpg)
Athanasius Kircher's 1678 book Mundus Subterraneus
(http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/tomb.jpg)
1496, Carlisle Cathedral
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm
-
Here are some carved stones to add to that list of Dinosaur-related artwork:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/IcaPeruBurialStones3.jpg)
They are allegedly peruvian in origin, though I personally believe them to have possibly been carved by dinosaurs themselves.
In the top-middle image, what appears to be a Dromaeosaurid holding an axe or hoe is depicted riding on the back of a Triceratops. Triceratops existed on the North American continent during the late cretaceous, which indicates that the dino-rider in question would have been a North-American Dromaeosaurus, descendant of the early cretaceous Deinonychuses who remained behind after the colonial period.
It is possible that these particular stones are human forgeries, though. In the bottom right, Stegosaurus and Triceratops are pictured side by side. Stegosaurus existed during the Jurassic period, whereas Triceratops existed during the late cretaceous. If they are in fact Dromaeosaurid carvings, this might be indicative that the North American Dromaeosaurus had some form of archaeology, or at least recounted then-extinct Jurassic dinosaurs in its folklore and histories.
-
Dogplatter, is it possible to get this guy banned from this thread? He's really starting to (as Peter Griffin would say) grind my gears.
I think that the suggestion that these carvings were done by the dinosaurs themselves; and thus that they have some kind of (at least crude) "archaeology" is perfectly plausible. Early species of human recollected their hunts and folklore in carvings on their cave walls and there isn't any evidence suggesting that these primitive species have as complex a social structure as the thesis suggests that the Dromaeosaurids had.
Is there any evidence to say that these carvings definitely could not have been created by the Dromaeosaurids?
-
I'll be honest, at first I thought Dogplatter's hypothesis as loony as any of you. But after seeing all of the evidence he has built up for it I think the idea of intelligent seafaring dinosaurs is immensely plausible and should be given serious consideration by archaeologists and other academics, whether they believe the Earth to be flat or not, as an alternative to the truly ludicrous notion that all the continents happened to have been joined together in one giant supercontinent, and then happened to have been ripped apart.
I'm not saying that one idea is better than the other, based on the evidence, I'm simply saying that it's at best a draw.
-
Is there any evidence to say that these carvings definitely could not have been created by the Dromaeosaurids?
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones#Uschuya_recantation
(http://viewzone.com/dino-faker.jpg)
Haha, so the guy who discovered them "admitted" to forging them only once it became clear that if he didn't claim to have made them himself he'd go to prison? Boy, he just has to have been telling the truth on that one!
Even if they are fake, which they might well be, it doesn't really affect the main discussion, since you'll notice I already qualified my posting of them with a potential reason to doubt their authenticity (the inclusion of two species from seperate eras).
-
Almost every single statement in that wikipedia page needs citation or the link to the reference is conveniently broken. In fact much of the material in one of the references almost backs up what Dogplatter has been saying.
Next time find a real source. Wikipedia is not anywhere near reliable enough to give as "evidence". If I created myself an account, I could have written that article.
-
I think your point is made Dogplatter,
No one has come up with a sufficient comeback for the fact that the different sub-species were present on the separate continents but not Deinonychus itself. Not even Killabee here can explain that.
Adasaurus and Dromeosaurus MUST have migrated over water as the Pangea model is impossible.
-
Why is Pangea impossible? Plate tectonics is how its changed and the evidence for that is HUGE. Havent you ever seen the Ring of Fire map? that is NOT coincidence
-
It's already been shown that species can evolve and diverge on the same continent.
Yes they can, but how would all evidence of the predecessors of those species have completely disappeared from trace on the continents that the Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus colonised? Unless they were never there...
This discussion is travelling in circles, all of this information is covered earlier in the thread or in the Thesis itself.
-
If your regional evolution theory were correct, Deinonychus fossils would statistically speaking be likely to be found both in Asia and America. Not a single Asian Deinonychus fossil has ever been found, though Adasaurus fossils are plentiful there.
-
By the standard of dinosaur archaeology, two specimens is plentiful. Many species are known from not even one complete specimen.
-
It's already been shown that species can evolve and diverge on the same continent.
Yes they can, but how would all evidence of the predecessors of those species have completely disappeared from trace on the continents that the Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus colonised? Unless they were never there...
You still seem confused about regional evolution... yet strangely agree that Dinosaurs can evolve and diverge on the same continent.
Although it is dangerous to assume particular population spreads based on the scant few remains that have been found.
Still, this thread continues to provide daylee lolz
I perfectly understand the theory of evolution. It's you who is not able to grasp the concept that it is impossible for something to evolve from something that isn't there.
-
Then you don't know a thing about archaeology.
-
You don't know a thing about archaeology.
-
Then you don't know a thing about archaeology.
What I lack in knowledge of archaeology is more than made up by my understanding of statistics. And common sense. And language.
Unfortunately, these are useless in this argument unless you have at least a basic grounding in archaeology. You can have most the statistical and common sensicle (I know thats not a word) argument but it would still be wrong.
It's a bit like arguing with a tutor about the theory of entropy. It doesn't really make much sense, and they speak Russian and the lectures don't really contain many of statistics... This doesn't debunk the theory; simply because its true, it works and you can prove it for yourself.
-
2! is still two.
1x2=2
-
Hundreds of dinosaur species are known from a single specimen only, or even partial specimens. By the standards of dinosaur archaeology, two complete specimens is plentiful.
-
Putting aside the dismissal of all KillaBee's arguments, something not worth boasting about, this thread is still a massive victory for FET.
-
*forum high five*
-
Putting aside the dismissal of all KillaBee's arguments, something not worth boasting about, this thread is still a massive victory for FET.
No it's not. Dogplatter has not presented any evidence for his claims.
-
2! is still two.
1x2=2
Its 2x1=2 :)
-
Putting aside the dismissal of all KillaBee's arguments, something not worth boasting about, this thread is still a massive victory for FET.
No it's not. Dogplatter has not presented any evidence for his claims.
Yes he has. Everything he has said is based on fossil records that are well established. His claims are based on existing evidence, so he doesn't need to provide anything new. You Re'ers have yet to provide any evidence that contradicts his interpretation. Ball's in your court!
-
Putting aside the dismissal of all KillaBee's arguments, something not worth boasting about, this thread is still a massive victory for FET.
No it's not. Dogplatter has not presented any evidence for his claims.
Yes he has. Everything he has said is based on fossil records that are well established. His claims are based on existing evidence, so he doesn't need to provide anything new. You Re'ers have yet to provide any evidence that contradicts his interpretation. Ball's in your court!
Where did he provide evidence that dinosaurs built boats?
-
There would be no remains of the boats after so many millions of years. The dinosaurs would have the comprehension and intelligence to built the boats, and the fossil studies provide evidence that they must have moved from one continent to another. Given that Pangea never occurred, how else would they have traveled from america to Asia etc?
-
There would be no remains of the boats after so many millions of years. The dinosaurs would have the comprehension and intelligence to built the boats, and the fossil studies provide evidence that they must have moved from one continent to another. Given that Pangea never occurred, how else would they have traveled from america to Asia etc?
If dinosaur remains can be found after all those millions of years, why couldn't their boat remains exist?
-
There would be no remains of the boats after so many millions of years. The dinosaurs would have the comprehension and intelligence to built the boats, and the fossil studies provide evidence that they must have moved from one continent to another. Given that Pangea never occurred, how else would they have traveled from america to Asia etc?
If dinosaur remains can be found after all those millions of years, why couldn't their boat remains exist?
I think the appropriate question is, why would we expect their boat remains to exist? We have mere fragments of relics from ancient human societies that are only thousands of years old. How could you possibly expect such relics to last for millions?
-
There would be no remains of the boats after so many millions of years. The dinosaurs would have the comprehension and intelligence to built the boats, and the fossil studies provide evidence that they must have moved from one continent to another. Given that Pangea never occurred, how else would they have traveled from america to Asia etc?
If dinosaur remains can be found after all those millions of years, why couldn't their boat remains exist?
I think the appropriate question is, why would we expect their boat remains to exist? We have mere fragments of relics from ancient human societies that are only thousands of years old. How could you possibly expect such relics to last for millions?
For the same reason that dinosaur remains exist. Fossilization.
-
There would be no remains of the boats after so many millions of years. The dinosaurs would have the comprehension and intelligence to built the boats, and the fossil studies provide evidence that they must have moved from one continent to another. Given that Pangea never occurred, how else would they have traveled from america to Asia etc?
If dinosaur remains can be found after all those millions of years, why couldn't their boat remains exist?
I think the appropriate question is, why would we expect their boat remains to exist? We have mere fragments of relics from ancient human societies that are only thousands of years old. How could you possibly expect such relics to last for millions?
For the same reason that dinosaur remains exist. Fossilization.
What exactly would you expect to find?
-
There would be no remains of the boats after so many millions of years. The dinosaurs would have the comprehension and intelligence to built the boats, and the fossil studies provide evidence that they must have moved from one continent to another. Given that Pangea never occurred, how else would they have traveled from america to Asia etc?
If dinosaur remains can be found after all those millions of years, why couldn't their boat remains exist?
I think the appropriate question is, why would we expect their boat remains to exist? We have mere fragments of relics from ancient human societies that are only thousands of years old. How could you possibly expect such relics to last for millions?
For the same reason that dinosaur remains exist. Fossilization.
What exactly would you expect to find?
I don't know. Maybe evidence that dinosaurs really did build boats?
-
I don't know. Maybe evidence that dinosaurs really did build boats?
How would a wooden boat sunken in seawater fossilize into rock?
-
I don't know. Maybe evidence that dinosaurs really did build boats?
How would a wooden boat sunken in seawater fossilize?
The same way that dinosaurs fossilize. Minerals in the sediment replacing the organic materials.
-
The same way that dinosaurs fossilize. Minerals in the sediment replacing the organic materials.
How would that happen to a wooden boat sunken at the bottom of the sea?
It would corrode into oblivion by the sea water long before it got covered by dirt and sediment.
-
The same way that dinosaurs fossilize. Minerals in the sediment replacing the organic materials.
How would that happen to a wooden boat sunken at the bottom of the sea?
It would corrode into oblivion by the sea water long before it got covered by dirt and sediment.
OK Tom, pick your favorite response:
1: So you're saying that there is no physical evidence to support Dogplatter's theory? Who's side are you on?
2: Organic materials don't corrode, they decay. Are you suggesting that dinosaurs mastered metallurgy as well as boat building?
3: Not if there was a storm that stirred up the sediment as the boat sank. Fossils of any significant size are pretty rare anyways so I really wouldn't expect many dino boats to survive the process. However, if dinos did build enough boats to facilitate large scale migration, then it would not be unreasonable to expect to find an example eventually.
-
How many dinosaur fossils have been found in total, compared with the number of dinosaurs that actually existed?
Just for illustrative purposes, if we estimate that 10000 specimens have been found in total (it's probably far fewer), compared with the number of total dinosaurs which ever existed (if for the sake of argument we estimate that maybe on average a million individual dinosaurs were born each year - it's probably many times more than that, but you can alter the numbers however you want if you feel there were fewer or more dinosaurs - the result will still illustrate my point), over the 160 million years in which dinosaurs covered the Earth.
These numbers would result in 160000000000000 dinosaurs ever existing (this seems pretty conservative as an estimate really) which would mean that 1/16000000000 dinosaurs which existed have been found. 0.00000000625% of the dinosaurs which existed have actually fossilised and been discovered if these numbers are anywhere near accurate.
By the same token, if fewer than 16000000000 boats were built by the dinosaurs, we would be lucky to find a single specimen, even if bone and wood had equivalent candidacy for fossilisation (they don't quite, though both can become fossilised). Of course, the dinosaurs would have built far fewer than 16000000000 boats.
If anybody has any disagreement with these figures and processes, provide me with new variables. If you believe that either of the following:
Total number of dinosaur specimens discovered by humanity
Total number of dinosaurs, on average, born every year during the 160 million years in which they existed
ought to be different, please provide your own variables. I assure you that any reasonable estimates will yield the result that a miniscule percentage of the total dinosaurs which have existed have actually been found, and that the same would be true of the boats they built.
-
Hmm this looks like it's going to be a whole heap of baseless speculation.... yep...
I have explicitly invited you to provide your own figures if you think mine are inaccurate! LOOK!
If anybody has any disagreement with these figures and processes, provide me with new variables. If you believe that either of the following:
Total number of dinosaur specimens discovered by humanity
Total number of dinosaurs, on average, born every year during the 160 million years in which they existed
ought to be different, please provide your own variables. I assure you that any reasonable estimates will yield the result that a miniscule percentage of the total dinosaurs which have existed have actually been found, and that the same would be true of the boats they built.
So go on! Give me YOUR figures, and we'll perform the same operations. I'm happy to hear your estimates for how many dinosaur fossils have been found and how many dinosaurs existed in total. I want to hear these. Post them. Then we can both be in no doubt as to the result!
-
The boy is obviously too incompetent to carry out his own mathematics. He doesn't seem to what 2 factorial is.
Unless;
2! is still two.
1x2=2
lrn2c++
Has some ridiculous hidden meaning inside a spelling mistake? Because I'm pretty sure we were talking about maths... not computer programming? If you were talking about computer programming then it seems pretty out of context from the debate in hand? Unless you were suggesting that the dinosaurs had the capacity to design semiconducting materials, build computers and then write programs in c++?
Even I think that's absurd.
-
You say my figures about how many dinosaurs existed, and how many were found, are wrong - they might be! That is why I want you to provide your own estimates! Please, provide them, I am 100% serious, there is no trick going on here. I earnestly want you to estimate the number of dinosaurs which existed, versus the number found, so that we can calculate the probability of finding an individual fossil of a boat. Give me your estimates!
-
All calculations and statistics are based upon assumptions. Especially in the form of crude science such as archaeology.
-
All calculations and statistics are based upon assumptions. Especially in the form of crude science such as archaeology.
-
You have no evidence that dinosaurs built boats. All the made up statistics in the world can't save you from that fact.
Wrong. The distribution of species across continents is clear evidence that dinosaurs built boats.
-
You have no evidence that dinosaurs built boats. All the made up statistics in the world can't save you from that fact.
Wrong. The distribution of species across continents is clear evidence that dinosaurs built boats.
No. It's clear evidence of species distribution across continents.
Which raises the question of why that should be the case. Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is a perfectly valid hypothesis for that question.
-
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is a perfectly valid hypothesis for that question.
No it's not.
Plate movement and species evolution is a perfectly valid hypothesis. There's evidence for both.
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is an invalid hypothesis. There's no evidence for such.
What evidence is there that all the continents were once joined together, then ripped apart, besides the distribution of species across continents?
-
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is a perfectly valid hypothesis for that question.
No it's not.
Plate movement and species evolution is a perfectly valid hypothesis. There's evidence for both.
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is an invalid hypothesis. There's no evidence for such.
What evidence is there that all the continents were once joined together, then ripped apart, besides the distribution of species across continents?
similar "scarring" (lack of a better word) from glaciers. Also, the fact that south america and africa fit so well. But you are right, its not necessarily a fact that all of them were connected simultaneously at one point. It is just a theory.
Im not 100% sure, but im pretty sure that there is evidence of continental drift occuring right now.
-
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is a perfectly valid hypothesis for that question.
No it's not.
Plate movement and species evolution is a perfectly valid hypothesis. There's evidence for both.
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is an invalid hypothesis. There's no evidence for such.
What evidence is there that all the continents were once joined together, then ripped apart, besides the distribution of species across continents?
Umm... Plate tectonics and continental drift?
-
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is a perfectly valid hypothesis for that question.
No it's not.
Plate movement and species evolution is a perfectly valid hypothesis. There's evidence for both.
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is an invalid hypothesis. There's no evidence for such.
What evidence is there that all the continents were once joined together, then ripped apart, besides the distribution of species across continents?
Umm... Plate tectonics and continental drift?
I don't see how plate tectonics and continental drift so readily lead to the conclusion that the continents were once joined together and then ripped apart. That's really reaching.
What evidence is there that all the continents were once joined together, then ripped apart, besides the distribution of species across continents?
http://tinyurl.com/os7ktx
It's not hard.
If you can't explain it yourself what puts you in such a position to speak of it as fact?
-
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is a perfectly valid hypothesis for that question.
No it's not.
Plate movement and species evolution is a perfectly valid hypothesis. There's evidence for both.
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is an invalid hypothesis. There's no evidence for such.
What evidence is there that all the continents were once joined together, then ripped apart, besides the distribution of species across continents?
Umm... Plate tectonics and continental drift?
I don't see how plate tectonics and continental drift so readily lead to the conclusion that the continents were once joined together and then ripped apart. That's really reaching.
I don't see how taping your thumb to your hand so readily leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs had the manual dexterity and intelligence needed to build boats. That's really reaching.
-
I think ignoring the rest of Dogplatters thesis is really reaching, into ignorance. It perfectly explains everything you've asked, and any other questions (such as these) have already been answered. It's just KillaBees genuine insolence that has kept this debate going as long as it has.
-
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is a perfectly valid hypothesis for that question.
No it's not.
Plate movement and species evolution is a perfectly valid hypothesis. There's evidence for both.
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is an invalid hypothesis. There's no evidence for such.
What evidence is there that all the continents were once joined together, then ripped apart, besides the distribution of species across continents?
Umm... Plate tectonics and continental drift?
I don't see how plate tectonics and continental drift so readily lead to the conclusion that the continents were once joined together and then ripped apart. That's really reaching.
I don't see how taping your thumb to your hand so readily leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs had the manual dexterity and intelligence needed to build boats. That's really reaching.
Well I don't see how some fossils of bones millions of years old leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs didn't have the manual dexterity and intelligence to build boats, so I guess the possibility remains open.
-
Well I don't see how some fossils of bones millions of years old leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs didn't have the manual dexterity and intelligence to build boats, so I guess the possibility remains open.
Actually, biomechanical analysis of skeletal remains can give quite a bit of insight into the range of motion of various body parts as well as brain size and structure. Granted, brain size alone doesn't necessarily say much about intelligence, but relative size to the rest of the body and the structure of the brain can provide enough information to help make an educated guess. Just remember that dinosaurs didn't need to be smart. They just needed to be smarter than the competition (predator or prey).
-
Just remember that dinosaurs didn't need to be smart. They just needed to be smarter than the competition (predator or prey).
Well, the same could be said about humans.
-
Well I don't see how some fossils of bones millions of years old leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs didn't have the manual dexterity and intelligence to build boats, so I guess the possibility remains open.
Actually, biomechanical analysis of skeletal remains can give quite a bit of insight into the range of motion of various body parts as well as brain size and structure. Granted, brain size alone doesn't necessarily say much about intelligence, but relative size to the rest of the body and the structure of the brain can provide enough information to help make an educated guess. Just remember that dinosaurs didn't need to be smart. They just needed to be smarter than the competition (predator or prey).
Any 'educated guess' we might make based on brain size falls squarely in favour of the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, because the EQ of the average Deinonychus comes out at roughly 5.8, far, far higher than any living non-human animal today. The ratios for its smaller descendants, Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, are probably even better.
As for 'just needing to be smarter than competition', this is not what determines the intelligence of a predatory animal at all, you are simply completely wrong on this point. Lions and prehistoric humans both hunted antelope. By your faulty reasoning, lions and people ought to be at the same intelligence level, since both are 'smart enough' to overcome their prey. I take it you don't claim that lions are as clever as people?
-
And what does EQ have to do with the ability to build and sail boats?
Use your common sense. What do you think it has to do with it? Unless you have an EQ lower than that of the Deinonychus and are unable to comprehend how a boat floats and sails?
-
If you can't explain it yourself what puts you in such a position to speak of it as fact?
The schools, universities and educational sites given in that link speak of it as fact. Use it well young padawan.
Any 'educated guess' we might make based on brain size falls squarely in favour of the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, because the EQ of the average Deinonychus comes out at roughly 5.8
Where did you pull this factosaurus from? And what does EQ have to do with the ability to build and sail boats?
The estimate was given in 1980 by J. A. Hopson, PhD., a paleontology professor from the University of Chicago and one of the most eminent American paleontologists of the 20th Century. So much for "The schools, universites and educational sites", huh?
-
The schools, universities and educational sites given in that link speak of it as fact. Use it well young padawan.
I'm afraid you appear to be dealing with a Jedi here...
-
Well I don't see how some fossils of bones millions of years old leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs didn't have the manual dexterity and intelligence to build boats, so I guess the possibility remains open.
Actually, biomechanical analysis of skeletal remains can give quite a bit of insight into the range of motion of various body parts as well as brain size and structure. Granted, brain size alone doesn't necessarily say much about intelligence, but relative size to the rest of the body and the structure of the brain can provide enough information to help make an educated guess. Just remember that dinosaurs didn't need to be smart. They just needed to be smarter than the competition (predator or prey).
Any 'educated guess' we might make based on brain size falls squarely in favour of the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, because the EQ of the average Deinonychus comes out at roughly 5.8, far, far higher than any living non-human animal today. The ratios for its smaller descendants, Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, are probably even better.
As for 'just needing to be smarter than competition', this is not what determines the intelligence of a predatory animal at all, you are simply completely wrong on this point. Lions and prehistoric humans both hunted antelope. By your faulty reasoning, lions and people ought to be at the same intelligence level, since both are 'smart enough' to overcome their prey. I take it you don't claim that lions are as clever as people?
Intelligence is a relative thing. Lions hunt cooperatively in groups as did prehistoric man, but prehistoric humans did not have the same weapons as lions. Humans had to create their own weapons to dispatch the antelope once they got in range so there is an extra level of intelligence required (tool making).
-
The estimate was given in 1980 by J. A. Hopson, PhD., a paleontology professor from the University of Chicago and one of the most eminent American paleontologists of the 20th Century. So much for "The schools, universites and educational sites", huh?
Aah. Brain to body mass ratio! Sorry I don't speak obtuse. Also, remember to cite your sources next time.
Here's more about Hopson:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/~rwright/abs2002.html
Hopson (1980) compared dinosaur brain sizes with those of living reptiles. He calculated the EQs assuming that dinosaurs are more like reptiles and that their brain, as in living reptiles, occupied only half of the brain case. Hopson used the brain size to body size relationship in living reptiles, E=0.005P0.66 and found that most dinosaurs were not as intelligent as the average crocodile. I recalculated the dinosaur EQs assuming that the brain occupied the entire brain case and found that only the sauropods Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus were less intelligent than the average crocodile.
I also compared the dinosaur EQs with those of birds. I assumed that dinosaurs were more similar to birds and that their brain would, like living birds, occupy the entire brain case. I used recent dinosaur body size estimates and the bird brain size to body size relationship, E=0.12P0.55 (Nealen and Ricklefs, 2001) to calculate the EQ. Using these assumptions, I found that the EQs of theropods such as Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and the coelurosaur Troodon were within the range of most ground birds such as the ostrich and the emu.
Not really boat building and sailing smart is it?
It's a good thing I'm not postulating that either therapods or sauropods built boats then, isn't it! In fact, I specifically stated that sauropods probably DID NOT build boats! What I am posthulating is that Dromaeosaurs built boats, and Hopson ranked Dromaeosaurs as having an EQ higher than any modern living animal!
Furthermore, the author of the article which you quoted is stating that Hopson underestimated the intelligence of most dinosaurs. Thanks for providing evidence which further corroborates my theory, I will probably cite it in future arguments [serious about this, because it shows that Hopson may have underestimated the Dromaeosaurs at 5.8 (higher than any living animal)].
-
The estimate was given in 1980 by J. A. Hopson, PhD., a paleontology professor from the University of Chicago and one of the most eminent American paleontologists of the 20th Century. So much for "The schools, universites and educational sites", huh?
Aah. Brain to body mass ratio! Sorry I don't speak obtuse. Also, remember to cite your sources next time.
Here's more about Hopson:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/~rwright/abs2002.html
Hopson (1980) compared dinosaur brain sizes with those of living reptiles. He calculated the EQs assuming that dinosaurs are more like reptiles and that their brain, as in living reptiles, occupied only half of the brain case. Hopson used the brain size to body size relationship in living reptiles, E=0.005P0.66 and found that most dinosaurs were not as intelligent as the average crocodile. I recalculated the dinosaur EQs assuming that the brain occupied the entire brain case and found that only the sauropods Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus were less intelligent than the average crocodile.
I also compared the dinosaur EQs with those of birds. I assumed that dinosaurs were more similar to birds and that their brain would, like living birds, occupy the entire brain case. I used recent dinosaur body size estimates and the bird brain size to body size relationship, E=0.12P0.55 (Nealen and Ricklefs, 2001) to calculate the EQ. Using these assumptions, I found that the EQs of theropods such as Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and the coelurosaur Troodon were within the range of most ground birds such as the ostrich and the emu.
Not really boat building and sailing smart is it?
Other good links:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurbasics/a/dinosmarts.htm
I know this might be pushing it a bit, most of the calculations in these links are based upon the fact that dinosaurs have the same prain structure as reptiles (which dogplatter rightfully said actually caused for their EQ values to be underestimated! So when calculated while considering that their brains may fill the whole cavity instead of half (like a bird) they turned out to on the same scale of intelligence as dolphins.
That put aside (yet still in consideration) why do dinosaurs have to have the same brain structure as birds and reptiles? They are as separate from either of them as birds themselves are different from reptiles! Obviously this could lead to the fact that the dinosaurs not being as intelligent as we would assume... but it could also suggest that they could have (alternativley) been much more intelligent than what is stated!
What do you think?
-
I'm just wondering if I can "Prove" with YouTube that pigs are smart enough to fly spacecraft, can we just say it's possible that dino's made boats?
Or are pigs smarter than dinosaurs?
Here is your youTube proof:
(http://)
-
The estimate was given in 1980 by J. A. Hopson, PhD., a paleontology professor from the University of Chicago and one of the most eminent American paleontologists of the 20th Century. So much for "The schools, universites and educational sites", huh?
Aah. Brain to body mass ratio! Sorry I don't speak obtuse. Also, remember to cite your sources next time.
Here's more about Hopson:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/~rwright/abs2002.html
Hopson (1980) compared dinosaur brain sizes with those of living reptiles. He calculated the EQs assuming that dinosaurs are more like reptiles and that their brain, as in living reptiles, occupied only half of the brain case. Hopson used the brain size to body size relationship in living reptiles, E=0.005P0.66 and found that most dinosaurs were not as intelligent as the average crocodile. I recalculated the dinosaur EQs assuming that the brain occupied the entire brain case and found that only the sauropods Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus were less intelligent than the average crocodile.
I also compared the dinosaur EQs with those of birds. I assumed that dinosaurs were more similar to birds and that their brain would, like living birds, occupy the entire brain case. I used recent dinosaur body size estimates and the bird brain size to body size relationship, E=0.12P0.55 (Nealen and Ricklefs, 2001) to calculate the EQ. Using these assumptions, I found that the EQs of theropods such as Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and the coelurosaur Troodon were within the range of most ground birds such as the ostrich and the emu.
Not really boat building and sailing smart is it?
It's a good thing I'm not postulating that either therapods or sauropods built boats then, isn't it! In fact, I specifically stated that sauropods probably DID NOT build boats! What I am posthulating is that Dromaeosaurs built boats, and Hopson ranked Dromaeosaurs as having an EQ higher than any modern living animal!
Furthermore, the author of the article which you quoted is stating that Hopson underestimated the intelligence of most dinosaurs. Thanks for providing evidence which further corroborates my theory, I will probably cite it in future arguments [serious about this, because it shows that Hopson may have underestimated the Dromaeosaurs at 5.8 (higher than any living animal)].
Well, if nothing else, this discovery is worth the length of the discussion and all Killabee's awkwardness by itself.
-
Most of the calculations in these links are based upon the fact that dinosaurs have the same prain structure as reptiles (which dogplatter rightfully said actually caused for their EQ values to be underestimated! So when calculated while considering that their brains may fill the whole cavity instead of half (like a bird) they turned out to on the same scale of intelligence as dolphins.
That put aside (yet still in consideration) why do dinosaurs have to have the same brain structure as birds and reptiles? They are as separate from either of them as birds themselves are different from reptiles! Obviously this could lead to the fact that the dinosaurs not being as intelligent as we would assume... but it could also suggest that they could have (alternativley) been much more intelligent than what is stated!
That debunks his theory through and through. Please stop ignoring my posts.
-
It's a good thing I'm not postulating that either therapods or sauropods built boats then, isn't it! In fact, I specifically stated that sauropods probably DID NOT build boats! What I am posthulating is that Dromaeosaurs built boats, and Hopson ranked Dromaeosaurs as having an EQ higher than any modern living animal!
Hopson ranked all dinosaurs in comparison to reptiles.
EQ works by comparing a particular animal against "expected" ratios of groups of animals. It is actually a measure of deviation from the "norm" of a particular groups. So the Troodon and the Dromaeosaur would be considered particularly smart reptiles.
The EQ of a reptile is not the same as that of a mammal. It's vitally important you understand this.
I urge you to read the links I gave earlier. They are most inciteful and will add vigor and luminosity to your life.
Your refusal to listen to reason in inciteful - to anger and disappointment.
Did you mean insightful?
I'm quite vigorous already, thanks.
Anyway, you're neglecting the main error of most dinosaur scholars, namely the assumption that the brains of dinosaurs are structured anything like modern reptiles. By filling the whole cranium, a brain would be much larger.
-
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.
-
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.
Is there any evidence of birds building boats?
-
Is there any evidence of birds building boats?
Birds don't need boats.
However, their intricate woven nests of twigs are perfectly capable of floating.
-
Is there any evidence of birds building boats?
Birds don't need boats.
However, their intricate woven nests of twigs are perfectly capable of floating.
Trees are perfectly capable of floating. By your logic, trees are intelligent enough to build boats.
In regards to underestimating the dinosaur's intelligence, he concluded they were as smart as some birds(so smarter than crocodiles). Nowhere does he indicate an intellect capable of building complicated tools.
-
Some bird's nests are more complicated than this reed boat.(http://www.davidwallphoto.com/images/%7B324C357D-CA03-444D-824B-72587D052135%7D.jpg)
-
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/28/0901008106.abstract
The ability to use tools has been suggested to indicate advanced physical cognition in animals. Here we show that rooks, a member of the corvid family that do not appear to use tools in the wild are capable of insightful problem solving related to sophisticated tool use, including spontaneously modifying and using a variety of tools, shaping hooks out of wire, and using a series of tools in a sequence to gain a reward. It is remarkable that a species that does not use tools in the wild appears to possess an understanding of tools rivaling habitual tool users such as New Caledonian crows and chimpanzees. Our findings suggest that the ability to represent tools may be a domain-general cognitive capacity rather than an adaptive specialization and questions the relationship between physical intelligence and wild tool use.
-
Some bird's nests are more complicated than this reed boat.(http://www.davidwallphoto.com/images/%7B324C357D-CA03-444D-824B-72587D052135%7D.jpg)
Let's see some proof for that claim.
-
I never said it was, you have a knack for completely misrepresenting everything anybody says! The article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that modern birds are capable of extensive tool use, which suggests their close relatives, the dromaeosaurs, were also capable of extensive tool use.
-
That's not how science works. You produce evidence of your experimentation and then we verify it. I will accept a youtube link to a video of you taping your thumbs up and then trying to build a raft.
You don't have the faintest idea how science works.
I think I do. You, being the scientist who wants to get all the credit for discovering something, publish your findings alongside evidence and an details of how you came to that conclusion. Then we, the lesser scientists who are barely worthy to walk in your shadow, quickly run out and try to repeat your experiment.
Since this is a conjecture of physical nature, only a youtube link of you with your thumbs taped up trying to build a raft will be accepted as evidence.
Good luck!
What I'd like to see is a youtube video of him making the rope with his fingers tied up.
-
I never said it was, you have a knack for completely misrepresenting everything anybody says! The article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that modern birds are capable of extensive tool use, which suggests their close relatives, the dromaeosaurs, were also capable of extensive tool use.
it shows birds can use simple tools. what is your definition of extensive?
if you are going to infer anything then you may infer that dinosaurs used sticks to get grubs. that's a big stretch to boat building. anyway i doubt dromaeosaurs was concerned with pulling grubs from holes.
are you suggesting environmental factors drove the dromaeosaurs to make tools? to what end? you don't just start with a need to cross water and suddenly decide to build a boat. what drove them to make the first tool? did dromaeosaurs chew a branch into a club to attack its opponents? probably not with those claws and teeth.
-
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/28/0901008106.abstract
The ability to use tools has been suggested to indicate advanced physical cognition in animals. Here we show that rooks, a member of the corvid family that do not appear to use tools in the wild are capable of insightful problem solving related to sophisticated tool use, including spontaneously modifying and using a variety of tools, shaping hooks out of wire, and using a series of tools in a sequence to gain a reward. It is remarkable that a species that does not use tools in the wild appears to possess an understanding of tools rivaling habitual tool users such as New Caledonian crows and chimpanzees. Our findings suggest that the ability to represent tools may be a domain-general cognitive capacity rather than an adaptive specialization and questions the relationship between physical intelligence and wild tool use.
If the birds had forged the metal that they bent into hooks, then you might have a point.
-
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.
Is there any evidence of birds building boats?
That is irrelevant. By your logic, just because birds don't make an 'S' shape out of wire, we would conclude that birds cannot make an 'S' shape out of wire, even though they do make hooks out of wire. 'Necessity is the mother of invention'- so the famous phrase goes. Birds can make hooks because over the course of time the species they descend from have needed to manipulate the environment to survive. Birds don't make boats because they have wings, and it would be the most pointless endeavour imaginable.
-
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.
Is there any evidence of birds building boats?
That is irrelevant. By your logic, just because birds don't make an 'S' shape out of wire, we would conclude that birds cannot make an 'S' shape out of wire, even though they do make hooks out of wire. 'Necessity is the mother of invention'- so the famous phrase goes. Birds can make hooks because over the course of time the species they descend from have needed to manipulate the environment to survive. Birds don't make boats because they have wings, and it would be the most pointless endeavour imaginable.
Then what is the point of comparing dinosaur intelligence to bird intelligence? Birds have been observed making basic tools. How does this apply to the tool making potential of dinosaurs?
-
Nope, therapods were compared to Ostriches in the article you cited. Dromaeosaurs are not therapods.
-
It is obvious that this is the fact which I am disputing; just saying the opposite again and again isn't going to convince me that I am wrong.
-
No, you are claiming that the smartest dinosaur was as smart as an opossum. I am disputing that claim, because evidence does not suggest that.
-
No, you are claiming that the smartest dinosaur was as smart as an opossum. I am disputing that claim, because evidence does not suggest that.
Agrees. It doesn't suggest any dinosaur was as smart, but, there is no evidence to suggest any dinosaur was smarter either. You can't just extrapolate brain cavity size for intellect. And if you are going to reject comparisons of bird intellect to dinosaur intellect then why is it reasonable to compare tool use between the two?
There simply isn't any evidence to support your claims.
-
My guess is that dinosaurs perfected space flight but left sharks behind be cause they are dicks and eat everything.
Win and sig.
-
No, you are claiming that the smartest dinosaur was as smart as an opossum. I am disputing that claim, because evidence does not suggest that.
The evidence not only suggests it, the scientists producing the evidence state it. It was you who suggested Hopson and his EQ analysis. It's Hopson who found that the smartest dinosaurs were comparable in intelligence to birds like the emu or ostrich. Or "dumb" mammals like an opossum. If you are having difficulty accepting this I suggest you go back and reread the links I gave.
Good luck!
I maintain that any discussion about the intelligence of dinosaurs is entirely speculation, whether relative to the intelligence of modern animals or in any other sense. However much circumstantial evidence your scientists present we've never studied their behavior so to presume we can accurately judge their intelligence is rather ludicrous.
-
ffs
-
Your post is valuable to us.
Yours isn't. Please refrain from low-content posting in the serious discussion fora.
I maintain that any discussion about the intelligence of dinosaurs is entirely speculation, whether relative to the intelligence of modern animals or in any other sense. However much circumstantial evidence your scientists present we've never studied their behavior so to presume we can accurately judge their intelligence is rather ludicrous.
I'd say that this feature of the discussion just precludes certainty either way, I would still maintain that there are some strong inferences which can be made based on fossil evidence.
-
Your post is valuable to us.
Yours isn't. Please refrain from low-content posting in the serious discussion fora.
Low content posting would be like Roundy, where he completely ignores all the evidence posted in this thread and tries to promote the option of ignorance.
Unfortunately that doesn't work. The best evidence so far indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as ostriches or opposums. This is reasonably indicative that they didn't have the intelligence to build boats or construct "civilisations". This was the evidence you brought into the discussion.
Summary: Dinosaurs, no thumbs, no brains, no boats, no civilisations.
The best evidence so far is wrong because it doesn't include the largest member of the Dromaeosauridae family, which is twice the size of the Deinonychus.
That's okay, though, because I forgive you mistaking Speilberg's raptors for those little things.
-
Low content posting would be like Roundy, where he completely ignores all the evidence posted in this thread and tries to promote the option of ignorance.
Arguing with the moderators over rule interpretation is a quick way to get banned. Don't keep doing it.
The best evidence so far is wrong because it doesn't include the largest member of the Dromaeosauridae family, which is twice the size of the Deinonychus.
That's okay, though, because I forgive you mistaking Speilberg's raptors for those little things.
Are you referring to Achillobator?
-
Are you referring to Achillobator?
Close, but no. I'm talking about the Utahraptor, which is not very well known.
Size is not enough. See T Rex for further details.
Don't be an idiot and presume I am one, especially on this subject. To think a thread about dinosaurs occurred without my input is infuriating enough.
-
To think a thread about dinosaurs occurred without my input is infuriating enough.
Well you should never have left then.
Low content posting would be like Roundy, where he completely ignores all the evidence posted in this thread and tries to promote the option of ignorance.
Get over yourself. I'm not ignoring any evidence posted in this thread. The fact remains that all fossil evidence regarding the intelligence of dinosaurs is entirely circumstantial. At best all that can be said is that it's an educated guess.
I don't promote ignorance, just skepticism. There's a huge difference. In my opinion to ever think we could have all the answers as regards things that happened long before humanity even existed is naive. All we know about the intelligence of modern animals is based on observation of their behavior, not comparison of the size of their brainpans to that of their bodies, or anything else that's been brought up here. Such correlations are only noted in conjunction with what we've studied of their behavior. To assume that such correlations would exist in creatures we've never studied whose evolution made them vastly different in many ways from what we have been able to study is fallacious. All we think about the intelligence of dinosaurs based on such correlations is just an educated guess until we are able to complete the process of observation, which unless we figure out how to clone a dinosaur will never happen.
I'd say that this feature of the discussion just precludes certainty either way, I would still maintain that there are some strong inferences which can be made based on fossil evidence.
My only point is that we can never be certain. I feel this way about everything we can't directly observe. KillaBee would completely discount the possibility that dinosaurs were intelligent based on the fossil evidence and that in itself is simply short-sighted. Scientific progress simply doesn't take place without people questioning the accepted norms. Whether it can be argued that we have evidence that the dinosaurs were intelligent or not, there's always the possibility of new evidence coming to light to completely overturn our assumptions.
On this issue, we can never know. We can only speculate. That's all I'm saying.
-
I agree with you Roundy, we can ultimately only speculate. Nonetheless, I think that even speculative discussion has value, and I personally believe that the greater weight of argument (speculative though it may be) points to Dinosaurs who had a maritime civilisation.
-
I am on the record as a skeptic in the maritime dinosaur discussion. Having said this, however, I saw this article earlier today and thought of this very topic.
The study also shows that big brains like humans' might not be the only way to produce a cumulative culture within a species.
"Small fish may have small brains but they still have some surprising cognitive abilities," said Jeremy Kendal from Durham University's anthropology department. "Hill-climbing strategies are widely seen in human society whereby advances in technology are down to people choosing the best technique through social learning and improving on it, resulting in cumulative culture. But our results suggest brain size isn't everything when it comes to the capacity for social learning."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jun/16/stickleback-intelligence-fish
Also, pulling from the Ski archives:
I suspect that the enlarged nerve plexus of all sauropods 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.
-
Okay. I tried pretending this thread didn't exist. Didn't work. So now I'mma throw up all over you.
Firstly, I am sick and tired of hearing about the Tyrannosaurus Rex. Sic semper Tyrannosaurus Rex! KillaBee, to make your point (and not sound like all of your information on dinosaurs came from reading little kids' books), you could have motioned me towards the Sauropods, either the Macronarians or the Diplodocoids. Tyrannosaurus...geesh.
KillaBee is a prime example of what's happened with dinosaurs recently. KillaBee represents the classical thought, that dinosaurs were big, dumb, sluggish lizards, cold-blooded reptilians without much zest for life. Recent discoveries and additions to our limited fossil record shows this is not the case.
One piece of literature that promoted an active dinosaurian lifestyle was a piece of fiction written by prominent paleontologist Dr. Robert T. Bakker. This piece of fiction, entitled Raptor Red, is not really heard of outside of the paleontology circle; it won Dr. Bakker no awards. But it helped the shift in paradigm from big, dumb and slow to active and vibrant.
The discovery of feather precursors appearing on members of the Dromaeosauridae family threw paleontologists for a loop. True, Archaeopteryx is praised as the missing link between Maniraptora and Avialae, but the thought of feathers being developed as far back as Deinonychus and Velociraptor was a novel concept. Now, even though the Dromaeosauridae family tree still functions as a polytomy (four branches are currently in dispute) on the cladogram, it is a little known fact that the raptors of old evolved into the raptors of new.
I brought up the Utahraptor because they are Speilberg's raptors. Not Velociraptor, and not even Deinonychus; only Utahraptor holds that title. Unfortunately, the fossil record of the Utahraptor is very incomplete, featuring only a few fragments and shards. However, paleontologists have been able to discern that it is twice the size of Deinonychus, which would also include its head and, therefore, its cranial capacity, which is--sorry to say--why I very much dispute the findings of KillaBee.
Though I can definitely see why Roundy would hold that this is all speculation (which it is, and even my professor, Christopher Brochu, admitted to this being mostly true when it comes to the fossil record), but I cannot see why we have to rule out the possibility of dinosaurs building boats simply because we humans are too stubborn to think outside ourselves. A dinosaurian culture would most definitely not be like our own, since their materials would have to be custom-fit to their strengths and weaknesses. Which is why I believe anyone flatly refusing the possibility of tools fitted to creatures without thumbs to be nothing more than an arrogant monkey moaning over the loss of its tail.
Not to mention the simple fact that we weren't there.
[edit]
Fora does not recognize the ellipsis or em-dash characters.
-
Summary: Dinosaurs, no thumbs, no brains, no boats, no civilisations.
You can keep saying this, but it isn't going to hide the fact that you have no actual argument. It's one thing to paint over cracks, but you can't paint over a wall that isn't there.
-
Summary: Dinosaurs, no thumbs, no brains, no boats, no civilisations.
You can keep saying this, but it isn't going to hide the fact that you have no actual argument. It's one thing to paint over cracks, but you can't paint over a wall that isn't there.
Umm. I do have an argument. The best evidence indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as ostriches. Also: "Look momma! No thumbs!"
No, your ham-fisted interpretation leads you to that conclusion, and nobody else agrees with it. And as if that weren't ridiculous enough, you claim that because dinosaurs didn't have thumbs, they couldn't make tools, an argument which can be contradicted by the common crow. I'm not even going to get into your absurd youtube argument.
-
The largest of the dinosaurs, in my opinion, could not have existed under the round Earth model.
The sheer mass of the creatures at 1G would not allow their movement between one body of water and the next.
Gravity on the round Earth if fixed at approx 1G.
The flat Earth model has a possibility that the gravitation was not as high, millions of years ago.
Brontosaurus proves the Earth is flat.
-
No, your ham-fisted interpretation leads you to that conclusion, and nobody else agrees with it.
No. It's not my interpretation. It's the evidence Dogplatter cited.
You know, I've been following this topic all along, and I know exactly what was posted, and that is not my interpretation of the sum of evidence.
And as if that weren't ridiculous enough, you claim that because dinosaurs didn't have thumbs, they couldn't make tools, an argument which can be contradicted by the common crow. I'm not even going to get into your absurd youtube argument.
I've yet to see any evidence that Dinosaurs had thumbs, made tools, made boats, sailed the oceans, built civilisations...
This is a pointless line of reasoning. First of all, no-one is claiming dinosaurs had thumbs, so stop using such an obvious straw-man. Furthermore, as has been explained very clearly already, no such evidence (that dinosaurs made boats or tools) could (in all likelihood) exist. We are speculating as to whether or not they could have done these things, and the evidence we have presented pertains to their ability.
Dogplatter said he did an experiment to prove it was possible to build a raft without thumbs. When I asked him to reperform and record it for us to evaluate he backed out.
Why don't you do it and record it for us, if it means so much to you? It doesn't matter who does it, because the point of an experiment is that it can be repeated by anyone and produce the same result.
-
Summary: Dinosaurs, no thumbs, no brains, no boats, no civilisations.
You can keep saying this, but it isn't going to hide the fact that you have no actual argument. It's one thing to paint over cracks, but you can't paint over a wall that isn't there.
Umm. I do have an argument. The best evidence indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as ostriches. Also: "Look momma! No thumbs!"
No, your ham-fisted interpretation leads you to that conclusion, and nobody else agrees with it. And as if that weren't ridiculous enough, you claim that because dinosaurs didn't have thumbs, they couldn't make tools, an argument which can be contradicted by the common crow. I'm not even going to get into your absurd youtube argument.
Can a crow tie a knot?
-
Furthermore, as has been explained very clearly already, no such evidence (that dinosaurs made boats or tools) could (in all likelihood) exist.
OK no such evidence exists. Understood.
We are speculating as to whether or not they could have done these things, and the evidence we have presented pertains to their ability.
OK. Umm. The evidence doesn't exist. But you've managed to present speculation as evidence...
Mommy! I'm confused!
To reiterate, you' haven't presented any evidence. Dogplatter misinterpreted the results of a scientist. He said he did something, but provided no evidence for it.
The reason you are confused is becuase you can't read. Please visit this site: www.rif.org
Though I suppose that even with regular therapy, the results of treatment may take time to appear. So I'll break it down for you. Really, it's very simple:
There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.
There is evidence that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.
Can a crow tie a knot?
Can you fly an interstellar vehicle? If not, does this mean that humans therefore do not have the necessary faculties to fly interstellar vehicles? Just because we've never seen a crow tie a knot, and just because crows don't tie nots, does not mean they do not have the necessary faculties to do so.
-
Firstly, I am sick and tired of hearing about the Tyrannosaurus Rex. Sic semper Tyrannosaurus Rex!
You mentioned that there were bigger dinosaurs in the Dromaeosauridae family. Physical size alone is not an indicator of intelligence, the accepted calculation being brain cavity size proportional to body, as compared to nearest living relatives.
Did you waive the ability to read and understand my posts?
KillaBee, to make your point (and not sound like all of your information on dinosaurs came from reading little kids' books), you could have motioned me towards the Sauropods, either the Macronarians or the Diplodocoids. Tyrannosaurus...geesh.
See here? The Sauropods were gargantuan creatures--but had a little tiny head. They are the dinosaurian equivalent of cows.
Unfortunately, the fossil record of the Utahraptor is very incomplete, featuring only a few fragments and shards. However, paleontologists have been able to discern that it is twice the size of Deinonychus, which would also include its head and, therefore, its cranial capacity, which is--sorry to say--why I very much dispute the findings of KillaBee.
Did you flat out miss this part?
Furthermore, it is not baseless speculation, but it is speculation. They very well may have been able to make boats. KillaBee can't get past this due to his or her personal bias towards thumbs.
-
Furthermore, it is not baseless speculation, but it is speculation.
What else would you call speculation that has no base?
Now look who's ignoring the evidence presented in this thread. ::)
-
Now look who's ignoring the evidence presented in this thread. ::)
Nope. All there's been is speculation.
That... had... no... base....
The argument has a base. Dogplatter didn't pull his hypothesis out of thin air. It is therefore not baseless. QED.
-
The argument has a base. Dogplatter didn't pull his hypothesis out of thin air. It is therefore not baseless. QED.
Epic lolz. Unfortunately base means some kind of base in fact. Or evidence. Hence; the speculation has no base. Thankyou for adding to the debate though.
There is evidence though. Therefore it's not baseless. Thank you for as usual not contributing anything meaningful to the debate though.
-
There is evidence though.
No there isn't. There has been no evidence put forward, only baseless speculation. I think you fail to understand what evidence means. Thankyou for participating in the discussion though!
Of course just because you say there has been no evidence that must mean it's true. ::)
-
Unfortunately, the fossil record of the Utahraptor is very incomplete, featuring only a few fragments and shards. However, paleontologists have been able to discern that it is twice the size of Deinonychus, which would also include its head and, therefore, its cranial capacity, which is--sorry to say--why I very much dispute the findings of KillaBee.
Did you flat out miss this part?
No I didn't. Did you flat out miss this part:
Physical size alone is not an indicator of intelligence, the accepted calculation being brain cavity size proportional to body, as compared to nearest living relatives.
Just because a dinosaur is bigger, doesn't make it smarter. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Lets find out.
KillaBee, you are dense. For three posts now I've commented on this, and still you act like an ignorant buffoon. Do you know what dinosaurs I'm referencing when I speak of Sauropods? Macronarians? Diplodocoids?
To avoid any more further confusion, I'm going to include pictures so I know you know what I mean.
These are Sauropods:
(http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A6356/63566/300_63566.jpg)
(http://z.about.com/d/dinosaurs/1/0/e/0/-/-/argentinosaurusAB.jpg)
I already conceded the point that the correlation between a dinosaur's body and intellect is unfounded, and yet still you repeat it like a mantra. What I have been trying to tell you is that the Deinonychus and Utahraptor should have the same EQ, by the very limited qualifications given by you in a previous post.
Furthermore, it is not baseless speculation, but it is speculation.
What else would you call speculation that has no base?
Baseless speculation. But this speculation does have base, which is what we've all been trying to tell you.
-
There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.
There is baseless speculation that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.
Fixed.
Yeah, that's great, except you have been totally unable to challenge what we have put forward in any logical way. You can keep banging on if you like, but it's plain to everyone who has won this debate.
Another victory for FE!
-
There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.
There is baseless speculation that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.
Fixed.
Yeah, that's great, except you have been totally unable to challenge what we have put forward in any logical way.
There is also speculation that reptilians populated the early earth with human slaves. How do you make a logical challenge to such a claim?
-
There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.
There is baseless speculation that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.
Fixed.
Yeah, that's great, except you have been totally unable to challenge what we have put forward in any logical way.
There is also speculation that reptilians populated the early earth with human slaves. How do you make a logical challenge to such a claim?
If there's actual evidence backing up the speculation, and no actual evidence going against it, you don't. You investigate the possibility as far as you're able to determine if the idea has any merit.
-
There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.
There is baseless speculation that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.
Fixed.
Yeah, that's great, except you have been totally unable to challenge what we have put forward in any logical way.
There is also speculation that reptilians populated the early earth with human slaves. How do you make a logical challenge to such a claim?
The difference is this: we didn't just put forward a claim.
-
There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.
There is baseless speculation that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.
Fixed.
Yeah, that's great, except you have been totally unable to challenge what we have put forward in any logical way.
There is also speculation that reptilians populated the early earth with human slaves. How do you make a logical challenge to such a claim?
The difference is this: we didn't just put forward a claim.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where it was demonstrated that dinosaurs had the range of motion, manual dexterity and intelligence required to build boats.
-
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where it was demonstrated that dinosaurs had the range of motion, manual dexterity and intelligence required to build boats.
Who says that they need to build boats? A single giant redwood tree floating in the sea could easily support a dinosaur.
-
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where it was demonstrated that dinosaurs had the range of motion, manual dexterity and intelligence required to build boats.
Who says that they need to build boats? A single giant redwood tree floating in the sea could easily support a dinosaur.
We aren't talking about the need to build boats, rather their ability to build boats which Dogplatter has repeatedly asserted that they did.
-
There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.
There is baseless speculation that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.
Fixed.
Yeah, that's great, except you have been totally unable to challenge what we have put forward in any logical way.
There is also speculation that reptilians populated the early earth with human slaves. How do you make a logical challenge to such a claim?
The difference is this: we didn't just put forward a claim.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where it was demonstrated that dinosaurs had the range of motion, manual dexterity and intelligence required to build boats.
It is entirely plausible that dinosaurs developed their own methods for building boats that would circumvent their lack of thumbs and etc. that we have. Unfortunately, since we did not need to circumvent, we can hardly be expected to suddenly see these methods.
On a related note: has anyone heard of the man who plays his guitar with his feet?
-
The difference is this: we didn't just put forward a claim.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where it was demonstrated that dinosaurs had the range of motion, manual dexterity and intelligence required to build boats.
[/quote]
No need to apologise, though I don't see what it has to do with what I said.
On a related note: has anyone heard of the man who plays his guitar with his feet?
Saw this just last night actually:
I think it's just hilarious that this can exist, and yet people can claim you couldn't build a boat without thumbs.
-
The difference is this: we didn't just put forward a claim.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where it was demonstrated that dinosaurs had the range of motion, manual dexterity and intelligence required to build boats.
No need to apologise, though I don't see what it has to do with what I said.
That's because you didn't make the claim, Dogplatter did.
On a related note: has anyone heard of the man who plays his guitar with his feet?
Saw this just last night actually:
I think it's just hilarious that this can exist, and yet people can claim you couldn't build a boat without thumbs.
Yes, because that is so much like boat building. ::)
-
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where it was demonstrated that dinosaurs had the range of motion, manual dexterity and intelligence required to build boats.
Who says that they need to build boats? A single giant redwood tree floating in the sea could easily support a dinosaur.
You've never been at sea, have you?
-
You've never been at sea, have you?
Traversing the pacific on a tree present day would be extremely difficult if not impossible, I agree. In the time of the dinosaurs, however, the continents would have been much closer together.
-
You've never been at sea, have you?
Traversing the pacific on a tree present day would be extremely difficult if not impossible, I agree. In the time of the dinosaurs, however, the continents would have been much closer together.
Some might contend that the continents were so close that the dinosaurs could have walked.
-
Although a solid contention, it is much less entertaining of an idea. ;)
-
You've never been at sea, have you?
It's not impossible to swim from the US to Asia. You can actually see Russia from the tip of Alaska. The nearest Russian landmass is just 1.5 miles away.
-
Although a solid contention, it is much less entertaining of an idea. ;)
Ahhh... So now we're arguing scientific theory from its entertainment value. That explains a lot. Then again, this is TFES.
-
Although a solid contention, it is much less entertaining of an idea. ;)
Ahhh... So now we're arguing scientific theory from its entertainment value. That explains a lot. Then again, this is TFES.
Either way, they get to the other side.
-
The difference is this: we didn't just put forward a claim.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where it was demonstrated that dinosaurs had the range of motion, manual dexterity and intelligence required to build boats.
No need to apologise, though I don't see what it has to do with what I said.
That's because you didn't make the claim, Dogplatter did.
Not sure what you're getting at here, but what I was getting at is that just because we didn't 'demonstrate' that one thing, does not mean that we made nothing more than a claim.
Yes, because that is so much like boat building. ::)
Oh come on. Seriously, as someone who plays guitar, I am certain it would be a lot more difficult to play guitar with my feet than it would be to build a boat without thumbs. It simply highlights the absurdity of saying that if you don't have thumbs, you can't build boats.
-
Yes, because that is so much like boat building. ::)
Oh come on. Seriously, as someone who plays guitar, I am certain it would be a lot more difficult to play guitar with my feet than it would be to build a boat without thumbs. It simply highlights the absurdity of saying that if you don't have thumbs, you can't build boats.
When did I say that not having thumbs means that you can't build boats? I'm saying that you need a certain amount of manual dexterity, range of motion and intelligence to build boats and no one has demonstrated that dinosaurs possessed sufficient levels of all three of those traits to build boats.
-
Yes, because that is so much like boat building. ::)
Oh come on. Seriously, as someone who plays guitar, I am certain it would be a lot more difficult to play guitar with my feet than it would be to build a boat without thumbs. It simply highlights the absurdity of saying that if you don't have thumbs, you can't build boats.
When did I say that not having thumbs means that you can't build boats? I'm saying that you need a certain amount of manual dexterity, range of motion and intelligence to build boats and no one has demonstrated that dinosaurs possessed sufficient levels of all three of those traits to build boats.
Maybe I should put www.rif.org in my sig, and see if there's any marked improvement in reading levels around here. I said:
Saw this just last night actually:
I think it's just hilarious that this can exist, and yet people can claim you couldn't build a boat without thumbs.
That's what I was talking about. When you replied, what were you talking about if not that?
-
I think it's just hilarious that this can exist, and yet people can claim you couldn't build a boat without thumbs.
Exactly my next presented argument, old fiend! Surely you are on the ball.
Yes, because that is so much like boat building. ::)
Actually, quite more than you would expect. Playing the guitar requires a great deal of manual dexterity, range of motion, and practicing. And this is all before you add in the bulky feet. And yet, there is such a being in existence that can do such a thing!
Surely, if I had laid claim to such a feat, you would have told me it is preposterous. However, by the link NEEMAN so generously provided, you can see how you would be wrong.
Come now, don't play coy with me. Make the leap.
-
Yes, because that is so much like boat building. ::)
Oh come on. Seriously, as someone who plays guitar, I am certain it would be a lot more difficult to play guitar with my feet than it would be to build a boat without thumbs. It simply highlights the absurdity of saying that if you don't have thumbs, you can't build boats.
When did I say that not having thumbs means that you can't build boats? I'm saying that you need a certain amount of manual dexterity, range of motion and intelligence to build boats and no one has demonstrated that dinosaurs possessed sufficient levels of all three of those traits to build boats.
Maybe I should put www.rif.org in my sig, and see if there's any marked improvement in reading levels around here. I said:
Saw this just last night actually:
I think it's just hilarious that this can exist, and yet people can claim you couldn't build a boat without thumbs.
That's what I was talking about. When you replied, what were you talking about if not that?
I'm talking about providing evidence that dinosaurs had the manual dexterity, range of motion and intelligence to build boats (which you haven't yet). You are talking about a human playing guitar with his feet. I am duly impressed with that guitar player's skill, but I fail to see what that has to do with dinosaurs building boats. Now if you can show me a video of a dinosaur playing a guitar with its feet or a human building a boat with his feet, then you might have a point.
-
markjo, are you saying you're not willing to even entertain the idea that dinosaurs could have built boats?
-
I'm talking about providing evidence that dinosaurs had the manual dexterity, range of motion and intelligence to build boats (which you haven't yet). You are talking about a human playing guitar with his feet. I am duly impressed with that guitar player's skill, but I fail to see what that has to do with dinosaurs building boats. Now if you can show me a video of a dinosaur playing a guitar with its feet or a human building a boat with his feet, then you might have a point.
I wasn't speaking to you (specifically) when I spoke about the man playing guitar with his feet. I was speaking to BOGWarrior, and I was saying that it was a very good example of why the 'you need thumbs to make boats' argument (one which other people in this thread have made) was stupid.
Now, you may not have made that argument, but other people have, and in any case, I wasn't speaking to you in the first place, so I obviously was not using this video to say anything about the manual dexterity of dinosaurs etc. You just got that into your head somewhere along the line.
Now, as for this:
evidence that dinosaurs had the manual dexterity, range of motion and intelligence to build boats (which you haven't yet)
it has already been pointed out that 'evidence' is a very dodgy term in the context of this debate, as in truth we can only speculate about all of these things, and the same is true of anyone discussing dinosaur behaviour, even if their ideas are relatively conventional. I think that Dogplatter has made a convincing case for the possbility of intelligent dinosaurs based on the limited biological evidence available, and I'm not going to go into that again.
In terms of range of motion and manual dexterity, it seems almost certain that some dinosaurs had a greater degree manual dexterity etc than birds, who we know are capable of building tools. Dinosaurs had their mouths and four usable limbs, unlike birds, who have only their beaks and legs. Furthermore, I believe dinosaur claws and teeth may have given them a significant physical advantage over birds in the tool making process, as their claws could have been used as small blades when fashioning tools. Is it evidence? No, but the fact is that finding 'evidence' of behaviour patterns in creatures that have been dead for millions of years is nigh on impossible. The best we or anyone else can do is speculate.
-
markjo, are you saying you're not willing to even entertain the idea that dinosaurs could have built boats?
Not at all. I'm just saying that there is insufficient evidence to support such an idea.
-
markjo, are you saying you're not willing to even entertain the idea that dinosaurs could have built boats?
Not at all. I'm just saying that there is insufficient evidence to support such an idea.
Which is to say you're not at all willing to even entertain such an idea. Oh well, fair is fair. Perhaps you'd be better off without so much empiricism in your life.
-
markjo, are you saying you're not willing to even entertain the idea that dinosaurs could have built boats?
Not at all. I'm just saying that there is insufficient evidence to support such an idea.
Which is to say you're not at all willing to even entertain such an idea. Oh well, fair is fair. Perhaps you'd be better off without so much empiricism in your life.
Quite the contrary. I find the idea of dinosaurs building boats to be quite entertaining. In fact, I find it darned near hilarious. I just said that there hasn't been any evidence provided to support that idea. If someone could provide such evidence, then I'd be willing to give it more serious consideration.
-
markjo, are you saying you're not willing to even entertain the idea that dinosaurs could have built boats?
Not at all. I'm just saying that there is insufficient evidence to support such an idea.
Which is to say you're not at all willing to even entertain such an idea. Oh well, fair is fair. Perhaps you'd be better off without so much empiricism in your life.
Quite the contrary. I find the idea of dinosaurs building boats to be quite entertaining. In fact, I find it darned near hilarious. I just said that there hasn't been any evidence provided to support that idea. If someone could provide such evidence, then I'd be willing to give it more serious consideration.
All scientists agree most dinosaurs were killed by a giant flood. Life survived because dinosaurs built an ark. Its in the bible.
-
markjo, are you saying you're not willing to even entertain the idea that dinosaurs could have built boats?
Not at all. I'm just saying that there is insufficient evidence to support such an idea.
Which is to say you're not at all willing to even entertain such an idea. Oh well, fair is fair. Perhaps you'd be better off without so much empiricism in your life.
Quite the contrary. I find the idea of dinosaurs building boats to be quite entertaining. In fact, I find it darned near hilarious. I just said that there hasn't been any evidence provided to support that idea. If someone could provide such evidence, then I'd be willing to give it more serious consideration.
And what we're saying is that providing you with evidence of dinosaur behaviour patterns (of any kind) is almost impossible.
-
markjo, are you saying you're not willing to even entertain the idea that dinosaurs could have built boats?
Not at all. I'm just saying that there is insufficient evidence to support such an idea.
Which is to say you're not at all willing to even entertain such an idea. Oh well, fair is fair. Perhaps you'd be better off without so much empiricism in your life.
Quite the contrary. I find the idea of dinosaurs building boats to be quite entertaining. In fact, I find it darned near hilarious. I just said that there hasn't been any evidence provided to support that idea. If someone could provide such evidence, then I'd be willing to give it more serious consideration.
And what we're saying is that providing you with evidence of dinosaur behaviour patterns (of any kind) is almost impossible.
That sounds like your problem, not mine.
-
And what we're saying is that providing you with evidence of dinosaur behaviour patterns (of any kind) is almost impossible.
That sounds like your problem, not mine.
Me and any paleontologist interested in dinosaur behaviour, assuming your satisfaction was the primary goal.
-
And what we're saying is that providing you with evidence of dinosaur behaviour patterns (of any kind) is almost impossible.
That sounds like your problem, not mine.
Me and any paleontologist interested in dinosaur behaviour, assuming your the satisfaction of anyone in the scientific community was the primary goal.
Fixed that for you.
-
And what we're saying is that providing you with evidence of dinosaur behaviour patterns (of any kind) is almost impossible.
That sounds like your problem, not mine.
Me and any paleontologist interested in dinosaur behaviour, assuming your the satisfaction of anyone in the scientific community was the primary goal.
Fixed that for you.
No you didn't.
-
And what we're saying is that providing you with evidence of dinosaur behaviour patterns (of any kind) is almost impossible.
That sounds like your problem, not mine.
Me and any paleontologist interested in dinosaur behaviour, assuming your the satisfaction of anyone in the scientific community was the primary goal.
Fixed that for you.
Um, you're still making the same point there markjo.
-
And what we're saying is that providing you with evidence of dinosaur behaviour patterns (of any kind) is almost impossible.
That sounds like your problem, not mine.
Me and any paleontologist interested in dinosaur behaviour, assuming your the satisfaction of anyone in the scientific community was the primary goal.
Fixed that for you.
Um, you're still making the same point there markjo.
So you're saying that the scientific community doesn't need any evidence to be satisfied with a theory? ???
-
So you're saying that the scientific community doesn't need any evidence to be satisfied with a theory? ???
I'm saying that it is basically impossible to gather evidence of dinosaur behaviour patterns 65 million years after they went extinct. All anyone can do is speculate.
-
It's believed that birds (avians) descended from dinosaurs.
Since we know that birds can build incredibly complicated nests of twigs, why couldn't dinosaurs do something similar? There are even birds who gather enough material to build floating nests (http://niebruggestudio.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/GrebeNest.jpg) out on lakes.
-
It's believed that birds (avians) descended from dinosaurs.
Since we know that birds can build incredibly complicated nests of twigs, why couldn't dinosaurs do something similar? There are even birds who gather enough material to build floating nests (http://niebruggestudio.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/GrebeNest.jpg) out on lakes.
Is there any evidence that these floating nests are used for sea faring migration?
-
Is there any evidence that these floating nests are used for sea faring migration?
It's not too hard to gather up some driftwood and kick paddle your way across the 2 mile stretch between Alaska and the nearest Russian landmass.
-
Is there any evidence that these floating nests are used for sea faring migration?
It's not too hard to gather up some driftwood and kick paddle your way across the 1.5 mile stretch between Alaska and the nearest Russian landmass.
Interesting. Last I knew, the Bering Strait was about 58 miles across. Do you know a short cut?
-
Is there any evidence that these floating nests are used for sea faring migration?
It's not too hard to gather up some driftwood and kick paddle your way across the 1.5 mile stretch between Alaska and the nearest Russian landmass.
Your "hypothetical scenario" is founded on pure fantasy and therefore cannot be considered for debate, just as the paranormal is not considered for debate. Your "hypothetical scenario" needs actual evidence to back it up before we can consider its merits. "
Thought experiments arent proof, remember?
-
Interesting. Last I knew, the Bering Strait was about 58 miles across. Do you know a short cut?
The distance between Little Diomede Island, Alaska, and Big Diomede Island, Russia is two miles.
Also keep in mind that the entire Bering Straight was believed to be frozen over at various times throughout the earth's history.
-
It's not too hard to gather up some driftwood and kick paddle your way across the 2 mile stretch between Alaska and the nearest Russian landmass.
Also keep in mind that the entire Bering Straight was believed to be frozen over at various times throughout the earth's history.
You were Sarah Palin's foreign policy adviser and I claim my five pounds!
-
Interesting. Last I knew, the Bering Strait was about 58 miles across. Do you know a short cut?
The distance between Little Diomede Island, Alaska, and Big Diomede Island, Russia is two miles.
How far is it from the Alaskan mainland to Little Diomede Island, Alaska? How far from Big Diomede Island to the Russian mainland?
Also keep in mind that the entire Bering Straight was believed to be frozen over at various times throughout the earth's history.
And how exactly would that be of the slightest bit of help to cold blooded dinosaurs?
-
How far is it from the Alaskan mainland to Little Diomede Island, Alaska? How far from Big Diomede Island to the Russian mainland?
Those islands are located about 20 miles off of the coasts of their respective countries. You don't even need a drift wood boogie board to do 20 miles. You can practically swim that distance, like this guy did (http://www.wickedlocal.com/ghs-newsservice/regional_news/midwest/x1272958162/Missouri-man-completes-20-miles-in-20-hours-swim-for-charity).
And how exactly would that be of the slightest bit of help to cold blooded dinosaurs?
How do you know that they were cold blooded, or what temperatures they could survive in?
-
How far is it from the Alaskan mainland to Little Diomede Island, Alaska? How far from Big Diomede Island to the Russian mainland?
Those islands are located about 20 miles off of the coasts of their respective countries. You don't even need a drift wood boogie board to do 20 miles. You can practically swim that distance, like this guy did (http://www.wickedlocal.com/ghs-newsservice/regional_news/midwest/x1272958162/Missouri-man-completes-20-miles-in-20-hours-swim-for-charity).
Kudos to that guy. I'm truly impressed. Now lets see a reptile pull of that same feat.
And how exactly would that be of the slightest bit of help to cold blooded dinosaurs?
How do you know that they were cold blooded, or what temperatures they could survive in?
OK, so conventional wisdom may or may not be accurate. Do you have any evidence to suggest that dinosaurs could have survived temperatures cold enough to freeze a 58 mile stretch of salt water?
-
Kudos to that guy. I'm truly impressed. Now lets see a reptile pull of that same feat.
It shouldn't be so hard, since like elephants, they'd naturally float. Many land animals, such as rhinos and polar bears, can swim for many miles without getting exhausted. And if they do happen to get exhausted, they'll just float for a while until they regain their energy.
Tom, I'm still not sure why dinosaurs would need to build boats if they could just skate across the frozen wastes...
Can you explain?
I don't know. You tell me. You guys are the ones saying that it's impossible for dinosaur bones of some species to be distributed across North America and Asia if the continents were static throughout the earth's history.
-
Kudos to that guy. I'm truly impressed. Now lets see a reptile pull of that same feat.
It shouldn't be so hard, since like elephants, they'd naturally float.
Corpses float too. What's your point?
-
Corpses float too. What's your point?
My point is that due to their size, strength, and buoyancy it's not extraordinary for large animals to swim long distances. Last year a polar bear was shot dead after swimming over 200 miles to reach Iceland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour).
-
Tom, I'm still not sure why dinosaurs would need to build boats if they could just skate across the frozen wastes...
Can you explain?
I don't know. You tell me. You guys are the ones saying that it's impossible for dinosaur bones to be distributed across the earth if the continents were static throughout the earth's history.
Tom, how is that at all relevant to the question other than that it has to do with migrating dinosaurs? You sound like a politician, avoiding questions you can't answer, or only answering them vaguely so that you can say that you did. I'm not saying other people haven't done this, but jeez. Answer the man or simply say that you don't know.
On a related note, it's not "impossible" per say, but the likeliness of so many different species of animals being intelligent enough to use sophisticated tools, and to combine them into even more useful tools, and then to use those tools to migrate such long distances - and over oceans, no less, without being able to fly - is so astronomical that it is effectively impossible.
-
Tom, I'm still not sure why dinosaurs would need to build boats if they could just skate across the frozen wastes...
Can you explain?
I don't know. You tell me.
No you tell me. You're the one that said...
Also keep in mind that the entire Bering Straight was believed to be frozen over at various times throughout the earth's history.
maybe you need to explain the relevence to dinosaur boat building...
If they can just walk or swim, they don't really need to build boats, do they?
-
Corpses float too. What's your point?
My point is that due to their size, strength, and buoyancy it's not extraordinary for large animals to swim long distances. Last year a polar bear was shot dead after swimming over 200 miles to reach Iceland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour).
Last I knew, the dinosaurs in question were not mammals, let alone polar bears. Please provide some evidence that otherwise land dwelling dinosaurs could swim long distances in arctic conditions.
-
Correct. You do realise you're breaking down the argument Dogplatter has spent 18 odd pages building up.
I thought you two were buddies?!
Dogplatter is just saying that the fossil distribution is explainable with static continents.
Like man and many other animal species, dinosaurs could have just walked to North America in their respective eras.
Last I knew, the dinosaurs in question were not mammals, let alone polar bears. Please provide some evidence that otherwise land dwelling dinosaurs could swim long distances in arctic conditions.
No one knows whether dinosaurs were cold blooded. It's widely believed that avians (warm blooded) are direct descendants of the dinosaurs. So how can you say that they were cold blooded?
-
Is he? He seemed to be saying dinosaurs were able to cross continents with boats. I'm not sure he made an reference to static continents specifically.
Hence he's saying fossil distribution is explainable with dinosaurs in boats.
Sure. Boats, walking, swimming, or driftwood boogie boards are all possible explanations for fossil distribution.
-
You seem to be struggling with the realisation that you're contradicting Dogplatters version of events.
No I'm not. I'm agreeing with Dogplatter that it was possible for the dinosaurs to build boats of some sort. Even a dog in the middle of a flood has the sense to use floating plywood as a makeshift boat and kick paddle his way to safety.
However the dinosaurs migrated to North America is immaterial. There are plenty of ways for fossils to be distributed as they are without invoking "Pangea Theory".
-
Last I knew, the dinosaurs in question were not mammals, let alone polar bears. Please provide some evidence that otherwise land dwelling dinosaurs could swim long distances in arctic conditions.
No one knows whether dinosaurs were cold blooded. It's widely believed that avians (warm blooded) are direct descendants of the dinosaurs. So how can you say that they were cold blooded?
Tom, I already conceded that the conventional wisdom of dinos being cold blooded may not be correct a few posts back. Please try to keep up, will you? Now will you please some evidence that otherwise land dwelling dinosaurs (cold blooded or warm) could swim long distances in arctic conditions.
-
Tom, I already conceded that the conventional wisdom of dinos being cold blooded may not be correct a few posts back. Please try to keep up, will you? Now will you please some evidence that otherwise land dwelling dinosaurs (cold blooded or warm) could swim long distances in arctic conditions.
Polar bears are excellent swimmers and can survive the coldest of oceans. I don't see what's so impossible for a dinosaur to be a good swimmer.
There is abundant evidence of the recreational swimming of land dwelling dinosaurs:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051018071725.htm
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2005/10/051018071725.jpg)
-
No you're disagreeing with Dogplatter. He says dinosaurs propagated by building and sailing boats. You say they swam or walked accross ice sheets.
How can we find out who is right?
Where does Dogplatter say anything about sailboats? He just said that they could have built makeshift rafts:
"If you seriously don't believe that a bunch of people with their hands taped together can build a raft, you really ought to try it yourself. I assure you it is incredibly easy. Tie a slip knot in one withy, using it as a noose, tighten it around one of the logs, and then weave it between the other ones. At the other end of the raft, secure the withy with a second knot. You might find that using your teeth helps to manipulate the withy, but with a bit of practice it's quite easy to hold it between your "claws" especially if someone else holds it steady with their "claws" whilst you tie the knot. Simply repeat this process at a number of intervals down the logs until your raft is complete. Then push it towards a lake or river and set sail!!"
The truth is that they don't even need rafts, since a single fallen giant redwood tree, the kind that are as thick as a house, is massive enough to support even the largest of dinosaurs.
-
No you're disagreeing with Dogplatter. He says dinosaurs propagated by building and sailing boats. You say they swam or walked accross ice sheets.
How can we find out who is right?
Where does Dogplatter say anything about sailboats? He just said that they could have built makeshift rafts:
"If you seriously don't believe that a bunch of people with their hands taped together can build a raft, you really ought to try it yourself. I assure you it is incredibly easy. Tie a slip knot in one withy, using it as a noose, tighten it around one of the logs, and then weave it between the other ones. At the other end of the raft, secure the withy with a second knot. You might find that using your teeth helps to manipulate the withy, but with a bit of practice it's quite easy to hold it between your "claws" especially if someone else holds it steady with their "claws" whilst you tie the knot. Simply repeat this process at a number of intervals down the logs until your raft is complete. Then push it towards a lake or river and set sail!!"
The truth is that they don't even need rafts, since a single giant redwood tree, the kind that are as thick as a house, is massive enough to support even the largest of dinosaurs.
Well if dinosaurs had the brain power to make rafts, how come most of them are extinct, and crocodiles aren't tearing up the waterways in speed boats?
This is the most hilarious troll-shit I've ever read.
-
The truth is that they don't even need rafts, since a single fallen giant redwood tree, the kind that are as thick as a house, is massive enough to support even the largest of dinosaurs.
-
No you're disagreeing with Dogplatter. He says dinosaurs propagated by building and sailing boats. You say they swam or walked accross ice sheets.
How can we find out who is right?
Where does Dogplatter say anything about sailboats? He just said that they could have built makeshift rafts:
"If you seriously don't believe that a bunch of people with their hands taped together can build a raft, you really ought to try it yourself. I assure you it is incredibly easy. Tie a slip knot in one withy, using it as a noose, tighten it around one of the logs, and then weave it between the other ones. At the other end of the raft, secure the withy with a second knot. You might find that using your teeth helps to manipulate the withy, but with a bit of practice it's quite easy to hold it between your "claws" especially if someone else holds it steady with their "claws" whilst you tie the knot. Simply repeat this process at a number of intervals down the logs until your raft is complete. Then push it towards a lake or river and set sail!!"
The truth is that they don't even need rafts, since a single giant redwood tree, the kind that are as thick as a house, is massive enough to support even the largest of dinosaurs.
Well if dinosaurs had the brain power to make rafts, how come most of them are extinct, and crocodiles aren't tearing up the waterways in speed boats?
Do you really think that if we were struck by the kind of catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs we would survive?
This is the most hilarious troll-shit I've ever read.
Snooch to the booch.
-
The truth is that they don't even need rafts, since a single fallen giant redwood tree, the kind that are as thick as a house, is massive enough to support even the largest of dinosaurs.
Did they also give them outboard motors and sails? Who worked in the galley? And the real question that everyone wants to know is who was the captain controlling the course of the red-wood vessel?
Troll-shit, utter troll-shit.
-
No you're disagreeing with Dogplatter. He says dinosaurs propagated by building and sailing boats. You say they swam or walked accross ice sheets.
How can we find out who is right?
Where does Dogplatter say anything about sailboats? He just said that they could have built makeshift rafts:
"If you seriously don't believe that a bunch of people with their hands taped together can build a raft, you really ought to try it yourself. I assure you it is incredibly easy. Tie a slip knot in one withy, using it as a noose, tighten it around one of the logs, and then weave it between the other ones. At the other end of the raft, secure the withy with a second knot. You might find that using your teeth helps to manipulate the withy, but with a bit of practice it's quite easy to hold it between your "claws" especially if someone else holds it steady with their "claws" whilst you tie the knot. Simply repeat this process at a number of intervals down the logs until your raft is complete. Then push it towards a lake or river and set sail!!"
The truth is that they don't even need rafts, since a single giant redwood tree, the kind that are as thick as a house, is massive enough to support even the largest of dinosaurs.
Well if dinosaurs had the brain power to make rafts, how come most of them are extinct, and crocodiles aren't tearing up the waterways in speed boats?
Do you really think that if we were struck by the kind of catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs we would survive?
Let's see...
Last time I checked we had nuclear weapons, space flight, bunkers and electricity.
Yeah I think we could hold are own against nature, got just a slight advantage over the dinosaurs.
-
Tom, I already conceded that the conventional wisdom of dinos being cold blooded may not be correct a few posts back. Please try to keep up, will you? Now will you please some evidence that otherwise land dwelling dinosaurs (cold blooded or warm) could swim long distances in arctic conditions.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051018071725.htm
"The tracks are of different sizes and were deposited at about the same time, according to Mickelson, revealing that the dinosaurs likely traveled in packs and exhibited some variation in overall size. "Further research into the geologic record and depositional history of the region supports our conclusion that the dinosaurs were intentionally swimming out to sea, perhaps to feed," she said."
-
Tom, I already conceded that the conventional wisdom of dinos being cold blooded may not be correct a few posts back. Please try to keep up, will you? Now will you please some evidence that otherwise land dwelling dinosaurs (cold blooded or warm) could swim long distances in arctic conditions.
Polar bears are excellent swimmers and can survive the coldest of oceans. I don't see what's so impossible for a dinosaur to be a good swimmer.
There is abundant evidence of the recreational swimming of land dwelling dinosaurs:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051018071725.htm
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2005/10/051018071725.jpg)
Tom, you keep going on about polar bears as if they have anything at all to do with dinosaurs. Polar bears are mammals quite well adapted to an arctic environment. Please provide some evidence that dinosaurs were adapted to arctic conditions.
BTW, there is a substantial difference between "recreational" swimming and "endurance" swimming.
-
No you're disagreeing with Dogplatter. He says dinosaurs propagated by building and sailing boats. You say they swam or walked accross ice sheets.
How can we find out who is right?
Where does Dogplatter say anything about sailboats? He just said that they could have built makeshift rafts:
"If you seriously don't believe that a bunch of people with their hands taped together can build a raft, you really ought to try it yourself. I assure you it is incredibly easy. Tie a slip knot in one withy, using it as a noose, tighten it around one of the logs, and then weave it between the other ones. At the other end of the raft, secure the withy with a second knot. You might find that using your teeth helps to manipulate the withy, but with a bit of practice it's quite easy to hold it between your "claws" especially if someone else holds it steady with their "claws" whilst you tie the knot. Simply repeat this process at a number of intervals down the logs until your raft is complete. Then push it towards a lake or river and set sail!!"
The truth is that they don't even need rafts, since a single giant redwood tree, the kind that are as thick as a house, is massive enough to support even the largest of dinosaurs.
Well if dinosaurs had the brain power to make rafts, how come most of them are extinct, and crocodiles aren't tearing up the waterways in speed boats?
Do you really think that if we were struck by the kind of catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs we would survive?
Let's see...
Last time I checked we had nuclear weapons, space flight, bunkers and electricity.
Yeah I think we could hold are own against nature, got just a slight advantage over the dinosaurs.
Like those things would help if we were suddenly struck by a comet the size of Texas, or a supervolcano exploded that blanketed the Earth in ash. Please stop trolling the debate forums.
-
Lets see now...
Polar bears have thick waterproof fur and large partially webbed feet.
Dinosaurs (all of them, not just one variety) do not have thick waterproof fur and large partially webbed feet.
Y'see you've confused the specific with the general there Tom.
What does fur have to do with swimming? Did the man who swam 20 miles need any fur to do what he did?
We have no idea how insulated dinosaurs were internally.
Still I'm glad you're arguing that you're right and DogPlatter is wrong. Good to see you fighting your corner.
I'm not saying that Dogplatter is wrong. I'm saying that he's right: the fossil record is explanible without the necessity for Pangaea.
-
Tom, you keep going on about polar bears as if they have anything at all to do with dinosaurs. Polar bears are mammals quite well adapted to an arctic environment. Please provide some evidence that dinosaurs were adapted to arctic conditions.
BTW, there is a substantial difference between "recreational" swimming and "endurance" swimming.
It's a good thing that dinosaurs thrived in "arctic conditions" then, huh?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/
-
Do you really think that if we were struck by the kind of catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs we would survive?
Protip: We did survive. Mammals. Remember?
No, we didn't. Only small mammals survived. We didn't exist at the time.
-
No you're disagreeing with Dogplatter. He says dinosaurs propagated by building and sailing boats. You say they swam or walked accross ice sheets.
How can we find out who is right?
Where does Dogplatter say anything about sailboats? He just said that they could have built makeshift rafts:
"If you seriously don't believe that a bunch of people with their hands taped together can build a raft, you really ought to try it yourself. I assure you it is incredibly easy. Tie a slip knot in one withy, using it as a noose, tighten it around one of the logs, and then weave it between the other ones. At the other end of the raft, secure the withy with a second knot. You might find that using your teeth helps to manipulate the withy, but with a bit of practice it's quite easy to hold it between your "claws" especially if someone else holds it steady with their "claws" whilst you tie the knot. Simply repeat this process at a number of intervals down the logs until your raft is complete. Then push it towards a lake or river and set sail!!"
The truth is that they don't even need rafts, since a single giant redwood tree, the kind that are as thick as a house, is massive enough to support even the largest of dinosaurs.
Well if dinosaurs had the brain power to make rafts, how come most of them are extinct, and crocodiles aren't tearing up the waterways in speed boats?
Do you really think that if we were struck by the kind of catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs we would survive?
Let's see...
Last time I checked we had nuclear weapons, space flight, bunkers and electricity.
Yeah I think we could hold are own against nature, got just a slight advantage over the dinosaurs.
Like those things would help if we were suddenly struck by a comet the size of Texas, or a supervolcano exploded that blanketed the Earth in ash. Please stop trolling the debate forums.
Stop trolling.
You have no proof and post inane replies.
Fact is we have ICBMs on Earth. With quick modification you have a space ready nuclear arsenal. And guess what? COMETS DON'T APPEAR OUT OF NOWHERE!
As for a super volcano, they are not apocalyptic. Ingenuity can overcome them with hydroponic farms etc.
-
Fur has a lot to do with not dying when you're submerged in subzero water.
Did the man who swam 20 miles swim those 20 in the arctic?
Dinosaurs lived and thrived in Arctic conditions. Please educate yourself:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/program.html
-
Fur has a lot to do with not dying when you're submerged in subzero water.
Did the man who swam 20 miles swim those 20 in the arctic?
Dinosaurs lived and thrived in Arctic conditions. Please educate yourself:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/program.html
All of them? Wow.
Oh wait...
-
What does fur have to do with swimming? Did the man who swam 20 miles need any fur to do what he did?
Fur has a lot to do with not dying when you're submerged in subzero water.
Did the man who swam 20 miles swim those 20 in the arctic?
Seriously Tom the way you keep moving the goalposts in this game is tiring me out!
I'm not aying that Dogplatter is wrong. I'm saying that he's right: the fossil record is explanible without the necessity for Pangaea.
No. Your idea contradicts his. He says Dinosaurs built boats. You say they didn't.
How can we find out who's right?
Only small mammals survived. We didn't exist at the time.
Yes. "We" were mammals. Dinosaurs died. Mammals didn't. Welcome to the rest of your life.
"We" didn't exist back then. Nothing like us existed back then.
-
For the record, dinosaurs haven't died out.
-
Fur has a lot to do with not dying when you're submerged in subzero water.
Did the man who swam 20 miles swim those 20 in the arctic?
Dinosaurs lived and thrived in Arctic conditions. Please educate yourself:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/program.html
Have you had any personal experience of dinosaurs living in Arctic regions?
If Tom was a true FE Zetetetistist, he would be saying "we can't be sure dinosaurs actually lived in Arctic conditions because we weren't there". Instead he conveniently stops "doubting" science at the right moments.
-
Have you had any personal experience of dinosaurs living in Arctic regions?
If Tom was a true FE Zetetetistist, he would be saying "we can't be sure dinosaurs actually lived in Arctic conditions because we weren't there". Instead he conveniently stops "doubting" science at the right moments.
This isn't the Dinosaur Hoax Society. If you want to discuss your distrust of paleontologists take it to abovetopsecret.com.
-
Ok, a couple of things:
1. Just because dinosaurs could walk from Eurasia to North America, does not mean they couldn't have built boats. This is a nonsensical point killabee, so stop making it.
2. However, as Dogplatter has pointed out, the fossil record supports the idea of dinosaurs travelling by boats. Though they could still have walked across continents, the fossil record does not support this, as the fossils have been located in places which suggest ocean travel, and which do not suggest coastal migration.
Now, the dinosaur fossil record is notoriously weak, so there may yet be fossils awaiting us on the eastern Eurasian and western American coastlines which indicate that dinosaurs travelled by foot along these coasts to travel from one continent to another. But the evidence we have indicates ocean travel.
-
Ok, a couple of things:
1. Just because dinosaurs could walk from Eurasia to North America, does not mean they couldn't have built boats. This is a nonsensical point killabee, so stop making it.
2. However, as Dogplatter has pointed out, the fossil record supports the idea of dinosaurs travelling by boats. Though they could still have walked across continents, the fossil record does not support this, as the fossils have been located in places which suggest ocean travel, and which do not suggest coastal migration.
Dogs can walk. Can they build boats? Don't be so fucking retarded.
Of course dinosaurs didn't build boats, they weren't intelligent enough, nor did they have the ability to build boats. If there were boats, there would be evidence for rafts and tools.
Find me an animal other than a human who can build a sea-faring vessel. Otherwise your troll-shit is obvious.
-
Dogs can walk. Can they build boats?
Irrelevant.
Of course dinosaurs didn't build boats, they weren't intelligent enough, nor did they have the ability to build boats.
Conjecture.
If there were boats, there would be evidence for rafts and tools.
Any evidence for a wooden boat built millions of years ago is long gone and most likely in your gas tank by now.
-
...the fossil record supports the idea of dinosaurs travelling by boats
There is absolute no supporting evidence for this whatsoever. It's pure fantasy.
-
...the fossil record supports the idea of dinosaurs travelling by boats
There is absolute no supporting evidence for this whatsoever. It's pure fantasy.
Sorry, did you read Dogplatter's posts earlier? He gave clear evidence which showed that parts of the fossil record support the idea of a maritime culture among dinosaurs, and would be very unlikely (indeed near impossbile) in a 'pangea' scenario.
-
...the fossil record supports the idea of dinosaurs travelling by boats
There is absolute no supporting evidence for this whatsoever. It's pure fantasy.
Sorry, did you read Dogplatter's posts earlier? He gave clear evidence which showed that parts of the fossil record support the idea of a maritime culture among dinosaurs, and would be very unlikely (indeed near impossbile) in a 'pangea' scenario.
Yes I did. I cannot find any clear evidence. Sorry.
-
...the fossil record supports the idea of dinosaurs travelling by boats
There is absolute no supporting evidence for this whatsoever. It's pure fantasy.
Sorry, did you read Dogplatter's posts earlier? He gave clear evidence which showed that parts of the fossil record support the idea of a maritime culture among dinosaurs, and would be very unlikely (indeed near impossbile) in a 'pangea' scenario.
Yes I did. I cannot find any clear evidence. Sorry.
Well it is there, and it's very compelling.
-
...the fossil record supports the idea of dinosaurs travelling by boats
There is absolute no supporting evidence for this whatsoever. It's pure fantasy.
Sorry, did you read Dogplatter's posts earlier? He gave clear evidence which showed that parts of the fossil record support the idea of a maritime culture among dinosaurs, and would be very unlikely (indeed near impossbile) in a 'pangea' scenario.
Yes I did. I cannot find any clear evidence. Sorry.
Well it is there, and it's very compelling.
Would care to "compel" it in my direction, please ?
-
You just said you've read it. Now, I can't remember all of it off the top of my head (especially the species' names), meaning I'd have to go looking for it if I wanted to repeat it accurately. But why would I do that if you can do the same thing? You don't even have to use the search function, because it's in this very topic. Just look.
-
...the fossil record supports the idea of dinosaurs travelling by boats
There is simply no independent evidence that contributes to this hypothesis; It is completely dependent on the lack of continental drift.
You (and dogplatter?) could just as easily say: "the fossil record supports dinosaurs travelling by helicopter". It would be better to say:
"I think the evidence for Continental Drift is flawed. Therefore there is currently no obvious
explanation for the fossil record's distribution"
One thing we have to get used to here is that if (hypothetically) continental drift does not exist, there may be no way of knowing with any certainty how the fossil record was distributed. One should not be afraid of uncertainty.
-
Dogs can walk. Can they build boats?
Irrelevant.
No, I'm saying that no animal in the animal kingdom has shown the ability to create a sea-faring vessel. You are saying that dinsaurs invented the boat.
Do you really believe that?
Of course dinosaurs didn't build boats, they weren't intelligent enough, nor did they have the ability to build boats.
Conjecture.
See above point. It is the logical presumption that dinosaurs did not have the ability to build boats by what we can witness in the animal kingdom today..
If there were boats, there would be evidence for rafts and tools.
Any evidence for a wooden boat built millions of years ago is long gone and most likely in your gas tank by now.
So you then have no evidence?
Just like FET then. Until you can find a tool or boat, as Moon says, you may as well claim they travelled by helicopter. And that they invented lasers. And what made them extinct were aliens from another galaxy...
-
I'm saying that no animal in the animal kingdom has shown the ability to create a sea-faring vessel.
Here's several boats built by animals:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=lMm&um=1&q=floating+nest&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=21
-
I'm saying that no animal in the animal kingdom has shown the ability to create a sea-faring vessel.
Here's several boats built by animals:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=lMm&um=1&q=floating+nest&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=21
They're not sea-faring by any stretch.
-
They're not sea-faring by any stretch.
Anything that floats is 'seafaring'. If you don't believe me, go to Florida and ask a Cuban.
-
They're not sea-faring by any stretch.
Anything that floats is 'seafaring'. If you don't believe me, go to Florida and ask a Cuban.
Oh yes because RACISM is always a valid argument.
Bugger off troll.
-
That's not racism, that's reality. Some illegal immigrants desperate to leave the country actually come across floating on homemade rafts and doors or whatever they can find.
-
Can we please lock this thread?
-
That's not racism, that's reality. Some illegal immigrants desperate to leave the country actually come across floating on homemade rafts and doors or whatever they can find.
And the dinosaurs used doors as well?
How about you find me some evidence for this raft building, then we will further this idea.
-
1. Just because dinosaurs could walk from Eurasia to North America, does not mean they couldn't have built boats. This is a nonsensical point killabee, so stop making it.
Umm. You're misunderstanding Tom point. Tom says Dinosaurs didn't need to build boats. They could just walk. He's reducing the burden on himself by pointing towards the more plausible argument of what Dinosaurs probably could do, and not some idiotic speculation about what they might have been able to do.
But he is not saying that Dogplatter is wrong, as you have asserted.
-
But he is not saying that Dogplatter is wrong, as you have asserted.
What he is saying contradicts Dogplatters account of Dinosaur dispersal across the earth.
No it doesn't. He is saying they could have walked, which doesn't mean they couldn't have built boats.
-
Umm. You're misunderstanding Tom point. Tom says Dinosaurs didn't need to build boats. They could just walk. He's reducing the burden on himself by pointing towards the more plausible argument of what Dinosaurs probably could do, and not some idiotic speculation about what they might have been able to do.
Sure he is, what's wrong with that? He's saying that at the very least, they might have walked across sea-ice. Both of us are arguing that the continents were never merged in a single giant landmass, Tom is not contradicting me, he is saying that even if they didn't build boats, the main conclusion still stands.
No, Dogplatter didn't post any fossil records that support the idea of dinosaurs travelling by boats. Nice rush play though.
I posted a detailed and accurate analysis of the distributions of a number of related species of dromaeosaur which strongly suggest maritime colonisation. It is right here in this very thread. The fact that I have posted it is indeniable. If you deny that I have posted this analysis you are in denial of an simple empirical fact. The account is provided on page 4 of this thread, and some supporting analysis is posted on page 5.
-
If the earth is flat and and heat rises from the ground as you believe then the theory that a gaint meteor hit the earth and the dust blocked the sun and made the earth colder which slowly killed them couldn't be true so how else could you explain their extinction?
(Starting from the beginning of the thread, not enough time to read it all lol)
Why can't a meteor hit a huge rising disc?
Why can't the cloud of dust be suspended in the air between the flat earth and the suspended sun? What stops rainclouds from doing the same?
There is no problem with Dinosaureses on a FE.
-
Their maritime civilization was dwarf by the achievement of colonizing space. And all this with out thumbs mind you, smart bastards.
i believe that the dinosaurs enlisted the aid of all the local iguanadons to build all their boats
-
You link to these "boats" built by birds. Firstly it is a nest that happened to end up in the water, not a boat. Secondly these are not seafaring and are carrying a bird weighing maybe half a kilo. Not a 50 tonne dinosaur
-
Dinosaureses
Please note that this is not the plural form of dinosaur. It's "dinosaurs."
-
You link to these "boats" built by birds. Firstly it is a nest that happened to end up in the water, not a boat. Secondly these are not seafaring and are carrying a bird weighing maybe half a kilo. Not a 50 tonne dinosaur
Our test case, the Early-Cretacious North American Deinonychus, would have weighed a maximum of 73 kilograms, based on the very largest specimens which have ever been discovered. I weigh 76 kilograms, and I assure you, I have travelled on many boats without causing them to sink. I've actually travelled, even, on a crude raft of my own construction. It didn't sink. We are posthulating that the Deinonychus and its livestock travelled on rafts of at least this magnitude.
As for large dinosaurs, let us turn our attention the Jurassic sauropod giants, Apatosaurus and Diplodocus, which would have preceded the Dromaeosaurs by several million years. Specimens of these two creatures, who of course would have great trouble traversing the ocean, are found exclusively on the North American continent. They were most probably not even sentient, and evidence suggests that they did not colonise by boat (or else they would also be found in Asia). You can stop using ridiculous hyperbole, too. No dinosaur ever weighed anything close to 50 tonnes (or 100 tonnes, the figure you previously cited). The very heaviest Diplodocus would likely not have exceeded 16 tonnes, but it really doesn't matter because we aren't suggesting that Diplodocus was a maritime colonist anyway.
What about Saurolophus, the veritable cattle of the Cretacious? Adults of this species would have weighed roughly 1.9 tonnes, but specimens appear in both the Far East and America. However, we've already established that these animals were farmed by Deinonychus and the descendant forms, so the logistical problems associated with transporting them would have fallen upon the pioneers of the Asian colonisation. I think it's very likely that infant Saurolophus were transported in those colonial ships rather than full-grown adults, because as you say, a 1.9 tonne dinosaur does not make a brilliant skipper.
-
Dogplatter, just out of curiosity, how big and sophisticated of boat are you suggesting would be required to carry several Deinonychus, plus their livestock, plus supplies? I'm guessing that a simple raft wouldn't quite be sufficient, especially if they were to run into rough weather.
-
Dogplatter, just out of curiosity, how big and sophisticated of boat are you suggesting would be required to carry several Deinonychus, plus their livestock, plus supplies? I'm guessing that a simple raft wouldn't quite be sufficient, especially if they were to run into rough weather.
We can reasonably assume that an adult Deinonychus would require approximately the same capacity as an adult human based on the weight comparison I've cited (the largest Deinonychus specimens would have weighed around 73kg).
The Mayflower, a human ship known to have made intercontinental voyages and built of wood, is estimated to have been just over 25 metres long, and had a cargo tonnage of 180 and a crew of around 25.
Now, let us assume Saurolophus as a test case for transportation (Deinonychus would likely have had other prey/farm animals as well, but Saurolophus would have been one of the largest), and we also assume that the transported Saurolophus would have been juveniles. A yearling might have weighed somewhere close to a ton (a fully grown bull weighs 1.9).
We've established that adult Deinonychus weighed at most 73kg.
There are 907 Kg in a short ton.
so, a livestock craft of this size could have carried the WEIGHT of around 180 juvenile Saurolophus (with a crew of 25 Deinonychus). However, each adult would have been 9.8 metres long, so nowhere near 180 individuals could fit on. If we consider that a yearling might have been half that length, (say 5M) and that the Mayflower was around 7.6 metres wide, the livestock could be "stacked" width-ways with bills and tails facing starboard and port. With each Saurolophus given 2 metres of the ship's length to accomodate their body width, 11 or 12 animals could be kept on a boat the size of the Mayflower, assuming a deck system existed for the crew to be accomodated. If we don't want to concede that the boat might have had a deck (which I am fine with doing, by the way), then removing 3 animals from that number would allow room for a crew on a single-deck raft. So, to summarise, a Mayflower-sized boat could carry between 9-12 Saurolophus.
A boat the size of the Mayflower [pictured below in a painting by William Halsall (1882)] could have held up to 12 young Saurolophus.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/MayflowerHarbor.jpg)
As for passenger crafts, with each Deinonychus at 73kg, and a ship of that size having a maximum capacity of 907kg * 180 (i.e., 163260kg), a ship without livestock could hypothetically carry the WEIGHT of 2000 Deinonychus - of course a ship 25m long would not fit that many individuals, especially if they had food and supplies with them. Thanks to the handy equivalence of human and Deinonychus weight, with adults of both species weighing almost exactly the same, we can get a much better real-world analysis based on the Mayflower itself. The Mayflower crossed the Atlantic with 102 Passengers and their supplies. However, the North Pacific is much less wide than the Atlantic, so far less supplies would be needed for the trip, which means that well over 100 Deinonychus could travel on a single passenger ship of that size.
A fleet of five of these ships, one for passengers, three for livestock and one for general supplies such as tools, clothing, etc., each with a crew of 25 would be more than enough to start a large, successful colony. I'm going for a conservative estimate of 100 passengers per passenger ship and 10 Saurolophus yearlings per livestock ship.
For crew, 25 * 5 = 125, plus 100 passengers = 225 able-bodied adult Deinonychus, 3 * 10 = 30 yearling Saurolophus, and 180 tonnes of additional supplies (salted meats for the journey, saurolophus feed, tools, clothes, etc) setting out on the voyage. That's far more resources than many of the first human Anglo-American colonies started with.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Plesiosaurus_3DB.jpg)
Above: Cretaceous oceans were filled with plesiosaurs, a possible source of food and materials for Deinonychus sailors
Though salted land-animal meat in a supply ship would probably be enough to sustain the crews and passengers of other ships, hunger on the journey would also have been potentially assuaged by fishing and "whaling". The oceans of the Cretaceous were teeming with sharks, rays, as well as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs. Some of the larger plesiosaurs would have been up to 20M in length, an incredible catch and having enough meat to sustain a large number of Deinonychus for weeks at sea. It is indicated by the Fossil record that Deinonychus would have known about the existence of plesiosaurs. Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Trinacromerum_BW.jpg)
Above: A specimen of Trinacromerum, a smaller plesiosaur, has been found in the inland United States, probably kept as a pet or traded for blubber.
-
Wow Dogplatter. A fleet of sailing ships is quite a bit more sophisticated than a floating nest that Tom Bishop proposed. I'm guessing that by referencing the Mayflower, you're suggesting that the dinosaurs built multi-decked ships with sails, it that correct? Just out of curiosity, have you or your associates ever tried to weave sails without the use of your thumbs?
-
Wow Dogplatter. A fleet of sailing ships is quite a bit more sophisticated than a floating nest that Tom Bishop proposed. I'm guessing that by referencing the Mayflower, you're suggesting that the dinosaurs built multi-decked ships with sails, it that correct? Just out of curiosity, have you or your associates ever tried to weave sails without the use of your thumbs?
The notorious highly dexterous toe-claw common to all dromaeosaur species would have been ideal for certain types of clothwork, rapid stitching of cloth included.
If I get the time, I will film myself performing some basic weaving operations with my fingers taped though, as I am confident that the three hand-claws of a Deinonychus would also be fine for tasks like that.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Delaware1.jpg)
The above is a work in progress, I'll post more later on when I'm done. I feel that while there is currently an abundance of artist's impressions of dinosaurs, they generally portray them in accordance with the brutal, ferocious Hollywood "Jurassic Park" myth. I intend to produce and disseminate a series of much more accurate portrayals of what life may have been like in the Early Cretaceous.
-
You've never been at sea, have you?
It's not impossible to swim from the US to Asia. You can actually see Russia from the tip of Alaska. The nearest Russian landmass is just 1.5 miles away.
I believe that you dodged the question.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/delaware4.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/delaware4.jpg)
This is outstanding. The most thorough trolling I have ever seen.
Where is your evidence for these boats, other than saying "they may have used boats". With that logic you could also say they teleported to another planet.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/delaware4.jpg)
This is outstanding. The most thorough trolling I have ever seen.
Where is your evidence for these boats, other than saying "they may have used boats". With that logic you could also say they teleported to another planet.
Why must globularists always resort to implying that I'm not sincere and serious when they run out of other arguments? Time and time again, year after year, a fresh troupe of Round Earth philosophasters inevitably call us trolls and charlatans instead of legitimately addressing our research. Since the 19th Century, accusations such as these have been a favourite mainstay of globe-believers who don't seem to be able to come up with anything else. If you are genuinely complimenting my illustration, then thank you, though I can't help but detect dripping sarcasm there.
Where is my evidence? My ample evidence is strewn all across these 22 pages, to which you should refer. Don't worry, I'll soon be publishing the entire body of my work on zetetic palaeontology in a more organised form, at which point you will be able to peruse the various arguments without looking through this thread.
-
LOL-ABLE IMAGE
This is outstanding. The most thorough trolling I have ever seen.
Where is your evidence for these boats, other than saying "they may have used boats". With that logic you could also say they teleported to another planet.
Why must globularists always resort to implying that I'm not sincere and serious when they run out of other arguments? Time and time again, year after year, a fresh troupe of Round Earth philosophasters inevitably call us trolls and charlatans instead of legitimately addressing our research. Since the 19th Century, accusations such as these have been a favourite mainstay of globe-believers who don't seem to be able to come up with anything else. If you are genuinely complimenting my illustration, then thank you, though I can't help but detect dripping sarcasm there.
Where is my evidence? My ample evidence is strewn all across these 22 pages, to which you should refer. Don't worry, I'll soon be publishing the entire body of my work on zetetic palaeontology in a more organised form, at which point you will be able to peruse the various arguments without looking through this thread.
Research? All you have done is say "they may have made boats & fished". No animal in the animal kingdom has shown the kind of intelligence before, other than humans, and you have no proof for your claim. Without evidence, you may as well say they used jetpacks to cross the sea.
You have no evidence, just an over developed hypothesis. Now go find some evidence to support your claim, or I may as well claim that the dinosaurs looked like this:
[image removed]
-
Research? All you have done is say "they may have made boats & fished". No animal in the animal kingdom has shown the kind of intelligence before, other than humans, and you have no proof for your claim. Without evidence, you may as well say they used jetpacks to cross the sea.
You have no evidence, just an over developed hypothesis. Now go find some evidence to support your claim, or I may as well claim that the dinosaurs looked like this:
You obviously haven't read the rest of the thread very well. I've provided reasonably detailed analyses of distributions in the fossil record which support my claims. It's funny that you don't seem to be particularly keen to answer to those, instead resorting to making fun of my sketching ability (a complete red herring and ad hominem).
-
Research? All you have done is say "they may have made boats & fished". No animal in the animal kingdom has shown the kind of intelligence before, other than humans, and you have no proof for your claim. Without evidence, you may as well say they used jetpacks to cross the sea.
You have no evidence, just an over developed hypothesis. Now go find some evidence to support your claim, or I may as well claim that the dinosaurs looked like this:
You obviously haven't read the rest of the thread very well. I've provided reasonably detailed analyses of distributions in the fossil record which support my claims. It's funny that you don't seem to be particularly keen to answer to those, instead resorting to making fun of my sketching ability (a complete red herring and ad hominem).
Have you found any evidence for dinosaur boats or fishing equipment, or signs of intelligence that suggests dinosaurs were able to command fleets of ships?
Again, all you have is an over-developed hypothesis with no evidence.
-
Have you found any evidence for dinosaur boats or fishing equipment, or signs of intelligence that suggests dinosaurs were able to command fleets of ships?
Again, all you have is an over-developed hypothesis with no evidence.
The existence of a North American maritime society capable of fishing and existent during the Cretaceous period is attested by the distribution of plesiosaurs, shellfish and other marine animal fossil specimens across the continental United States. Deinonychus (and by extension its evolutionary descendant Dromaeosaurus), which existed during this period on the North American continent, is by far the most likely candidate species for this activity. Sea animals only end up dying in large numbers hundreds of miles inland when they are transported there deliberately for the purposes of consumption or captivity.
-
King Awesome has been permenantly banned because it is an alt account for forums user matzy88. Attempting to circumvent existing bans by creating new accounts is strictly prohibited, and as a result, matzy88's ban has been extended. Let this be a lesson to everyone, and now let's get back on with the thread.
-
Don't worry, I'll soon be publishing the entire body of my work on zetetic palaeontology in a more organised form, at which point you will be able to peruse the various arguments without looking through this thread.
How, exactly, is what you've put forth here in any way "zetetic"?
-
Instead of manipulating observable evidence in order to conform to the preconceived notions of the globularist geological dialectic, I have employed a ground-up approach in order to obtain a common-sense, dogma-free interpretation of what the available evidence tells us.
-
Instead of manipulating observable evidence in order to conform to the preconceived notions of the globularist geological dialectic, I have employed a ground-up approach in order to obtain a common-sense, dogma-free interpretation of what the available evidence tells us.
What definition of zetetic are you using?
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/delaware4.jpg)
Dogplatter, there are two problems with the anatomy of the Dromaeosaurids in your drawing. Firstly, if those are Deinonychus, then they have the following two things:
- Feathers. At the very least, it has been proven that they had feather precursors.
- Semi-lunate carpals. This forced the raptor's palms to face each other, extended the range of motion up and down in said formation (far past our own) while severely limiting or eliminating the range of motion left and right in that formation. This resulted in a natural barrier against prey escaping its grasp after it has been caught.
-
Instead of manipulating observable evidence in order to conform to the preconceived notions of the globularist geological dialectic, I have employed a ground-up approach in order to obtain a common-sense, dogma-free interpretation of what the available evidence tells us.
What definition of zetetic are you using?
http://naturyl.humanists.net/zetetic.html
The term 'Zetetic' is formally defined as "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker." In modern usage, the term 'inquiry' is understood as 'critical inquiry,' and the zetetic is therefore best considered a 'skeptical seeker.'
Zeteticism, then, is the principle and practice of being a zetetic, a skeptical seeker. In plainer terms, it is an open-minded yet realistic approach to matters of truth, philosophy, and religion. It is based in critical thinking.
In that Zeteticism is a skeptical worldview, it is generally humanistic in its approach. This is to say that since traditional mythologies and ideas are examined critically, the zetetic worldview tends toward secular humanism.
Zeteticism is not dogmatic, nor does it eschew concepts such as spirituality and numinous experience. It is generally open-minded toward most ideas, but it encourages discernment based on logic, reason, and critical thought.
I thought I might add something to the discussion, namely that many historians agree that the Vikings acheived transatlantic crossings in their longboats, and that even if they didn't, they were certainly capable of doing so, as the distance between Scandinavia and Iceland is actually greater than than between Greenland and North America (though not by much), and the weather far more stable.
I realise that for some people here the idea of Dinosaurs constructing a ship like the Mayflower may seem difficult to swallow, but let's put aside the idea of multi-decked ships for a minute, and take a look at the Viking longboat:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/10/14912296_16fa4a1657.jpg?v=0)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/37302293_46052f6fdb.jpg)
(http://www.doyle.com.au/images/Viking_Boat.jpg)
The Viking longboat was a relatively simple vessel capable of oceanic travel, and I personally believe that having started with rafts, over the course of time, dinosaurs would have been capable of perfecting the art of constructing vehicles like these.
Now, as for the sails, I have read that in ancient times leather was sometimes used to create sails. I can't find anything at the moment other than the following link- if you open it and search for 'leather sail' within the page you'll find the bit I'm talking about:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14400/14400-h/14400-h.htm
Now this is just my own hypothesis, but assuming Deinonychus were already farming other dinosaurs, they would have access to large dinosaur hides, from which leather sails could be easily made, which would eliminate the need for cloth stitching.
-
Instead of manipulating observable evidence in order to conform to the preconceived notions of the globularist geological dialectic, I have employed a ground-up approach in order to obtain a common-sense, dogma-free interpretation of what the available evidence tells us.
What definition of zetetic are you using?
http://naturyl.humanists.net/zetetic.html
Okay, that actually does make sense. It just doesn't seem to me that the theory of continental drift and plate tectonics were arrived at in any less of a zetetic way than Dogplatter's theory of seafaring dinosaurs. To me they both seem like equally plausible theories when considered zetetically. When Dogplatter claims that his theory is based on a more zetetic approach he seems to be adding the clause "not globularist" to the definition you linked to above which is a bit disturbing, because it really just turns the bias from one direction to the other and I think in order for it to be taken seriously zeteticism should be completely free of bias. Maybe Dogplatter can explain the distinction better to me.
-
Okay, that actually does make sense. It just doesn't seem to me that the theory of continental drift and plate tectonics were arrived at in any less of a zetetic way than Dogplatter's theory of seafaring dinosaurs. To me they both seem like equally plausible theories when considered zetetically. When Dogplatter claims that his theory is based on a more zetetic approach he seems to be adding the clause "not globularist" to the definition you linked to above which is a bit disturbing, because it really just turns the bias from one direction to the other and I think in order for it to be taken seriously zeteticism should be completely free of bias. Maybe Dogplatter can explain the distinction better to me.
Well it's not really deniable that the globularist paradigm has massively influenced the geologists involved in the invention and promotion of tectonic plate theory before they took a single piece of empirical data or even formulated their hypothesis. Zeteticism as a whole does not notionally discriminate between Flat Earth Theory and Round Earth Theory, but in practice, actually executing a zetetic study can often necessitate extracting oneself from the prevailing preconceptions about the subject matter.
In the case of explaining fossil record distributions, if we consider them from the initial perspective of globularist ontology, we are damned to make certain unfounded assumptions in favour of one particular explanation, so in order to effect proper zetetic inquiry we are required to cast off the intellectual shackles of globularism (at least suspending conviction of their certainty temporarily, if not abandoning it altogether).
Notice that the notion that dinosaurs colonised by oceanic travel is not geoidologically specific (i.e., it makes no assumptions about the shape of the Earth and is compatible with either model). For this reason, its candidacy as a potential result of zetetic study is high. Independent inquiry into its truth or falsehood can, and has, been conducted without specific deference to either geoidolgical paradigm. The same cannot be said of tectonic plate theory.
-
Feathers. At the very least, it has been proven that they had feather precursors.
You're assuming that Deinonychus did not shave themselves. Many human societies which have reached the kind of technological level which allows them to build boats have also developed cultures which encourage the removal of body hair (the functional equivalent to non-flying feathers).
Semi-lunate carpals. This forced the raptor's palms to face each other, extended the range of motion up and down in said formation (far past our own) while severely limiting or eliminating the range of motion left and right in that formation. This resulted in a natural barrier against prey escaping its grasp after it has been caught.
What's the evidence for this? I'm not sure that I deny it, but I'm also not yet sure that I want to affirm it.
-
Feathers. At the very least, it has been proven that they had feather precursors.
You're assuming that Deinonychus did not shave themselves. Many human societies which have reached the kind of technological level which allows them to build boats have also developed cultures which encourage the removal of body hair (the functional equivalent to non-flying feathers).
Sorry. I just get stuffy when people depict them with scaly skin when they were actually covered with filamentous "protofeathers."
Semi-lunate carpals. This forced the raptor's palms to face each other, extended the range of motion up and down in said formation (far past our own) while severely limiting or eliminating the range of motion left and right in that formation. This resulted in a natural barrier against prey escaping its grasp after it has been caught.
What's the evidence for this? I'm not sure that I deny it, but I'm also not yet sure that I want to affirm it.
Dogplatter, it's common knowledge to paleontologists, especially the ones with an interest in taxonomy and phylogeny. It's one of the identifying characteristics that distinguish one family from another. I learned it in a class, with the instructor using his own hands in a demonstration while he explained it to the class.
Here's what I could scrounge up from the Internet:
A semi-lunate carpal in the wrist that facilitates the peculiar sideways folding (pronation) of the forelimb or wing.
Further reading. Has a picture of what a semilunate carpal would look like. (http://beta.revealedsingularity.net/article.php?art=bird_evo)
-
Notice that the notion that dinosaurs colonised by oceanic travel is not geoidologically specific (i.e., it makes no assumptions about the shape of the Earth and is compatible with either model). For this reason, its candidacy as a potential result of zetetic study is high. Independent inquiry into its truth or falsehood can, and has, been conducted without specific deference to either geoidolgical paradigm. The same cannot be said of tectonic plate theory.
I challenge the notion that tectonic plate theory is incompatible with FET.
-
Dinosaureses
Please note that this is not the plural form of dinosaur. It's "dinosaurs."
/facepalm
It was obviously a cute euphemistic remark...
Also it's technically 'dinosauria' but that is not used in modern day
-
Notice that the notion that dinosaurs colonised by oceanic travel is not geoidologically specific (i.e., it makes no assumptions about the shape of the Earth and is compatible with either model). For this reason, its candidacy as a potential result of zetetic study is high. Independent inquiry into its truth or falsehood can, and has, been conducted without specific deference to either geoidolgical paradigm. The same cannot be said of tectonic plate theory.
I challenge the notion that tectonic plate theory is incompatible with FET.
Ok, go on then!
Dogplatter, it's common knowledge to paleontologists, especially the ones with an interest in taxonomy and phylogeny. It's one of the identifying characteristics that distinguish one family from another. I learned it in a class, with the instructor using his own hands in a demonstration while he explained it to the class.
Fair enough. Call it artistic license then, I guess I'm not big on dinosaur kinetics. Thanks for the tip though.
-
Notice that the notion that dinosaurs colonised by oceanic travel is not geoidologically specific (i.e., it makes no assumptions about the shape of the Earth and is compatible with either model). For this reason, its candidacy as a potential result of zetetic study is high. Independent inquiry into its truth or falsehood can, and has, been conducted without specific deference to either geoidolgical paradigm. The same cannot be said of tectonic plate theory.
I challenge the notion that tectonic plate theory is incompatible with FET.
Ok, go on then!
The mechanism of plate tectonics still works on a flat Earth. Divergence and subduction still work regardless of the Earth's shape.
One might worry about what happens beyond the Icewall though. That depends how far the Earth extends beyond it. There are several possibilities.
*The interior heat of the Earth dies down beyond the Icewall, and the barrier of solid rock keeps the plates contained within the Habitable Zone. I like this idea because it is consistent with the notion that there is a giant mountain range around the Habitable Zone, which may have been formed from the collision of the outer plates trying to escape over billions of years. It also provides a mechanism for why the Icewall exists.
*The Earth extends forever beyond the Icewall, in which case there is no issue with containing tectonic plates. I don't like this idea too much.
*As the Earth is being pushed upwards, it gradually flattens out, explaining why the continents have broken apart, though subduction is unnecessary in this model.
In addition, plate tectonics explains the existence of virtually every major geologic feature from mountain ranges to trenches, in addition to why earthquakes happen. There is also an abundance of evidence for plate tectonics, magnetic striations, similar rock formations on different continents, etc.
-
Dinosaureses
Please note that this is not the plural form of dinosaur. It's "dinosaurs."
/facepalm
It was obviously a cute euphemistic remark...
Also it's technically 'dinosauria' but that is not used in modern day
[edit]
No, technically it's Dinosauria, but you wouldn't really know that, would you? But now we're detracting from the current discussion, what with our pedantics.
For future reference, names of orders, families, etc. are to be italicized, all right?
Dogplatter, it's common knowledge to paleontologists, especially the ones with an interest in taxonomy and phylogeny. It's one of the identifying characteristics that distinguish one family from another. I learned it in a class, with the instructor using his own hands in a demonstration while he explained it to the class.
Fair enough. Call it artistic license then, I guess I'm not big on dinosaur kinetics. Thanks for the tip though.
No problem.
-
Dogplatter, it's common knowledge to paleontologists, especially the ones with an interest in taxonomy and phylogeny. It's one of the identifying characteristics that distinguish one family from another. I learned it in a class, with the instructor using his own hands in a demonstration while he explained it to the class.
Fair enough. Call it artistic license then, I guess I'm not big on dinosaur kinetics. Thanks for the tip though.
I'm not sure that building a theory based on "artistic license" is a zetetic principle, is it Dogplatter?
-
I'm not sure that building a theory based on "artistic license" is a zetetic principle, is it Dogplatter?
Need I remind you that the artistic license he is claiming on his picture pertains to the wrist functions of Dromaeosauridae and all of its descendants? The semilunate carpal would make the hand placement on the top of an oar either very uncomfortable or downright painful. Also, the one standing directly in front of the sail with his left claw upturned wouldn't be able to do that.
Furthermore (and the only other "mistake"), they lack feather precursors (or even signs of them), but I can let this one go, since he cited shaving, which is reasonable.
-
I'm not sure that building a theory based on "artistic license" is a zetetic principle, is it Dogplatter?
Need I remind you that the artistic license he is claiming on his picture pertains to the wrist functions of Dromaeosauridae and all of its descendants? The semilunate carpal would make the hand placement on the top of an oar either very uncomfortable or downright painful. Also, the one standing directly in front of the sail with his left claw upturned wouldn't be able to do that.
Furthermore (and the only other "mistake"), they lack feather precursors (or even signs of them), but I can let this one go, since he cited shaving, which is reasonable.
Well, they do look somewhat pissed off, so that probably explains a lot.
-
I'm not sure that building a theory based on "artistic license" is a zetetic principle, is it Dogplatter?
Don't be ridiculous, the theory isn't based on that picture, is it? You were already quite aware of this and simply being facetious. I drew it three days ago, many years after first posthulating dinosaur colonisation.
-
I'm not sure that building a theory based on "artistic license" is a zetetic principle, is it Dogplatter?
Don't be ridiculous, the theory isn't based on that picture, is it? You were already quite aware of this and simply being facetious. I drew it three days ago, many years after first posthulating dinosaur colonisation.
Dogplatter, it's common knowledge to paleontologists, especially the ones with an interest in taxonomy and phylogeny. It's one of the identifying characteristics that distinguish one family from another. I learned it in a class, with the instructor using his own hands in a demonstration while he explained it to the class.
Fair enough. Call it artistic license then, I guess I'm not big on dinosaur kinetics. Thanks for the tip though.
I wasn't necessarily talking about that picture. You admitted that you aren't big on dinosaur kinetics, so how can you properly claim that dinosaurs are capable of building boats when you don't even know if they had the proper range of motion to physically accomplish the required tasks? Taping your fingers together does not necessarily properly simulate the actual physical limitations of a dinosaur. Saying that a dinosaur's feet are highly dexterous is not the same as saying that they had the proper range of motion to swing an axe in order to shape a log into a board.
-
Would you prefer me to mutilate my carpal extensors before building a raft?
-
I'm not sure that building a theory based on "artistic license" is a zetetic principle, is it Dogplatter?
Don't be ridiculous, the theory isn't based on that picture, is it? You were already quite aware of this and simply being facetious. I drew it three days ago, many years after first posthulating dinosaur colonisation.
So what evidence is it based on other than you think it may of happend like that. Why not say that they actually flew over the sea in rockets?
Evidence plxzor.
-
Would you prefer me to mutilate my carpal extensors before building a raft?
Sounds like a small price to pay for good science. :-*
-
Actually, isn't medial rotation of the arm executed by the deltoid and rotator cuff muscles? Why I appreciate that semilunate carpals would inhibit arm supination such as that which "Washington" is using to hold his cape on, but I am inclined to disagree that it would prevent the arms moving outward in order to grasp the oars in the manner depicted.
-
Ok, my bad, I reread your post and realised that isn't the issue here.
What's to inhibit the notion that Deinonychus simply didn't use human style oars then?
-
Ok, my bad, I reread your post and realised that isn't the issue here.
What's to inhibit the notion that Deinonychus simply didn't use human style oars then?
Why didn't the actually create scuba diving gear and weights and walk across?
Hypothesise all you like, but you need evidence.
Let's see sum science plx.
-
Are you incapable of reading the thread? I have provided a large body of fossil evidence which supports specific claims which I have made about the migration of dinosaurs.
-
Evidence has been provided by Dogplatter, and he has even repeated where it is to be found, so people need to stop asking for evidence, and instead start challenging the evidence he has given if they are going to make any challenge at all.
-
Are you incapable of reading the thread? I have provided a large body of fossil evidence which supports specific claims which I have made about the migration of dinosaurs.
No no Mr Troll.
Skeltons over there -> does not mean then they used fishing boats to get there. You have no logical explanation of how you arrived at fishing other than you think they MAY have used fishing boats, the same way they may have used gigantic trampolines and crash mats to cross the sea.
-
The fact that a semi-advanced maritime merchant society existed on the North American continent during the Cretaceous is specifically attested by fossil evidence, and this is what I mean about reading the thread. Here, let me quote myself again:
Though salted land-animal meat in a supply ship would probably be enough to sustain the crews and passengers of other ships, hunger on the journey would also have been potentially assuaged by fishing and "whaling". The oceans of the Cretaceous were teeming with sharks, rays, as well as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs. Some of the larger plesiosaurs would have been up to 20M in length, an incredible catch and having enough meat to sustain a large number of Deinonychus for weeks at sea. It is indicated by the Fossil record that Deinonychus would have known about the existence of plesiosaurs. Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Trinacromerum_BW.jpg)
Above: A specimen of Trinacromerum, a smaller plesiosaur, has been found in the inland United States, probably kept as a pet or traded for blubber.
I bolded the pertinent section.
-
Did swarms of deep-ocean animals flop themselves hundreds of miles to the American midwest to die, or is it more likely that they were taken there by fishing and trade?
-
The fact that a semi-advanced maritime merchant society existed on the North American continent during the Cretaceous is specifically attested by fossil evidence, and this is what I mean about reading the thread. Here, let me quote myself again:
Though salted land-animal meat in a supply ship would probably be enough to sustain the crews and passengers of other ships, hunger on the journey would also have been potentially assuaged by fishing and "whaling". The oceans of the Cretaceous were teeming with sharks, rays, as well as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs. Some of the larger plesiosaurs would have been up to 20M in length, an incredible catch and having enough meat to sustain a large number of Deinonychus for weeks at sea. It is indicated by the Fossil record that Deinonychus would have known about the existence of plesiosaurs. Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Trinacromerum_BW.jpg)
Above: A specimen of Trinacromerum, a smaller plesiosaur, has been found in the inland United States, probably kept as a pet or traded for blubber.
I bolded the pertinent section.
Have you looked into prehistoric coast lines?
Where is the proof of "no doubt". Why is there no doubt? You cannot go from skeleton over here = whalers and trading.
Where is the evidence for the trading & whalers?
Again, you haven't thought about old coast lines and sea levels. Congratulations on hilarious troll speculation.
-
But I've already established that the continents have always been roughly as they are today. You'll have to knock down that claim before you can start assuming that Trinacromerum and pals SWAM to Kansas.
-
But I've already established that the continents have always been roughly as they are today. You'll have to knock down that claim before you can start assuming that Trinacromerum and pals SWAM to Kansas.
Then you're denying the evidence of plate tectonics.
http://parkview.homestead.com/PlateTectonics.html (http://parkview.homestead.com/PlateTectonics.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics)
-
Then you're denying the evidence of plate tectonics.
That is correct. You have successfully identified what is pretty much the raison d'etre of this thread and others like it.
-
Did swarms of deep-ocean animals flop themselves hundreds of miles to the American midwest to die, or is it more likely that they were taken there by fishing and trade?
Better yet, did the sea faring dinosaurs have clam bakes in the mountains?
Fossils of marine organisms, especially shellfish like clams and other molluscs, and sometimes fish, can be found in relatively high elevations in many places around the world. They are found throughout the Near East and countries bordering the Mediterranean. These include Egypt and Libya (Turek et al. 1989:303-306), Lebanon (Case 1982:412-415), and in the mountains and hills of Armenia, Syria, Israel, Egypt and Jordan (deMaillet 1968:70,89,96,249,267,292,299,304). An extreme example in the Western Hemisphere is shown in Figure 1.
(http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/jeck/images/fig1.jpg)
Figure 1: Marine Fossils on Top of the Andes Mountains. More than 500 giant fossilised oysters were found 3000 metres (about 2 miles) above sea level in Peru in 2001 by Arturo Vildozola, palaeontologist with the Andean Society of Paleontology.
(photo from AP/Wide World Photos)
-
Well obviously yes, they did.
Thanks for providing further support for my argument.
-
Well obviously yes, they did.
Thanks for providing further support for my argument.
Evidence for your hypothesis Mr Troll.
Why didn't they use jetpacks?
And have fun disproving plate tectonics - you can actually measure fault line movement and see fault lines.
-
24 pages?
I'm not about to read them all, especially as the last page has enough incorrect statements.
The bold part of dogplatters statement proves nothing, as does the rest of his posts. For instance, plesiosaur could have simply swam inland. Rives and lakes were different back then.
-
24 pages?
I'm not about to read them all, especially as the last page has enough incorrect statements.
Sokarul! How nice to see you gracing this thread. I remember your contributions in two of the previous maritime dinosaur megathreads provided a great deal of spirited discourse, so I'm glad you're rejoining the investigation.
The bold part of dogplatters statement proves nothing, as does the rest of his posts. For instance, plesiosaur could have simply swam inland. Rives and lakes were different back then.
What about the giant saltwater clams, Sokarul? Do you suppose they swam up rivers to get thousands of miles inland?
-
24 pages?
I'm not about to read them all, especially as the last page has enough incorrect statements.
Sokarul! How nice to see you gracing this thread. I remember your contributions in two of the previous maritime dinosaur megathreads provided a great deal of spirited discourse, so I'm glad you're rejoining the investigation.
The bold part of dogplatters statement proves nothing, as does the rest of his posts. For instance, plesiosaur could have simply swam inland. Rives and lakes were different back then.
What about the giant saltwater clams, Sokarul? Do you suppose they swam up rivers to get thousands of miles inland?
Clams used primitive byplanes.
Or sea levels were different in that time. Which can be shown through rock formations.
-
Unban my ip and I can answer all questions.
-
It is our belief that Dinosaurs were intelligent creatures who had a sea-faring, maritime civilisation.
Now I know for sure that you are not serious!
-
24 pages?
I'm not about to read them all, especially as the last page has enough incorrect statements.
Sokarul! How nice to see you gracing this thread. I remember your contributions in two of the previous maritime dinosaur megathreads provided a great deal of spirited discourse, so I'm glad you're rejoining the investigation.
The bold part of dogplatters statement proves nothing, as does the rest of his posts. For instance, plesiosaur could have simply swam inland. Rives and lakes were different back then.
What about the giant saltwater clams, Sokarul? Do you suppose they swam up rivers to get thousands of miles inland?
Their larva do swim, congrats on being completely ridiculous.
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IAlwPkwwHeI/Sc0sAFHrqtI/AAAAAAAAAMU/W95F_IzRcyU/s400/running+clams.jpg)
24 pages?
I'm not about to read them all, especially as the last page has enough incorrect statements.
Sokarul! How nice to see you gracing this thread. I remember your contributions in two of the previous maritime dinosaur megathreads provided a great deal of spirited discourse, so I'm glad you're rejoining the investigation.
The bold part of dogplatters statement proves nothing, as does the rest of his posts. For instance, plesiosaur could have simply swam inland. Rives and lakes were different back then.
What about the giant saltwater clams, Sokarul? Do you suppose they swam up rivers to get thousands of miles inland?
Their larva do swim, congrats on being completely ridiculous.
Are you suggesting saltwater oyster or clam larva swam upstream in fresh water to an altitude of 2 miles above sea level then somehow survived with no food?
-
No, not at all, thankfully as we can see by choral and shell fossils, the continents used to be covered in an ocean.
-
No, not at all, thankfully as we can see by choral and shell fossils, the continents used to be covered in an ocean.
I bet it sucked to be a land dwelling dinosaur at that time.
Why? They lived on land. Are you slow now?
-
They lived on land. Are you slow now?
Where was the land if "the continents used to be covered in an ocean"?
On the continents that weren't. Please keep up, this is an adult discussion, we have no time for slow people here.
-
On the continents that weren't.
So what you meant to say was "some of the continents used to be covered in an ocean".
Thanks for playing.
Of course that is what I meant. So are you saying you intentionally misunderstood what is posted then tried to use it against me? That really is pathetic.
-
Of course that is what I meant. So are you saying you intentionally misunderstood what is posted then tried to use it against me? That really is pathetic.
No I'm saying that what you meant to say and what you said are two extremely different things. Here, take my hand and I'll show you.
"Men are rapists." OMG!
"Some men are rapists." Oh OK.
See?
Your attempts to back fill your nonsense posts are pathetic. Next time think before you press post.
We were talking about the american continents, I thought you were capable of understanding context, and this thread is not about men, them raping you, or your grudge that they didn't kiss you afterward, please stop going off on tangents.
-
For once I absolutely agree with you, KillaBee. "The continents used to be covered in an ocean" is undeniably a false proposition.
So Raist, how did the clams climb to the top of the mountain again?
-
For once I absolutely agree with you, KillaBee. "The continents used to be covered in an ocean" is undeniably a false proposition.
So Raist, how did the clams climb to the top of the mountain again?
Which mountain? Is it a mountain that appeared within the last few million years by plate tectonics, or is it one that is small enough to have been underwater?
When we were talking specifically about a certain continents fossil I thought the context of my sentence would be blatantly obvious, asking for clarification would have been a much better strategy than blatantly trolling asking where land animals live. This argument is a mockery of this site based solely on misunderstanding people and I'm done with it. This sort of behavior is understandable on a lower forum when you are trying to gain an emotional reaction but it is utter bullshit (pardon the language) in a serious debate. When someone is willing to actually debate this they can come find me, it is people like you that make the upper fora unbearable to be in.
-
Lol, fair enough...
As soon as someone is asked to justify an answer which is of a different opinion to anothers, they give up.
The point this "Flat Earth" theory can not be taken seriously is that you give answers, questions and not questions, answers.