What about the Dinosuars?

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.

Quote from: Shadd on June 24, 2009, 12:24:45 PM

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

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 27, 2009, 02:19:27 PM

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.

Quote from: Euclid on June 27, 2009, 10:57:12 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 27, 2009, 02:19:27 PM

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.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 26, 2009, 05:56:02 AM

Quote from: Shadd on June 24, 2009, 12:24:45 PM

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?

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 27, 2009, 10:12:24 PM

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.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 27, 2009, 10:12:24 PM

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.

Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 06:10:25 AM

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.

Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 06:10:25 AM

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.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 27, 2009, 10:12:24 PM

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?

Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 06:10:25 AM

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.

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:

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 26, 2009, 07:33:39 AM

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.

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://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.


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?