The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: cizzydo on June 18, 2006, 04:25:37 AM

Title: antartica
Post by: cizzydo on June 18, 2006, 04:25:37 AM
Hi, my name is Ciaran and i'm a firm believer in the round earth theory, i think that flat earth theories are fundamentally flawed and i find it difficult to believe that anyone truly still think that our earth is flat. However, i don't want to angrily rant at those who persist in being comedically ignorant.
so, i'd like to ask, if the continent of antartica doesn't exist, then do penguins exist? do they live on this supposed "ice wall"? what about the film "march of the penguins", was this filmed in a studio? are the penguins just good character actors? is morgan freeman a government agent?
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 09:54:36 AM
The only answer youre gonna get here is gonna be the one they give when something proves them wrong.... its a conspiracy
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 09:56:00 AM
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.

Penguins were deliberately engineered to be very easy to catch (hence their lack of flight), but also to be extremely efficient at catching and eating fish. It is economically easier for conspiracy ice-wall guards to have penguins indirectly harvest fish for them, then shoot or trap the fish-filled penguins with ease.

In answer to your other question - yes, March of the Penguins was filmed in a studio. Those penguins were probably animatronic replicas though, because the government can't afford to use large numbers of penguins except for feeding ice-wall guards.
Title: antartica
Post by: Efimowho? on June 18, 2006, 10:01:37 AM
wow dogplatter... you are insane.  i cant even describe how hard i laughed when i read your explaination for penguins.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 10:04:01 AM
How else do you explain that penguins are unable to fly, and why penguin fossil records are basically non-existant? There are no penguin fossils because penguins didn't evolve - they were MADE.
Title: antartica
Post by: Unimportant on June 18, 2006, 10:06:12 AM
The continent of antarctica exists, it is just very different in shape than it is supposed on the round earth; it is a large plane of ice that encircles the disc earth. Penguins most likely live on the plane of ice, probably in the most seaward few miles, as further back would be more heavily guarded by the ice wall police.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 10:12:05 AM
Stop contradicting the beliefs of the FE if youre going to show their beliefs.  The FE FAQ states that there is no continent there, no landmass.  That is a failure in logic, even Dogplatter's post about the russians is more coherent and sane.  According to the conspiracy ideal, the government wouldnt let anyone near the ice wall, so they couldnt make that movie; even if it does show antarctica...
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
The continent of antarctica exists, it is just very different in shape than it is supposed on the round earth; it is a large plane of ice that encircles the disc earth. Penguins most likely live on the plane of ice, probably in the most seaward few miles, as further back would be more heavily guarded by the ice wall police.


But they live in tandem with the ice wall police - they were created specifically for that purpose.
Title: antartica
Post by: Unimportant on June 18, 2006, 10:18:32 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Stop contradicting the beliefs of the FE if youre going to show their beliefs.  The FE FAQ states that there is no continent there, no landmass.  That is a failure in logic, even Dogplatter's post about the russians is more coherent and sane.  According to the conspiracy ideal, the government wouldnt let anyone near the ice wall, so they couldnt make that movie; even if it does show antarctica...

There's more than one FE model.

If you sailed south and saw a big plane of ice, you would say "Hey that's antarctica!"

You would actually be looking at the ice wall. If you think pointing out a minor semantic discrepency is a personal victory, then you are mistaken.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 10:35:31 AM
Except antarctica is LANDMASS, as in a mass, with land, not a big wall of ice, so it is fundamentally different, good try though
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 10:38:38 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Except antarctica is LANDMASS, as in a mass, with land, not a big wall of ice, so it is fundamentally different, good try though


No, it's just ice. The reason it formed was due to none of it being in the sun's circular path, preventing it from melting. How would land just magically freeze there with it?
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 10:40:05 AM
No, its a landmass, it was part of the Pangaea seperation, the ice formed because of the extreme coldness of the area it is in, and the fact that it snows so much, causing permafrost
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 10:47:27 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
No, its a landmass, it was part of the Pangaea seperation, the ice formed because of the extreme coldness of the area it is in, and the fact that it snows so much, causing permafrost



Quote from: "http://www.extremescience.com/ThickestIce.htm"
Even though it is covered in ice it receives some of the least amount of rainfall, getting just slightly more rainfall than the Sahara Desert, making it the largest desert on earth. Most people have the misconception that a desert is a hot, dry, sandy, lifeless place, but the true definition of a desert is any geographical location that receives very, very little rainfall. Even though there's ice on the ground in Antarctica, that ice has been there for a very long time.


Not an amazing source, but this is fairly common knowledge even among RE'ers. Antarctica (the ice wall) recieves hardly any precipitation whatsoever! It doesn't snow or rain much in antarctica at all.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 10:49:54 AM
oh sorry about that, yorue correct about not much snowfall, and im perfectly willing to admit that one, a brainfart on my part, but as your source even says, the ice has been there a very long time, but theres ice on the ground
Title: antartica
Post by: Sepulchre on June 18, 2006, 10:50:51 AM
Crimson you just made me think of another thing that helps disprove unimportants FE theory statement that antarctica is a ring shaped continent.

Assuming that FE theory believes the  supercontinent Pangaea existed at some point and that antarctica is actually just a big ring shaped continent that surrounds the rest of the earth.

This presents a problem because in order for Pangaea to have broken apart the outer ring (antarctica in the FE model) would have had to expand, providing space for the other continents to move into.  How could a ring of land increase its radius without breaking at some point?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: "Sepulchre"
Crimson you just made me think of another thing that helps disprove unimportants FE theory statement that antarctica is a ring shaped continent.

Assuming that FE theory believes the  supercontinent Pangaea existed at some point and that antarctica is actually just a big ring shaped continent that surrounds the rest of the earth.

This presents a problem because in order for Pangaea to have broken apart the outer ring (antarctica in the FE model) would have had to expand, providing space for the other continents to move into.  How could a ring of land increase its radius without breaking at some point?


We can therefore conclude that Pangea didn't exist. And before you try and use fossil evidence to debunk this - the fact that dinosaur fossils are spread out in confusing ways reflects the fact that dinosaurs were actually much more highly advanced than we think they were - they had mastered the technology of intercontinental travel. Heck, they probably knew about the ice wall too, and who knows, their governments (if they had any) were probably surpressing it even back then.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 11:07:05 AM
dogplatter... get off the drugs, its affecting your mental abilities.  This is in fact proving the RE theory, and debunking the FE side of things

Using fossil evidence proves you are an idiot, as the statement you made seems to be under the assumption that there was more than one continent,

Pangaea was one super-continent, allowing travel between the things that would eventually break up into many different continents.  

Pangaea itself disproves the FE thoery, as that would have been a time w/out an ice wall if that is antarctica (which has fossils that were origionally believed to be exculivly in australia, found by independant archaeologists)  which proves the supercontinent, and in FE theory this would cause all the water to spill out
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 11:10:19 AM
As painful as it is for me to admit, Dogplatter speaks true words. Animals and humans alike have been oppressed for millenia, the government hiding behind the veil of insanity to anyone who contradicts their ice wall views.

From my work as an ice grunt (captain, 62nd division), I can agree that previous animal inhabitents of the earth also were ignorant of the truth, as I found when we observed some dinosaur council ice-carvings. They debated for many days over whether the populace should be enlightened with the truth, yet the dino government was pressuered by ring-wingers (teradactols) into promoting the lie, a sort of prehistoric matrix.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 11:13:38 AM
pterodactyl is spelled with a p

and ive said it before, ill say it again, get off the drugs[/u][/i]
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 11:16:04 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
dogplatter... get off the drugs, its affecting your mental abilities.  This is in fact proving the RE theory, and debunking the FE side of things


The fact that you're resorting to an ad hominem attack by implying that I'm a drug addict just shows the weakness of YOUR argument.

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

Using fossil evidence proves you are an idiot, as the statement you made seems to be under the assumption that there was more than one continent,


Sepulche pointed out that Pangea was impossible under the FE model, which was quite right. I'm not so much using fossil evidence as pre-empting the inevitable fossil-evidence argument which would be used against me (if pangea didn't exist, how did dinosaur fossils spread across the Earth?).


Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

Pangaea was one super-continent, allowing travel between the things that would eventually break up into many different continents.  


We've established already that this couldn't have been the case. As Sepulche said, the wall would have had to expand in order for land to split apart within it - impossible!

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

Pangaea itself disproves the FE thoery, as that would have been a time w/out an ice wall if that is antarctica (which has fossils that were origionally believed to be exculivly in australia, found by independant archaeologists)  which proves the supercontinent, and in FE theory this would cause all the water to spill out


If dinosaurs had intercontinental capabilities, they would blatantly have sent scouting dinosaurs to the wall, and doubtless some of them would have died there. In fact, fossil evidence in antarctica proves my point even more.
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 11:16:10 AM
Drugs are the only freind during the long nights when patrolling the ice wall.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 11:25:19 AM
Quote
Sepulche pointed out that Pangea was impossible under the FE model, which was quite right.


exactly why I am a RE person, because established geologican and archaelogican evidence prove you wrong, and if you can prove the dinosaurs had a conspiracy im willing to believe the earth is flat, and that pigs fly, and why not that hot snow falls up
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 11:29:22 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

exactly why I am a RE person, because established geologican and archaelogican evidence prove you wrong, and if you can prove the dinosaurs had a conspiracy im willing to believe the earth is flat, and that pigs fly, and why not that hot snow falls up


I never explicitly said the dinosaurs had a conspiracy. What I'm saying is that they lived on seperate continents and had enough resources and technology to travel between them and, periodically, die on different continents too.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 11:30:42 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
and why not that hot snow falls up


Technically, hot snow does fall up. Ever heard of melting followed by evaporation? Yeah.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 11:32:26 AM
But the argument in question was specifically Pangaea, whic has been proven geologically and achealogically, so you cannot say it doesnt work, and it cannot have happened in FE theory, bar your explination, which still doesnt work, as anything would have been discovered archaelogically, so essentially you failed in this one.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 11:36:12 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
But the argument in question was specifically Pangaea, whic has been proven geologically and achealogically, so you cannot say it doesnt work, and it cannot have happened in FE theory, bar your explination, which still doesnt work, as anything would have been discovered archaelogically, so essentially you failed in this one.


I explained how currently accepted fossil evidence backs up my claims. The common concensus is that the wide spread of dinosaur remains across different modern day continents proves that there was once a single land mass, right? I assume that's what you're referring to.

That theory doesn't allow for the possibility that dinosaurs could have travelled between continents if they HAD been split up the whole time (which they were). Building boats isn't that difficult, I'm sure some dinosaurs could have managed it.
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 11:37:18 AM
And I say my dinosaur council carvings were discovered archaelogically, so therefore you cannot say it doesnt work. Have you ever visited the great wall? Your ignorance is proof that me and my fellow grunts do our job well, and for that compliment I thank you.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 11:39:00 AM
except no they could not, first of all, they were not intelegent enough, but we cannot be too sure of that, as we werent around with them (ill just convieniently leave out the fact that their brains were about the size of my fist)... but anatomically, they were not handy enough to use tools... as none existed, even barring that, they havent opposable thumbs.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 11:39:18 AM
Quote from: "horse"
And I say my dinosaur council carvings were discovered archaelogically, so therefore you cannot say it doesnt work. Have you ever visited the great wall? Your ignorance is proof that me and my fellow grunts do our job well, and for that compliment I thank you.


I've never heard about so called "dinosaur council carvings". Are you making fun of me?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
except no they could not, first of all, they were not intelegent enough, but we cannot be too sure of that, as we werent around with them (ill just convieniently leave out the fact that their brains were about the size of my fist)... but anatomically, they were not handy enough to use tools... as none existed, even barring that, they havent opposable thumbs.


As you say yourself, we can't be sure of dinosaur intelligence (<-this is the correct spelling btw). Even if their brains were small, how do we know that they didn't combine their efforts somehow?

Many anatomically non-humanlike animals in the modern world use tools. Otters, for example, lack opposable thumbs, but they use rocks to crack open shellfish. Besides, opposable thumbs aren't the only tool-using appendage you can have. What about birds? How do they build nests?
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 11:44:33 AM
We need more people of Dogplatters quality on the forum, he at least is not putting forward crackpot arguments.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 11:47:57 AM
Quote from: "horse"
We need more people of Dogplatters quality on the forum, he at least is not putting forward crackpot arguments.


Oh thanks, I hope you're not being sarcastic. Your dinosaur carving thing sounded like you might have been taking the mickey a bit.
Title: antartica
Post by: Sepulchre on June 18, 2006, 11:49:15 AM
Fair enough Dogplatter, i accept that my arguement doesn't disprove FE theory, but can we now safely assume that Pangaea never existed in the FE model?
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 11:50:07 AM
cracking shells and using twigs to make a nest is leaps and bounds below building a ship which could sail intercontinentally, and if you can demonstrate to me how a bunch of plants (which is much of what the fossil evidnce is) could have built a ship... walked across hundreds of miles of land, died, left no fossil evidence of the ship ever being created (i.e. no ship, no boat, etc) than i might be persuaded to believe you
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 11:54:02 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
cracking shells and using twigs to make a nest is leaps and bounds below building a ship which could sail intercontinentally, and if you can demonstrate to me how a bunch of plants (which is much of what the fossil evidnce is) could have built a ship... walked across hundreds of miles of land, died, left no fossil evidence of the ship ever being created (i.e. no ship, no boat, etc) than i might be persuaded to believe you



You believe a wooden boat (most likely, I dont believe the dinosaurs pioneered steel making) would not degrade over millions of years? And even then who is to say there is not remains of a ship, for the sea is very large and since the time of the dinosaurs depositation would result in such seacraft being buried deep in the ocean floor in any case.
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 18, 2006, 11:56:10 AM
I have been a firm believer in FE theory for some time now, and i have committed my team of researchers to discoving the truth behing Pangaea once and for all, and the results of our preliminary research are highly interesting.
We have already discovered that Pangaea did in fact exsist, a very long time ago upon the seas surrounded by the ice wall. Out research has shown that the two FE plates that the sections of Pangaea sat upon did not slide apart as in RE theory, but in fact exploded upwards with a great force, which we have calculated to have continued for some weeks. During these weeks, the power of the swelling magma below the surface of the Earth was pushed upwards to form mountain, as with 'Constructive plate theory' of RE believers. However, the construction of the mountains did not, as some posters have speculated, split the ice wall in any way. The new land masses simply made the sea levels rise across the disk, and then proceeded to break apart with shattering force that sent the two halves of Pangaea hurtling from each other due to the build up of pressure inside the mountains. Thus the halves of Pangaea took up new positions on the disk-oceans, and the sea levels returned to what they had been because the mountains had been scattered by the almost explosion-like splitting of Pangaea. Thus the Ice Wall remained in tact, and fossil evidence is explained through the sudden splitting that the continental plate experianced.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 11:56:52 AM
Quote from: "Sepulchre"
Fair enough Dogplatter, i accept that my arguement doesn't disprove FE theory, but can we now safely assume that Pangaea never existed in the FE model?


Yes, I completely agree with you on this point.

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
cracking shells and using twigs to make a nest is leaps and bounds below building a ship which could sail intercontinentally, and if you can demonstrate to me how a bunch of plants (which is much of what the fossil evidnce is) could have built a ship... walked across hundreds of miles of land, died, left no fossil evidence of the ship ever being created (i.e. no ship, no boat, etc) than i might be persuaded to believe you


We're talking dinosaurs here buddy, not plants. Claiming that plants could manipulate building materials would be just plain stupid, I never implied that.

As for the lack of boat evidence (assuming a) none exists and b) it hasn't been surpressed by the government), let me explain a little bit about fossilisation processes.

Fossils don't just happen willy-nilly when something dies - there have to be specific conditions - namely anaerobic preservation of dead matter. This only really happens in tar pits, glaciers and other extreme conditions. Two things relating to boat theory then -

1: Why would the dinosaurs sail near to a dangerous place like a glacier or tar pit, knowing full well that it might sink their boat?

2: Given the number of dinosaur fossils found compared with dinosaur population, it's clear that hardly any stuff becomes fossil matter, relatively speaking. The ships could easily have disintegrated along with the millions of unfound dinosaur cadavers.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 11:57:10 AM
yes but something needed to but cut down in order to make the boat, the evidence of which doesn't degrade over the centuries.  Im sure the chopping down of hundreds, if not thousands, of trees (in order to make enough ships for the magnitude of fossil's needed on each continents) would have been mentioned
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 11:59:26 AM
Quote from: "Professor Sphincter"
I have been a firm believer in FE theory for some time now, and i have committed my team of researchers to discoving the truth behing Pangaea once and for all, and the results of our preliminary research are highly interesting.
We have already discovered that Pangaea did in fact exsist, a very long time ago upon the seas surrounded by the ice wall. Out research has shown that the two FE plates that the sections of Pangaea sat upon did not slide apart as in RE theory, but in fact exploded upwards with a great force, which we have calculated to have continued for some weeks. During these weeks, the power of the swelling magma below the surface of the Earth was pushed upwards to form mountain, as with 'Constructive plate theory' of RE believers. However, the construction of the mountains did not, as some posters have speculated, split the ice wall in any way. The new land masses simply made the sea levels rise across the disk, and then proceeded to break apart with shattering force that sent the two halves of Pangaea hurtling from each other due to the build up of pressure inside the mountains. Thus the halves of Pangaea took up new positions on the disk-oceans, and the sea levels returned to what they had been because the mountains had been scattered by the almost explosion-like splitting of Pangaea. Thus the Ice Wall remained in tact, and fossil evidence is explained through the sudden splitting that the continental plate experianced.


This is pure speculation! What would possibly cause some sort of worldwide explosion that would not damage the Ice wall?
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 18, 2006, 12:00:06 PM
Well even if dogplatter's FE theory of dinosaur boat building was correct, only a few pioneers would be needed to sail the ocean to found the new dinosaur colonies. You don't believe that when the american forefathers made their way to america they took billions of residents with them do you? It is the same principal here my friend.
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 12:01:40 PM
How would we differentiate a human boat of the middle ages to a dinosaur boat? I am perplexed.
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 18, 2006, 12:01:42 PM
Dogplatter, my research has found that the pent up pressure inside the mountains was simply very concentrated, hence the power it released when it broke apart was extreme but also well refined, simply sending the continental plates on their ways without damaging any other aspects of the FE.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 12:02:49 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
yes but something needed to but cut down in order to make the boat, the evidence of which doesn't degrade over the centuries.  Im sure the chopping down of hundreds, if not thousands, of trees (in order to make enough ships for the magnitude of fossil's needed on each continents) would have been mentioned


There are so many flaws with this rebuttal.

Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: "Professor Sphincter"
Well even if dogplatter's FE theory of dinosaur boat building was correct, only a few pioneers would be needed to sail the ocean to found the new dinosaur colonies. You don't believe that when the american forefathers made their way to america they took billions of residents with them do you? It is the same principal here my friend.



This is very true, and in fact the boats could have sailed back over the sea to pick up more dinosaurs, not every dinosaur would need his or her own seacraft! A ferry system would be much more economic.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 12:04:42 PM
Quote from: "Professor Sphincter"
Dogplatter, my research has found that the pent up pressure inside the mountains was simply very concentrated, hence the power it released when it broke apart was extreme but also well refined, simply sending the continental plates on their ways without damaging any other aspects of the FE.


Hmm, it sounds plausible, but without more detailed proof I can't accept this theory when my own makes so much sense, and is qualified by fossil evidence.
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 18, 2006, 12:09:32 PM
Yes, I quite understand Dogplatter, a man of science like myself i see. Unforetunately my team is currently severly underfunded, as I am only able to find one sponser for our research - me. There are only a small number of FE supporters at this time, seeing as people have only just been able to break the government oppression, so I am having trouble finding people to fund our research, and as such, we cannot afford to publish any of our findings. If anyone here would like to help our research, please send me a private message, and I'm sure we can arrange something.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 12:09:34 PM
I'm perfectly aware of the fossil theory, I am not claiming there could be a boat, im on the other side, so they wouldnt sail into a tar pit, as they wouldnt be able to sail at all.

And dinosaurs are stupid, i have been claiming this for a long time, that is how fossilization could have occured

and dinosaurs couldnt have used fallen tree matter because fallen tree matter rots, which wouldnt have been good for a boat.  and they couldnt have used reeds for one simple reason, dinosaurs like brontosauruses (dont know the plural on that one), couldnt have worked on a reed boat, they are way too heavy.

first of all it would have to be hundreds of boats due to the sheer magnitued of fossils found, and if you know anything about wooden ships, you need to do maitenance quite often, to prevent mold and rot from forming, but good try
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 12:13:43 PM
You seem to be ignorant of our point, no wonder you do not understand.

Calling dinosaurs stupid is ironic, when was the last time you played a dinosaur at chess? Or do you assume they are stupid because they died out and became fossils? I'm sorry but your argument is hilarious, why would they become fossililzed due to stupidity?

Quote

And dinosaurs are stupid.... that is how fossilization could have occured

Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 12:14:21 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
I'm perfectly aware of the fossil theory, I am not claiming there could be a boat, im on the other side, so they wouldnt sail into a tar pit, as they wouldnt be able to sail at all.

And dinosaurs are stupid, i have been claiming this for a long time, that is how fossilization could have occured


So let me get this straight - dinosaurs are too stupid to build boats, but they're stupid enough to crash their boats into dangerous situations? What?

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

and dinosaurs couldnt have used fallen tree matter because fallen tree matter rots, which wouldnt have been good for a boat.  and they couldnt have used reeds for one simple reason, dinosaurs like brontosauruses (dont know the plural on that one), couldnt have worked on a reed boat, they are way too heavy.


Why could smaller dinosaurs not have travelled on dinghys of reeds while heavier dinosaurs used wooden vessels, possibly treated with tar or some other preservatives?

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

first of all it would have to be hundreds of boats due to the sheer magnitued of fossils found, and if you know anything about wooden ships, you need to do maitenance quite often, to prevent mold and rot from forming, but good try


I answered this already! Boats don't have to be one-time deals - a boat could make hundreds of round trips in a single lifetime. As for maintenance, if the dinosaurs were capable of building boats they were probably capable of maintaining them.
Title: antartica
Post by: Sepulchre on June 18, 2006, 12:15:33 PM
WOAH HOLD THE BOAT FOR A SECOND

Are we seriously considering that dinosaurs were sophistocated enough to colonize?

No way this group of people (who I really do consider to be quite smart) can consider this a feasable idea....

Honestly, this baffles me
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 12:19:09 PM
"Hold the boat"? Is this some kind of hint that these boats did exist and infact you have obtained one? Please, photograph.
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 18, 2006, 12:19:20 PM
It is because of some of these simply ludicrous theories that i ahve started research into this matter, and how the breaking of what I and my team have come to call the Pangaea Steamer (on account of the sheer natural forces inside the mountains) caused Pangaea to seperate.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 12:19:36 PM
Quote from: "Sepulchre"
WOAH HOLD THE BOAT FOR A SECOND

Are we seriously considering that dinosaurs were sophistocated enough to colonize?

No way this group of people (who I really do consider to be quite smart) can consider this a feasable idea....

Honestly, this baffles me


Well Sep, we established that Pangea can't have existed in FE model - How did dinosaur remains end up so spread around the globe, if not by intercontinental travel by the dinosaurs themselves?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 12:21:08 PM
Quote from: "Professor Sphincter"
It is because of some of these simply ludicrous theories that i ahve started research into this matter, and how the breaking of what I and my team have come to call the Pangaea Steamer (on account of the sheer natural forces inside the mountains) caused Pangaea to seperate.


I still just can't take this seriously! The only "Pangea Steamer" that existed would have been a Dinosaur-built "Steamer" carrying the population to exotic shores.
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 12:23:43 PM
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you Sphincter, for your theories are too far out to be acceptable. "Steamer"? Please, be realistic.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 12:24:03 PM
but dinosaurs would not be able to, and im not saying that they would crash their "ships" into dangerous situations, because there were no ships, im saying they are dumb enough to walk right in, or walk onto unstable land, and fallen in, which is a way that fossilization had occured also, its not only tar that does it

Smaller dinosaurs yes, but there are vary large fossils, as in animals that weighed literally TONS, and building a ship that could support one, let alone many, would be a task today.  It would require high-quality material and fantastic tools.

a wooden vessel, treated with tar, that would require an ability that far suppasses any estimates you made of dinosaur's abilities thus far. the tools that were suggested as dinosaurs using were rocks.  The fact you are even arguing this as a possiblitiy is rediculous
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 12:27:25 PM
Well, you are arguing also, so it cant be too ridiculous.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 12:27:58 PM
no basically im arguing that youre wrong, which is not arguing the concept in question
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 12:29:10 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

Smaller dinosaurs yes, but there are vary large fossils, as in animals that weighed literally TONS, and building a ship that could support one, let alone many, would be a task today.  It would require high-quality material and fantastic tools.

a wooden vessel, treated with tar, that would require an ability that far suppasses any estimates you made of dinosaur's abilities thus far. the tools that were suggested as dinosaurs using were rocks.  The fact you are even arguing this as a possiblitiy is rediculous


I didn't suggest that dinosaurs were limited to rock use. If you read my post, I merely brought up use of rocks BY OTTERS as an example of tool-using not being exclusive to humans or even to primates.

For all we know, dinosaurs could have had powertools and CAD/CAM. Whatever technology was required to build those boats, odd as it may seem to us, must have existed in order for dinosaurs to spread so far across the world.
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 12:31:05 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
no basically im arguing that youre wrong, which is not arguing the concept in question


Surely if you are arguing that im wrong, that is the basic outline for every argument? If you agreed then why would you argue? Please, take this seriously and put forward valid points.
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 18, 2006, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: "horse"
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you Sphincter, for your theories are too far out to be acceptable. "Steamer"? Please, be realistic.


We simply named it the Pangaea Steamer because there would have been many natural geysers in the vicinity of the mountains because of the build up of heat and pressure with them. Plus, as soon as we receive sufficient funds, we will be copyrighting and publishing our evidence for all to see.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 12:33:29 PM
so in suggesting what you are suggesting you are also suggesting that the dinosaurs greatly changed the geography, allowing pangaea to even seem like a plausibility, as the fact that the continents of the world fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, and plate techtonics support the pangaea theory.

Thats a good addon for FE theory, its all the dinosaurs fault, they started the conspiracy, and we humans millions of years later just took the theory up! perfect, you lunatic, youve been watching entirely too much flinstones if you think dinosaurs could have had powertools
Title: antartica
Post by: Sepulchre on June 18, 2006, 12:35:26 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"


Well Sep, we established that Pangea can't have existed in FE model - How did dinosaur remains end up so spread around the globe, if not by intercontinental travel by the dinosaurs themselves?


The fact that dinosaur bones are spread around the globe supports the fact that FE model is flawed.

Even the smartest of dinosaurs didn't have the proper brain capacity to conceive travel by a nautical vessel.

Even if they did how would they have survived the voyage?  I'm not sure how much food/water a dinosaur needed to survive, although i'm sure it could be found out with a little research,  but the amounts would most likely be very large for a suitable crew of dinosaurs with plans to colonize another continent.  I seriously doubt a wooden boat could have held that many dinosaurs as well as enough food to feed them.  Even the early humans who travelled across the oceans in wooden boats did not have a very easy time doing this.

Also one final point...opposable thumbs, how do you build a structure suitable for sea travel without thumbs?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 12:36:27 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
so in suggesting what you are suggesting you are also suggesting that the dinosaurs greatly changed the geography, allowing pangaea to even seem like a plausibility, as the fact that the continents of the world fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, and plate techtonics support the pangaea theory.

Thats a good addon for FE theory, its all the dinosaurs fault, they started the conspiracy, and we humans millions of years later just took the theory up! perfect, you lunatic, youve been watching entirely too much flinstones if you think dinosaurs could have had powertools


I'm not suggesting that the dinosaurs changed geography at all, it's Professor Shinter. My hypothesis is that pangea never existed and that all the continents have been in the same position since the dawn of time.
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 18, 2006, 12:37:07 PM
CrimsonKing, I agree to some extent. However, I know that dinosaurs were much more intelligent than most people think, and had very complex society, and I can believe that some did manage to use tools of a kind. However, I cannot belive that they built boats and colonised in the way previously suggested. I continue to argue the point that the breaking of Pangaea need not cause a break in the Ice Wall, and as soon as i get funding for a web hosting service, i will start to supply preliminary research materials.
Title: antartica
Post by: horse on June 18, 2006, 12:39:27 PM
Im sorry I find many of your arguments crackpot, professor. Where did you get your degree, a mental home?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: "Sepulchre"

The fact that dinosaur bones are spread around the globe supports the fact that FE model is flawed.

Even the smartest of dinosaurs didn't have the proper brain capacity to conceive travel by a nautical vessel.

Even if they did how would they have survived the voyage?  I'm not sure how much food/water a dinosaur needed to survive, although i'm sure it could be found out with a little research,  but the amounts would most likely be very large for a suitable crew of dinosaurs with plans to colonize another continent.  I seriously doubt a wooden boat could have held that many dinosaurs as well as enough food to feed them.  Even the early humans who travelled across the oceans in wooden boats did not have a very easy time doing this.

Also one final point...opposable thumbs, how do you build a structure suitable for sea travel without thumbs?


I was under the impression that you were a supporter of FE theory. Anyway, we can really only speculate as to the actual intelligence of dinosaurs. We have know way of knowing what their mental capacity was except for brain size, which is arbitrary. A physically small brain might be very efficient, especially when pooled with other intelligences of a similar nature.

Your food/water point is a good one, but proportionally, a dinosaur boat to a dinosaur would only have to be in the same ratio as a human boat is to a human in order to carry food. 16th century sailing ships routinely had crews numbering in double digits, yet they managed to bring supplies for long voyages.

Finally, we've already discussed the fact that opposable thumbs are not a prequisite for tool use. Birds and otters are just some of the many animals which use tools but lack opposable thumbs.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 12:44:36 PM
Well at least the professor can agree with pangaea idea, which has been proven miltiple times in multiple ways... I disagree with the complex society idea, but i dont really care enough to argue.

  But accoding to your "research" how could you explain the ice wall, in RE theory, it is just another continent that happens to have gone down to the magnetic south pole.  but how could the ice wall have formed, there is nothing similar geographically in the world, and if it has not been there since the existance of water in the world, than the water would have fallen off
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 12:47:12 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Well at least the professor can agree with pangaea idea, which has been proven miltiple times in multiple ways... I disagree with the complex society idea, but i dont really care enough to argue.

  But accoding to your "research" how could you explain the ice wall, in RE theory, it is just another continent that happens to have gone down to the magnetic south pole.  but how could the ice wall have formed, there is nothing similar geographically in the world, and if it has not been there since the existance of water in the world, than the water would have fallen off


Actually, there is something similar - the North Pole. Both are icy and cold, and both are outside of the range of the sun-disk according to FE's standard circular Sun-disk-orbit theory. Both areas of ice formed because so little heat was reaching them thanks to the absence of the sun's rays. Problem solved.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 12:51:49 PM
how is the north pole... an area of thick ice similar to a 150ft wall of miles thick ice forming a perfect ring around the planet without any cracks or holes?

and seriously, how did the ice wall form, naturally ice needs to be made from water, so it just naturally collected at the exact middle and the point on the outside before it falls off, water tension somewhat explains the second part, but not the middle.  And forming without any cracks or part where the tension does not break it is improbable, if not impossible.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 12:57:43 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
how is the north pole... an area of thick ice similar to a 150ft wall of miles thick ice forming a perfect ring around the planet without any cracks or holes?

and seriously, how did the ice wall form, naturally ice needs to be made from water, so it just naturally collected at the exact middle and the point on the outside before it falls off, water tension somewhat explains the second part, but not the middle.  And forming without any cracks or part where the tension does not break it is improbable, if not impossible.


They're both cold and were both formed in the same way. The reason for both is the acute absence of the sun's heat.

As for the purity of Earth's Ice wall, you raise a valid issue. I can only assume that we on Earth were lucky in that our Ice wall happened to form correctly. Perhaps on other planets, most water seeped off, which is why we don't recieve any contact from other planets - no life evolved there.

(Note: if any other FE'ers can enlighten me as to the exact processes governing the formation of a perfect ice ring, feel free to drop in and explain).
Title: antartica
Post by: EnCrypto on June 18, 2006, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"

They're both cold and were both formed in the same way. The reason for both is the acute absence of the sun's heat.

So if the ice wall, at one point, wasn't there, what was keeping the water from falling off the edge of the flat Earth?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 01:17:21 PM
Quote from: "EnCrypto"
Quote from: "Dogplatter"

They're both cold and were both formed in the same way. The reason for both is the acute absence of the sun's heat.

So if the ice wall, at one point, wasn't there, what was keeping the water from falling off the edge of the flat Earth?


Why should we assume that the water, at its inception, whenever that was, was in a liquid state? It's highly probable that most water on Earth was frozen to start with, but the constant rotation of the sun melted the water around the equator and everywhere except the "poles".
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 01:19:34 PM
no youre wrong, actually water went from gaseous state to liquid, because for a long tim the world was too hot to support liquid water, as it started from molten rock (which is also part of the FE thory)
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 01:23:12 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
no youre wrong, actually water went from gaseous state to liquid, because for a long tim the world was too hot to support liquid water, as it started from molten rock (which is also part of the FE thory)


Perhaps the molten rock was very precisely cold around the edges, in a similar way to the professor's suggestion!
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 01:25:53 PM
how in the hell can you have cold molten rock, that is the most self-contradicting statement i have ever heard
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
how in the hell can you have cold molten rock, that is the most self-contradicting statement i have ever heard


You're right, that was a mental bananaskin on my part. I think it's more likely that before the Earth started falling upwards, it was in a sort of curved state, acting like a bowl and keeping moisture in. By the time the upward acceleration started, the edges and the centre had already cooled sufficiently to form the ice walls, keeping the unfrozen water contained.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 01:37:41 PM
well that in its own problem, without the earth falling up, there would be no gravity, according to FE theory.  so with the kinetic energy involved in watter, eventually it would all go away, but we still have water on earth, so that statement is also self-contradicting
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 01:39:15 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
well that in its own problem, without the earth falling up, there would be no gravity, according to FE theory.  so with the kinetic energy involved in watter, eventually it would all go away, but we still have water on earth, so that statement is also self-contradicting


I guess I'm just going to have to face that I really don't know how the Earth was created specifically. That doesn't I don't know in great detail what happened once the ice rings were in place.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 01:41:51 PM
if you dont know how and why something occurs, than it is impossble to truly understand its impact
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 18, 2006, 01:43:22 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
if you dont know how and why something occurs, than it is impossble to truly understand its impact


Not true. That I can't really put my finger on how the ice wall was formed at the moment, doesn't mean there isn't evidence to support its existence, likewise with the whole Earth.
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 19, 2006, 09:21:12 AM
The formation of the Ice Wall and Oceans can easily be explained. The bottom and sides of the Disk obviously cooled more quickly, as they were exposed, rather than enclosed like the rock which stayed molten. This eventually created a concave-type structure, much like a red blood cell, because of the convection of the molten rock in the centre of the disk. this obviously meant the water would stay on the disk, and pf course cooled quicker at the edges, forming the Ice Wall. Then, as the forward acceleration of FE increased, the bottom lips of the concave bowl started to break away because of the forces acting on the disk, thus creating the Disk as we know it today.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 19, 2006, 11:55:53 AM
Quote from: "Professor Sphincter"
The formation of the Ice Wall and Oceans can easily be explained. The bottom and sides of the Disk obviously cooled more quickly, as they were exposed, rather than enclosed like the rock which stayed molten. This eventually created a concave-type structure, much like a red blood cell, because of the convection of the molten rock in the centre of the disk. this obviously meant the water would stay on the disk, and pf course cooled quicker at the edges, forming the Ice Wall. Then, as the forward acceleration of FE increased, the bottom lips of the concave bowl started to break away because of the forces acting on the disk, thus creating the Disk as we know it today.


There you go CrimsonKing - argue against that!
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 19, 2006, 12:21:10 PM
I can argue the RE theory, but as far as FE theory goes, that is amazingly coherent, the only problem i see with it, is that gravity pulls tward the center of a mass, which is what would create the sphere in the first place, whereas a red blood cell formation would seem to show a force that is spinning instead of static force (that is my own personal opinion as far as the red blood cell formation goes, i cannot refute the theory flat out, becuase i do not presently understand enough physics).

That being said, it seems as though the convection currents in molten rock would work to keep the surface perfetly flat, as it brings the cooler denser rock to the bottom, where it heats up, and goes to the top, which would keep the top flat and even.

Applying the FE theory of gravity, that the earth has always been in constant acceleration, i do not see how that would create a flat disk, if anything, it would create a long spear of earth, as a flat earth would have the most drag from the acceleration, whereas a long cylendrical spear-shape would have almost none, the reason why spears are made like that in the first place
Title: antartica
Post by: TheEngineer on June 19, 2006, 05:46:07 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
as a flat earth would have the most drag from the acceleration, whereas a long cylendrical spear-shape would have almost none, the reason why spears are made like that in the first place

What, exactly, would be the cause of the drag?  It sure isn't air resistance!
Title: ....
Post by: Binxsy on June 19, 2006, 06:16:20 PM
I like how factual info is posted but its just ignored or not answeared.
Title: antartica
Post by: DrQuak on June 19, 2006, 06:23:22 PM
of course you can have cold molten rock, cold molten rock is rock that is near the solidification temperature.


course i wouldn't want to handle it, it would probably burn you.


but you really shouldn't think that everything hotter than 25 degrees is hot and everything colder than 25 degrees is cold.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 19, 2006, 07:08:40 PM
Engineer: As atmosphere and its contents have not been explained, i just figured they were all over the place, especially since the elephants and turtle need to breath something
Title: antartica
Post by: noobschoolbus on June 19, 2006, 07:10:24 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Engineer: As atmosphere and its contents have not been explained, i just figured they were all over the place, especially since the elephants and turtle need to breath something


what about food? theyll die lololololoolololo


and those are some big fucking elephants and turtles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 20, 2006, 03:21:59 AM
Quote from: "noobschoolbus"

what about food? theyll die lololololoolololo


and those are some big fucking elephants and turtles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Hardly anyone on these forums believe in the animals under the Earth story. Stop shitting up the thread.
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 20, 2006, 07:56:19 AM
Yes, the Flat Earth theory does not have to include the turtle and elephants. Quite on the contrary. We are not gullible enough to believe some religious, crackpot theory like that. we are men of science, who have been seen the government scam unveiled, and stive to make the truth about Earth known.
Title: antartica
Post by: Jeff Hatfield on June 20, 2006, 08:40:14 AM
what keeps the air on the flat earth?  Don't you think it would just spill over the sides
Title: antartica
Post by: DrQuak on June 20, 2006, 09:30:29 AM
tbh FE or RE, broadly which ever you beleive it most likely isn't due to science and is perhaps more to do with gullibility. however if one significantly feared he was wrong there are several experiments you could do that aren't too expensive. Some have been discribed on this forum, for example measuring the length of a shadow at the (equinox i beleive?)

there is also the free hanging pendulum - however that requires you to go to both south and north of the equator.

Then you could simply get a cheap laser, access to a large placid water body (like a canal), put the laser x inches above the water level and see over distance if the level of the laser what happens to the level of the laser beam.


or of course you could just join the Nasa space program and see if it is a big cover up =)
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 20, 2006, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: Jeff Hatfield
what keeps the air on the flat earth?  Don't you think it would just spill over the sides

The 40000ft ice wall which encircles the Earth at the so-called "South Pole".
Title: antartica
Post by: Sepulchre on June 20, 2006, 11:50:56 AM
So the atmosphere only extends 40000 ft from the surface of the earth?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 20, 2006, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: Sepulchre
So the atmosphere only extends 40000 ft from the surface of the earth?

That's right. I mean, it might sort of heap up a bit in the middle but 40000ft is about its average height.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: VTI on June 20, 2006, 12:49:47 PM
Then how come I can breath when I fly in a plane? I've flowing in single engine planes with the window open, and I was much higher up than 40000 feet.
Quote from: Dogplatter
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.
WHAT? Penguin fossils were discovered in Australia, South America, South Africa and Antarctica in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Sailors discovered penguins in the 15th century. Many expeditions were made to Antarctica prior to the 1900s and they all, no doubt, ran into penguins.
History of Penguins (http://www.eliasdesigns.com/penguins/history.htm)
Notes  on a 1903 expedition to Antarctica, featuring PENGUINS. (http://www.nahste.ac.uk/cgi-bin/view_isad.pl?id=GB-0248-DC-404&view=basic)
A history of Antarctica, also mentioning penguins in 1903 (http://www.antarcticaonline.com/antarctica/history/history.htm)
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on June 20, 2006, 12:58:22 PM
Quote from: VTI
Then how come I can breath when I fly in a plane? I've flowing in single engine planes with the window open, and I was much higher up than 40000 feet.

Like I said, it heaps up the closer to the middle it gets. I bet you haven't flown open-windowed planes within 500 or so miles of the "south pole", right?

Quote from: VTI
WHAT? Penguin fossils were discovered in Australia, South America, South Africa and Antarctica in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Sailors discovered penguins in the 15th century. Many expeditions were made to Antarctica prior to the 1900s and they all, no doubt, ran into penguins.
History of Penguins (http://www.eliasdesigns.com/penguins/history.htm)
Notes  on a 1903 expedition to Antarctica, featuring PENGUINS. (http://www.nahste.ac.uk/cgi-bin/view_isad.pl?id=GB-0248-DC-404&view=basic)
A history of Antarctica, also mentioning penguins in 1903 (http://www.antarcticaonline.com/antarctica/history/history.htm)

Oh sure, "Sailors" discovered "penguins" in the "15th century". How can we possibly confirm this? The British Natural History Museum is run by the British government, and C.A. Larsen could easily be a made up figure designed to confirm the existence of penguins before 1960.
Title: antartica
Post by: VTI on June 20, 2006, 01:15:46 PM
But then you could say that about everything that has ever existed. Are you skeptical about everything you've ever heard? Are you one of those people that believes the Holocaust was made up? If you can't believe information like this, you might as well throw out every piece of information ever acquired and chalk it up to a conspiracy theory of some kind. Have you ever visited China? Well maybe it doesn't exist just because you haven't been there.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 20, 2006, 01:21:09 PM
Quote from: "VTI"
But then you could say that about everything that has ever existed. Are you skeptical about everything you've ever heard? Are you one of those people that believes the Holocaust was made up? If you can't believe information like this, you might as well throw out every piece of information ever acquired and chalk it up to a conspiracy theory of some kind. Have you ever visited China? Well maybe it doesn't exist just because you haven't been there.


No, I believe that the holocaust happened. I also believe in China. Why wouldn't I? I only question items of science, history and geography which have some reason to be made up.
Title: antartica
Post by: psouza4 on June 20, 2006, 02:03:20 PM
If there's no reliable (read: trustworthy) record of discoveries for penguin fossils to prove they weren't genetically created, then there's also none to prove they don't -- or for that matter any other animal.  This no more proves penguins were human creations as it disproves them.

How do you know that they were created (other than because it conveniently fits your theories)?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 20, 2006, 02:19:50 PM
Quote from: "psouza4"
If there's no reliable (read: trustworthy) record of discoveries for penguin fossils to prove they weren't genetically created, then there's also none to prove they don't -- or for that matter any other animal.  This no more proves penguins were human creations as it disproves them.

How do you know that they were created (other than because it conveniently fits your theories)?


The fossil records of human evolution are vastly more comprehensive than those of Antarctic penguins.

Yes, I believe they were created because it fits my other theories and isn't disproved by comprehensive fossil evidence. What's wrong with that? In scientific reasoning we often assume something to be true because other things point to it or fit with it.
Title: antartica
Post by: psouza4 on June 20, 2006, 02:31:42 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "psouza4"
If there's no reliable (read: trustworthy) record of discoveries for penguin fossils to prove they weren't genetically created, then there's also none to prove they don't -- or for that matter any other animal.  This no more proves penguins were human creations as it disproves them.

How do you know that they were created (other than because it conveniently fits your theories)?


The fossil records of human evolution are vastly more comprehensive than those of Antarctic penguins.

Yes, I believe they were created because it fits my other theories and isn't disproved by comprehensive fossil evidence. What's wrong with that? In scientific reasoning we often assume something to be true because other things point to it or fit with it.


Sorry to resort to this: but that's just an absurd perspective.

You can't rationalize that because the human race, which has evolved and multiplied more than most any other animal all over the planet, has more fossils, than that of a population of arctic creatures in a barely-explored location, that it's indicative of anything other than we are far more plentiful and live in easier-to-excavate areas than they.

Also, if penguins were genetically created, wouldn't there be a conspiracy to plant more evidence supporting that they've been around for longer?

Of course that leads us to a connundrum where there's no way to prove penguins weren't created because we are "damned if we do, damned if we don't."

And to answer your question: logical induction by process of elimination is a reasonable science.  But it relies on the elimination of other possibilities, which you have not (you make very few attempts at disproving RE in your championing of FE theories).
Title: antartica
Post by: god on June 20, 2006, 02:38:12 PM
so dog platter.....question...if i may

lets assume you are correct, and penguins were just "created 40 yrs ago in a russian lab to feed the ice wall gaurdians" (can't believe i just said that seriously...wow...just...wow...)

so ok these geneticly engineered gaurdian feeders live on a soild chuck of ice.....with no land eh?

well regaurdless of weather or not these penguins were created 45 years ago, or eons ago.....how could man have found any fossilized remains?

fossils are comprised of animal bones deposited in sediment. and through a process of calcification these bones become infused with the minerals from the surrounding soil....hence preserving the bones and encasing them in soil which becomes rock through time, heat, pressure, and other such geological proceses.....

how then could there possibly be fossilized remains of a penguin if they have existed in this polar atmosphere. they would have either been eaten by sea animals (killer whales, sharks, ect....). and any and all penguins that perish on the ice mass itself would surley be incased in ice, then as the ice sheet grows thier carcases would float out to sea in the pack ice.

either way the bones of these penguins would be deposited on the nearby ocean floor.

so which seems more plausable?

that the environment itself isn't condusive to producing fosilized remains of penguins, or even finding them if they exist....

or....

that 45 years ago scientists working for a top secret "government" project invented penguins to sustain the ice wall gaurdians....

i'm leaning twords the first one. but i'm anxiously awaiting your response to this....you seem to be the most "colorfull" member i've seen post here so far....

oh almost forgot.....what did these ice wall gaurdians eat before the advent of geneticly enginered penguins to munch on.....soylent green perhaps?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 20, 2006, 02:40:04 PM
Quote from: "psouza4"

You can't rationalize that because the human race, which has evolved and multiplied more than most any other animal all over the planet, has more fossils, than that of a population of arctic creatures in a barely-explored location, that it's indicative of anything other than we are far more plentiful and live in easier-to-excavate areas than they.


I'm not talking about random human graves being dug up and examined, I'm talking about examples of Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus and all our other evolutionary ancestors which have been found in specific locations (many of which are poorly explored). There isn't nearly such a satisfactory chain for penguins, and yet we've really just as much chance of finding a penguin missing link in some remote climb as we do a human one (or should have).

Quote from: "psouza4"

Also, if penguins were genetically created, wouldn't there be a conspiracy to plant more evidence supporting that they've been around for longer?


There is a small penguin evolution conspiracy. The British Natural History Museum invents characters like C.A. Larsen who supposedly met penguins in the 1900's, and a few bogus fossils are provided, but they really don't bother with a watertight evolutionary chain for penguins because hardly anybody cares or would suppose that penguins didn't just evolve like all other animals did.


Quote from: "psouza4"

Of course that leads us to a connundrum where there's no way to prove penguins weren't created because we are "damned if we do, damned if we don't."


How so? If you can prove that penguins weren't created, be my guest. I assure you that you won't be damned. (I don't really understand your statement here by the way, so I'm just taking it literally).

Quote from: "psouza4"

And to answer your question: logical induction by process of elimination is a reasonable science.  But it relies on the elimination of other possibilities, which you have not (you make very few attempts at disproving RE in your championing of FE theories).


That's because I'm so busy defending FE against the constant onslaught of ridicule and attempted disproving. As soon as I get the chance I'll investigate evidence which disproves RE theory.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 20, 2006, 02:54:33 PM
Quote from: "god"
so dog platter.....question...if i may

lets assume you are correct, and penguins were just "created 40 yrs ago in a russian lab to feed the ice wall gaurdians" (can't believe i just said that seriously...wow...just...wow...)

so ok these geneticly engineered gaurdian feeders live on a soild chuck of ice.....with no land eh?

well regaurdless of weather or not these penguins were created 45 years ago, or eons ago.....how could man have found any fossilized remains?

fossils are comprised of animal bones deposited in sediment. and through a process of calcification these bones become infused with the minerals from the surrounding soil....hence preserving the bones and encasing them in soil which becomes rock through time, heat, pressure, and other such geological proceses.....

how then could there possibly be fossilized remains of a penguin if they have existed in this polar atmosphere. they would have either been eaten by sea animals (killer whales, sharks, ect....). and any and all penguins that perish on the ice mass itself would surley be incased in ice, then as the ice sheet grows thier carcases would float out to sea in the pack ice.

either way the bones of these penguins would be deposited on the nearby ocean floor.

so which seems more plausable?

that the environment itself isn't condusive to producing fosilized remains of penguins, or even finding them if they exist....

or....

that 45 years ago scientists working for a top secret "government" project invented penguins to sustain the ice wall gaurdians....

i'm leaning twords the first one. but i'm anxiously awaiting your response to this....you seem to be the most "colorfull" member i've seen post here so far....


Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment.

The conspiracy claims that penguins evolved on seperate continents as well, and either swam between them and Antarctica, or waddled across when Antarctica and "Australia, South America, South Africa" to quote VTI on some areas of "penguin origin". Why then do the fossil records from Australia, South America, South Africa, some of the most fossil-friendly areas in the world (a plethora of dinosaur fossils have been found in these areas) yield such appaulingly incomplete evidence of penguin evolution. Sure, bogus fossil here and there, but where are the missing links? What did penguins evolve from originally? They're not much like other birds, yet the conspiracy keeps telling us that they are, in fact, birds.
Title: antartica
Post by: god on June 20, 2006, 02:59:15 PM
wow....well doesn't that differ from your opinion that penguins were invented to sustain the ice wall gaurdians?

please pick one stance or another, because i have an equally legitemate rubutal to which ever one you decide on...

and i don't want to hear what "the conspiracy theory" says....i want to hear you're definition, as you were the one who proposed the genetic manipulation of birds and otters theory....

hence the "colorfull" comment.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 20, 2006, 03:03:22 PM
Quote from: "god"
wow....well doesn't that differ from your opinion that penguins were invented to sustain the ice wall gaurdians?

please pick one stance or another, because i have an equally legitemate rubutal to which ever one you decide on...

and i don't want to hear what "the conspiracy theory" says....i want to hear you're definition, as you were the one who proposed the genetic manipulation of birds and otters theory....

hence the "colorfull" comment.


No, I consistently maintain that penguins were genetically engineered. In my last post, I put forward that ASSUMING they "evolved in Australia etc.," which is what was claimed by VTI, then there would be ample fossil evidence for their evolution. There is not, which means either they did not evolve in all these places, or they did not evolve at all.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 20, 2006, 03:09:25 PM
Everyone does realize that there are also penguins living in south america, another support for the Pangaea thoery, as they evolved from a common ancestor.  This also proves that they were not "created" in the sixties, as they are part of customs in south america (at least that area), and there would be no point in creating south american penguins, unless the scientists are smart enough to foresee this exact conversation.  And if that were possible, why not go and kill your ancestors, to stop your foul influence in breaking the "conspiracy"
Title: antartica
Post by: god on June 20, 2006, 03:17:07 PM
ok fine...both then

first i'll deal with the "evolutionary problem"

just as with marine iguannas and giant tortises, a specific species that has been land locked (stranded somewhere and isolated from it's lineage) can develop to best suit it's environment.

so assuming there is many "ancestors" of penguins these penguins would have found thier way to antartica (probably on floatsom of fallen trees carried by the currents) they would have no way to return. once whatever means of thier arival was no longer available the species would then begin to evolve to suit thier new environment. the process of natural selection would surely take hold and begin to select the most suited traits to survive in such an inhospitable environment.

any and all remains of said evolution would have met the same fate as i described above (carried out to sea by either predators, or sea ice) and therfore have been deposited at the bottom of the surrounding sea.

now onto you're theory.....

if this were the case (penguins being developed in a lab) then how could the ice wall gaurdians have survived so long without this geneticly engineered food source.

also why not just invent some sort of fishing robot, or a plant which could produce food in a cold environment? why go through the lengthy process of developing a mamal....as this was surly a much more difficult and therefore un-necessary step, in this massive cover up.

i mean why go to such lenghts to "invent" and entirly new species of animal, just to provide food, when other means seem so much more efficient and easy to acomplish?

almost forgot this as well....hope you catch it.....

also how do you explain the many species of non artic penguins which exist in other parts of the southern hemisphere. were thoes also created in a lab? and if so, for what purpose?
Title: antartica
Post by: god on June 20, 2006, 04:22:30 PM
if any other FE's decide to jump in here i'd appreciate it....it appears mr dogplatter (must be from korea) has gone to bed for the evening. it's probably rather late there by now.
Title: antartica
Post by: DrQuak on June 20, 2006, 04:26:05 PM
well tbh it isn't that hard to breed an animal to certain conditions, we've been doing it for centuries wiht dogs, cats, cows, pigs, sheep, horses, etc
Title: antartica
Post by: god on June 20, 2006, 04:38:42 PM
no no....thats not what he said.....he specificly said that russian scientist geneticly engineered them from otters and birds, back in the 60's. i'm beggining to belive that wasn't the only thing going on back in the 60's. wonder what kind of spider webs dogplatter would have spun back then?
Title: antartica
Post by: VTI on June 20, 2006, 04:42:54 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Yes, I believe they were created because it fits my other theories and isn't disproved by comprehensive fossil evidence. What's wrong with that? In scientific reasoning we often assume something to be true because other things point to it or fit with it.
so when you find inconsistencies in your theory you just make shit up and proclaim it to be the truth? That's not scientific reasoning, it's insanity.
Title: antartica
Post by: god on June 20, 2006, 05:00:57 PM
well drquack....because my new frined almond boneless chicken has had his tea and crumpets and tucked himself in for the night....mabey you can respond to the idea that finding penguin fossils would be inherently difficult due to the frozen environment. you seem like another FE'er so i'd love for someone to attempt to debate me.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Loadsofdumbasses on June 20, 2006, 05:53:51 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.

Penguins were deliberately engineered to be very easy to catch (hence their lack of flight), but also to be extremely efficient at catching and eating fish. It is economically easier for conspiracy ice-wall guards to have penguins indirectly harvest fish for them, then shoot or trap the fish-filled penguins with ease.

In answer to your other question - yes, March of the Penguins was filmed in a studio. Those penguins were probably animatronic replicas though, because the government can't afford to use large numbers of penguins except for feeding ice-wall guards.


You're such an idiot.  I nearly fell out of my chair after reading that.
Title: antartica
Post by: god on June 20, 2006, 05:58:10 PM
you gotta give the dude props for imagination.....

i mean seriously bro....where do you get your weed

"from you donte"

oh hey mr chibles whats up!!!
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 21, 2006, 03:33:43 AM
Quote from: "god"

first i'll deal with the "evolutionary problem"

just as with marine iguannas and giant tortises, a specific species that has been land locked (stranded somewhere and isolated from it's lineage) can develop to best suit it's environment.

so assuming there is many "ancestors" of penguins these penguins would have found thier way to antartica (probably on floatsom of fallen trees carried by the currents) they would have no way to return. once whatever means of thier arival was no longer available the species would then begin to evolve to suit thier new environment. the process of natural selection would surely take hold and begin to select the most suited traits to survive in such an inhospitable environment.

any and all remains of said evolution would have met the same fate as i described above (carried out to sea by either predators, or sea ice) and therfore have been deposited at the bottom of the surrounding sea.


Ok, you've managed to account for the lack of fossil evidence in Antarctica specifically (entirely through speculation, but your argument is plausible), but why is the lineage of penguin ancestors (penguins from South America/Australia or wherever so sparse? These areas are idea for producing fossils.

Quote from: "god"

if this were the case (penguins being developed in a lab) then how could the ice wall gaurdians have survived so long without this geneticly engineered food source.


They probably fished, but as I said, this would have been less efficient than having a secondary consumer catch the fish and then be caught itself, especially a consumer designed for this purpose.

Quote from: "god"

also why not just invent some sort of fishing robot, or a plant which could produce food in a cold environment? why go through the lengthy process of developing a mamal....as this was surly a much more difficult and therefore un-necessary step, in this massive cover up.


Fishing robot? That's pretty absurd. Computer technology today isn't really even up to creating an AI powerful enough to catch fish and return them safely to land as ready-to-eat blubber. Even if it just about was, it would be incredibly expensive compared with gene-splicing to create penguins. As for plants which produce food in a cold environment, that seems a little far-fetched too. How could members of the military carry out their duties in a freezing climate on an exclusive diet of plants?

Quote from: "god"

i mean why go to such lenghts to "invent" and entirly new species of animal, just to provide food, when other means seem so much more efficient and easy to acomplish?


Fishing robots and super-plants? Much easier  :roll:

Quote from: "god"

almost forgot this as well....hope you catch it.....

also how do you explain the many species of non artic penguins which exist in other parts of the southern hemisphere. were thoes also created in a lab? and if so, for what purpose?


To make people believe that penguins evolved there and either travelled across "Pangea" or floated to Antarctica on fallen trees, whichever one most strikes your fancy. They didn't bother to forumlate satisfactory fossil records for penguins though, even in South America/Australia etc.
Title: antartica
Post by: FlatAnus on June 21, 2006, 05:50:28 AM
dude, I tried explaining fossils to them, and lava and tornados. Fossils were really created by tribal craftsmen east of gambia to trade on the international market, antique dealers caught on and the rest was history.
Penguins? This is no place for fairy tales!
Title: antartica
Post by: god on June 21, 2006, 11:13:56 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "god"

first i'll deal with the "evolutionary problem"

just as with marine iguannas and giant tortises, a specific species that has been land locked (stranded somewhere and isolated from it's lineage) can develop to best suit it's environment.

so assuming there is many "ancestors" of penguins these penguins would have found thier way to antartica (probably on floatsom of fallen trees carried by the currents) they would have no way to return. once whatever means of thier arival was no longer available the species would then begin to evolve to suit thier new environment. the process of natural selection would surely take hold and begin to select the most suited traits to survive in such an inhospitable environment.

any and all remains of said evolution would have met the same fate as i described above (carried out to sea by either predators, or sea ice) and therfore have been deposited at the bottom of the surrounding sea.


Ok, you've managed to account for the lack of fossil evidence in Antarctica specifically (entirely through speculation, but your argument is plausible), but why is the lineage of penguin ancestors (penguins from South America/Australia or wherever so sparse? These areas are idea for producing fossils.

Quote from: "god"

if this were the case (penguins being developed in a lab) then how could the ice wall gaurdians have survived so long without this geneticly engineered food source.


They probably fished, but as I said, this would have been less efficient than having a secondary consumer catch the fish and then be caught itself, especially a consumer designed for this purpose.

Quote from: "god"

also why not just invent some sort of fishing robot, or a plant which could produce food in a cold environment? why go through the lengthy process of developing a mamal....as this was surly a much more difficult and therefore un-necessary step, in this massive cover up.


Fishing robot? That's pretty absurd. Computer technology today isn't really even up to creating an AI powerful enough to catch fish and return them safely to land as ready-to-eat blubber. Even if it just about was, it would be incredibly expensive compared with gene-splicing to create penguins. As for plants which produce food in a cold environment, that seems a little far-fetched too. How could members of the military carry out their duties in a freezing climate on an exclusive diet of plants?

Quote from: "god"

i mean why go to such lenghts to "invent" and entirly new species of animal, just to provide food, when other means seem so much more efficient and easy to acomplish?


Fishing robots and super-plants? Much easier  :roll:

Quote from: "god"

almost forgot this as well....hope you catch it.....

also how do you explain the many species of non artic penguins which exist in other parts of the southern hemisphere. were thoes also created in a lab? and if so, for what purpose?


To make people believe that penguins evolved there and either travelled across "Pangea" or floated to Antarctica on fallen trees, whichever one most strikes your fancy. They didn't bother to forumlate satisfactory fossil records for penguins though, even in South America/Australia etc.


wow...ok so fishing robots are more absurd than geneticly engineered penguins....reallllllllyyyyyy

we don't have penguin fossils just as we don't have fossils of eyeballs.

the probability of fossilized remains of an artic semi-aquatic species is astronomical. as i stated above. also as with any aquatic/marine mammal you are going to have a hard time finding fossilized remains on land, because they most likely die in the water. they return to land for saftey. thats the one place you won't find dead ones.

so untill we enter another ice age, and the planets water is locked up in polar (or wall...lol) ice then these fossils will remain underwater. as you probably know, the only time we find fossils of sea/ocean fishes is on dried up lake/sea beds, and land that had at one point been under water for great lengths of time. at our curent state we are at about a 1/2 way mark. during an ice age we'd see much more land mass, and during a warm period we'd all be clinging to k-2 to stay dry.
Title: antartica
Post by: pringles on June 21, 2006, 11:24:14 AM
im a student interested in medical science and marine biology, i was wandering, whats the probability that pangea ever existed? yes, there is fossils spread.. explained by dogplatter what more proof do we need? Whats to say anyone here isnt a govornment official.. it could be a person disagreeing with these theorys to put forward and argument that "surely must be true" or whats to say someone coming up with absurd theories isnt and agent putting forward these to strengthen our belief in the RE? personally i believe a FE is entirely possible, the ice wall seems plausable and the penguins used to sustain wall workers, that seems entirely likely and economic.
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 21, 2006, 11:51:10 AM
Quote

we don't have penguin fossils just as we don't have fossils of eyeballs.


Are you trying to say, good sir, that penguins do not have bones?!

I think this claim is much more unlikely than russian scientists genetically engineering penguins. A beast exsisting without bones would truly be a feat to witness, whereas genetic engineering is relatively easy, and I know.
Title: antartica
Post by: god on June 21, 2006, 12:10:17 PM
wow...the level of retardation here never seases to amaze me....

ok one more time for you folks riding the short bus.

penguins live on ice, and in the water.

they spend an equal ammount of time in both.

the only time they are at risk, is in the water, as posed by killer whales and sharks (preditors)

so the most likely place a penguin would die...would be in the water. where the bones would be deposited on the sea floor, rather than on land.

the few that do perrish on the ice, would be frozen solid, and eventually thier carcasses would move out to sea in the pack ice, which then melts, and deposits thier bones (again) on the sea floor.

thereby making finding a fossilized remains of a penguin on land rather improbable.

why is that so hard to comprehend.....oh wait, thats right....you people think the earth is flat....what did i expect
Title: antartica
Post by: FungusMcUncle on June 21, 2006, 04:00:29 PM
Everyone - bollocks!! I saw a penguin doco the other night and big seals were coming onto the land and pillaging the penguins, which exploded blood and gizzards everywhere, firmly debunking the robotic/genetically engineered penguin argument. 3D computer graphics can't fake those effects like blood seeping into ice and flesh tearing.
Title: antartica
Post by: Stonicus on June 21, 2006, 04:18:30 PM
Quote from: "god"

thereby making finding a fossilized remains of a penguin on land rather improbable.

What makes it impossible, is since penguins were invented in the 1900's or whatever through genetic engineering, their remains wouldn't have had time to "fossilize".  Yet, they are.  Or, did Big Brother fabricate these fossils and place them there?
Title: antartica
Post by: Binxsy on June 21, 2006, 04:40:57 PM
I KNOW SOMEONE THAT WENT TO ANTARTICA.

I checked to see if he has had some part of his brain removed and no he did not. He showed me pictures.

My friend has a friend who worked in antartica. He told me he is very well adjusted and no goverment goon just scientists.

With so many internet videos avaible do you no think that someone would have had some image of this ice wall? I mean there are sites like muchsucko.com with days of useless shit on it or yourtube. com.


Also cold light from the moon?

How? Explain......
Title: antartica
Post by: levilsirfiss on June 21, 2006, 09:52:27 PM
dont compisis go bad in antartica???
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 21, 2006, 11:31:53 PM
in the RE model they are supposed to iirc, because the the fact that it is the south pole, or close enough to it
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 22, 2006, 04:08:14 AM
Quote from: "FungusMcUncle"
Everyone - bollocks!! I saw a penguin doco the other night and big seals were coming onto the land and pillaging the penguins, which exploded blood and gizzards everywhere, firmly debunking the robotic/genetically engineered penguin argument. 3D computer graphics can't fake those effects like blood seeping into ice and flesh tearing.


I never said penguins were robots, read the thread! You can't eat robots. A genetically engineered animal is just an animal born via gene manipulation, it's still got guts and gizzards.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 22, 2006, 04:10:27 AM
Quote from: "god"
wow...the level of retardation here never seases to amaze me....

ok one more time for you folks riding the short bus.

penguins live on ice, and in the water.

they spend an equal ammount of time in both.

the only time they are at risk, is in the water, as posed by killer whales and sharks (preditors)

so the most likely place a penguin would die...would be in the water. where the bones would be deposited on the sea floor, rather than on land.

the few that do perrish on the ice, would be frozen solid, and eventually thier carcasses would move out to sea in the pack ice, which then melts, and deposits thier bones (again) on the sea floor.

thereby making finding a fossilized remains of a penguin on land rather improbable.

why is that so hard to comprehend.....oh wait, thats right....you people think the earth is flat....what did i expect


Yeah, I was asking why, if as you claim, penguins evolved in South America, Australia and other places as well, there is such appauling fossil evidence for their evolution there AS WELL. Ain't no pack ice, polar bears or killer whales in Australia, fossils should be plentiful if penguins did actually evolve there.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 22, 2006, 04:15:07 AM
Quote from: "Binxsy"
I KNOW SOMEONE THAT WENT TO ANTARTICA.

I checked to see if he has had some part of his brain removed and no he did not. He showed me pictures.

My friend has a friend who worked in antartica. He told me he is very well adjusted and no goverment goon just scientists.


Why would the goons just wander around him? Even if it actually was Antarctica he was in, they'd have cover stories, or just stay out of his way entirely.

"Your Friend: Hey there, what are you doing in Antarctica?
Man: Oh, I'm a government stooge. My job is to stop people coming near the ice wall because by the way, the Earth is actually flat."

Quote from: "Binxsy"

With so many internet videos avaible do you no think that someone would have had some image of this ice wall? I mean there are sites like muchsucko.com with days of useless shit on it or yourtube. com.


But hardly anyone's looking for the ice wall. Everyone believes the Earth is round because they're conspiracy educated.

Quote from: "Binxsy"

Also cold light from the moon?

How? Explain......


I interpret the "cold light" idea as just a bad way of wording the fact that the Moon emits very little light or heat compared with the Sun.
Title: antartica
Post by: Binxsy on June 22, 2006, 07:59:07 AM
What do you mean the cardboard eye of popeye in the sky with spinach radiates heat?


Serioulsy i do not think this is tru i dont think even mercury could radiate enought heat to warm us or whatever. say do you guys have a solar system model? Im really wondering how this works...
Title: antartica
Post by: Professor Sphincter on June 22, 2006, 03:28:38 PM
Quote

What do you mean the cardboard eye of popeye in the sky with spinach radiates heat?


Excuse me sir?
Title: antartica
Post by: god on June 22, 2006, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "god"
wow...the level of retardation here never seases to amaze me....

ok one more time for you folks riding the short bus.

penguins live on ice, and in the water.

they spend an equal ammount of time in both.

the only time they are at risk, is in the water, as posed by killer whales and sharks (preditors)

so the most likely place a penguin would die...would be in the water. where the bones would be deposited on the sea floor, rather than on land.

the few that do perrish on the ice, would be frozen solid, and eventually thier carcasses would move out to sea in the pack ice, which then melts, and deposits thier bones (again) on the sea floor.

thereby making finding a fossilized remains of a penguin on land rather improbable.

why is that so hard to comprehend.....oh wait, thats right....you people think the earth is flat....what did i expect


Yeah, I was asking why, if as you claim, penguins evolved in South America, Australia and other places as well, there is such appauling fossil evidence for their evolution there AS WELL. Ain't no pack ice, polar bears or killer whales in Australia, fossils should be plentiful if penguins did actually evolve there.


still having trouble i see....

ok hopefully the last time i'll have to muddle through this with you...

these fossils you speak of, they depict and refect upon the evolution of african and aulstrailian penguins. it's not like the antartic penguin would have evolved in africa, then decided it was more suited for cooler climates and took a swin south (rimward...lol)

it doesn't work like that.

the idea behind evolution is aplication of natural selection. once the penguins became stranded in the artic they began to evolve to best suit thier new climate. so any and all evolutionary evidence of said process would have met the fate i described already. you would see the evolution of the non-artic penguins, but you'd have a hard time finding the fossils of artic penguins unless you started diggin around on the ocean floor surrounding the south pole (or ice wall for you nut jobs).

so.....pepper steak......you following along here or did the government agents intercept you in route to reality?
Title: antartica
Post by: FungusMcUncle on June 22, 2006, 04:51:02 PM
My point dog platter is that they were acting like...penguins, normal animals only concerned about quaffing fish, rooting and rearing their young, if you think a penguin would taste good, that proves your brains are in your anal region.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 06:08:59 AM
Quote

still having trouble i see....

ok hopefully the last time i'll have to muddle through this with you...

these fossils you speak of, they depict and refect upon the evolution of african and aulstrailian penguins. it's not like the antartic penguin would have evolved in africa, then decided it was more suited for cooler climates and took a swin south (rimward...lol)

it doesn't work like that.

the idea behind evolution is aplication of natural selection. once the penguins became stranded in the artic they began to evolve to best suit thier new climate. so any and all evolutionary evidence of said process would have met the fate i described already. you would see the evolution of the non-artic penguins, but you'd have a hard time finding the fossils of artic penguins unless you started diggin around on the ocean floor surrounding the south pole (or ice wall for you nut jobs).

so.....pepper steak......you following along here or did the government agents intercept you in route to reality?


I get what you're saying. This isn't a bad explanation for why there are no penguin fossils in Antarctica, but it still doesn't provide proof that penguins DID evolve, just offers an explanation for how they might have.[/quote]
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 25, 2006, 10:37:33 AM
Dogplatter... its is situations like this that help explain pangaea, it shows a basic impossiblity, i.e. african penguins swimming to antarctica, because they are suited to africa, and antarcitca's climate and suck would kill them, but a slow land migration would perfectly explain how it became suited to antarctic conditions... and by land migration, i acutally mean the land migrating, as in continental drift
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 12:24:30 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Dogplatter... its is situations like this that help explain pangaea, it shows a basic impossiblity, i.e. african penguins swimming to antarctica, because they are suited to africa, and antarcitca's climate and suck would kill them, but a slow land migration would perfectly explain how it became suited to antarctic conditions... and by land migration, i acutally mean the land migrating, as in continental drift


African penguins swimming to Antarctica is impossible, yeah. Antarctica's climate and such would kill them. But a genetic engineering program tested in a cold place would perfectly explain how they became suited to Antarctic conditions.

I can use the exact same style of argument to you with no less validity to explain my point.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 25, 2006, 12:29:52 PM
So your saying that it is not a valid point, that the climate of antarctica is fundamentally different from Africa's.  As you probably know, every creature in this world, beside human kind, fits into a niche, a certain set of conditions that have to be around for the creature to survive.  This can change through adaptation, which is the whole point of evolution.  A genetic engineering program would be feasable, if the penguin did not exist before than in many different places, such as South America, which would support the pangaean theory, as a split would eb entirely feasable as well, and there have been penguins before the sixties im sure
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 25, 2006, 12:31:36 PM
in fact, i just checked wikipedia, and one of their sources is a book written in 1956, which last time i checked was before the sixties
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
in fact, i just checked wikipedia, and one of their sources is a book written in 1956, which last time i checked was before the sixties


Wikipedia is editable by anyone with internet access, and since almost the entire Western world believes Round Earth Theory (Twinned with penguin evolution theory and probably stupid dinosaur theory as well), it's not surprising that Wikipedia articles reflect these false beliefs.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 25, 2006, 12:39:33 PM
hey what a surprise this has never happened before, something directly shows your views to be false and.... CONSPIRACY
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 12:48:57 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
hey what a surprise this has never happened before, something directly shows your views to be false and.... CONSPIRACY


I'm not saying conspiracy, all I'm saying is that in a medium where all parties have essentially equal editing rights, the majority view is certain to prevail. This is common sense, not crackpot conspiracy theory.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 25, 2006, 12:51:51 PM
the only way this would happen is if someone from this forum did it, as your theory is not documented and published, as far as i know, and they would have to create the book, site it, and so forth
Title: antartica
Post by: Mephistopheles on June 25, 2006, 12:54:36 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
the only way this would happen is if someone from this forum did it, as your theory is not documented and published, as far as i know, and they would have to create the book, site it, and so forth


There has been numerous books on the Flat Earth Movement and has a number of members.

I suggest consulting with Dionysios about this one.  He is probably the most knowledgeable of the history of The Flat Earth Movement.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 25, 2006, 12:59:28 PM
Meph, i think you might have missed the point of this one, on wikipedia there is a book published in 1956 disproving his crackpot theory of penguins.  So it isnt FE book, its a penguin book
Title: antartica
Post by: Mephistopheles on June 25, 2006, 01:00:13 PM
Oh, penguins.

That was rather off topic then.

Excuse me, gentlemen.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 01:14:34 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Meph, i think you might have missed the point of this one, on wikipedia there is a book published in 1956 disproving his crackpot theory of penguins.  So it isnt FE book, its a penguin book


Yeah - and my point is that just about 99.9% of the Earth's population believe that penguins evolved. That's why the Wikipedia article, and the book about penguins, says they did.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 01, 2006, 09:39:36 AM
Ok... id say its more like 99.9999999999%, considering you made the theory up, most people wouldnt believe it on this site, and im sure it hasnt leaked out much.

but either way, if there is a book in 1956 proclaiming the evolution of penguins, the animal itself couldnt be created four years later, it just simply is not possible, as some information would have to be compiled for him to make a book in the first place
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 05:01:25 AM
This thread mustn't die, there are so many unanswered and under-debated questions.

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

but either way, if there is a book in 1956 proclaiming the evolution of penguins, the animal itself couldnt be created four years later, it just simply is not possible, as some information would have to be compiled for him to make a book in the first place


My estimation of "1960's" is only rough. I'm convinced, however, that the engineering took place sometime during the early years of the Cold War. The Russian government had an excuse to be covering stuff up ("military and technological secrets mustn't be leaked to America") and the USA didn't even have to worry about covering it up because the iron curtain stopped anything happening in Russia from getting out. (All the American government had to do was fill textbooks, TV shows and other media with the idea that penguins had existed for millions of years).
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Aralith on July 13, 2006, 05:26:50 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.

Penguins were deliberately engineered to be very easy to catch (hence their lack of flight), but also to be extremely efficient at catching and eating fish. It is economically easier for conspiracy ice-wall guards to have penguins indirectly harvest fish for them, then shoot or trap the fish-filled penguins with ease.

In answer to your other question - yes, March of the Penguins was filmed in a studio. Those penguins were probably animatronic replicas though, because the government can't afford to use large numbers of penguins except for feeding ice-wall guards.

False! False, false, false! The first documented sightings of penguins were in 1497 by the Portugese voyage of Vasco de Gama, fucktard! Need the link? Here you go (http://www.buschgardens.org/infobooks/Penguins/scientific.html). Let's see if we can make sure we know what we're talking about next time, okay. Plus, an otter? An otter?! That's a mammal. First off, to get two differents species that are similar to match up is pretty hard even nowadays. But to suggest a mammal and a bird was combined in the ninteenn-sixties. You are crazy! You FE's say you're so open-minded, but the minute somebody proves you wrong, it's a conspiriacy. Listen to the god damned evidence and you may still see the light. Oh by the way. While there aren't that many fossils of penguins (might have something to do with the fact that they inhabit a land covered in ice that is hard to drill through and find shit), we do still have enough to piece together a rough evolution chain. Here's the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin). May the light of science and not superstition go with you.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 06:03:19 AM
Quote from: "Aralith"

False! False, false, false! The first documented sightings of penguins were in 1497 by the Portugese voyage of Vasco de Gama, fucktard! Need the link? Here you go (http://www.buschgardens.org/infobooks/Penguins/scientific.html). Let's see if we can make sure we know what we're talking about next time, okay.


Oh sure, "documented". It's very probable that hundreds of "penguin testimonies" like this exist - distributed by the conspiracy to dupe us into thinking penguins have been around for ages.

Quote from: "Aralith"

 Plus, an otter? An otter?! That's a mammal. First off, to get two differents species that are similar to match up is pretty hard even nowadays. But to suggest a mammal and a bird was combined in the ninteenn-sixties. You are crazy!


You honestly think the level of technology that the government and media say is available accurately reflects what they're actually capable of? The esoteric pro-con scientific community is centuries ahead of what they make us think. If they're truly on the same level as we are, why are they so desperate to cordon off the Skunk works, Area 51 and all those other top-secret locations?
Title: antartica
Post by: Aralith on July 13, 2006, 06:11:57 AM
Because the people don't need to know everything. Area 51 was, in my opinion, first used as a base to set up nuclear test sites in the surrounding areas. This is probably what the Roswell Incident really was. Yes, it's true, governments try to cover up for their past mistakes, but the notion you're proposing is ridiculous. If this were true, wars could be won much faster if we just unleashed some of our "insane centuries ahead technology" and let out a can of woop-ass on our enemies. If you're going to claim conspiracy, have some evidence to back it up other than, "well that evidence proves us wrong, so we're going to come up with this elaborate conspiracy theory along with a whole slew of easily refutable weak points to make our case." I'm tired of that. If something doesn't fit with you people, you find some ridiculous excuse to throw it out. You're not a scientific school of thought, you're a religion. Science accepts new facts and admits that it was wrong in the past, so that it can get it right in the future. Science searches for truth, it does not search for facts to prove a truth it already believes in. You people excpet no other evidence, and are working towards a final goal with your "evidence". That's just plain dangerous.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 06:15:57 AM
Quote from: "Aralith"
Because the people don't need to know everything. Area 51 was, in my opinion, first used as a base to set up nuclear test sites in the surrounding areas. This is probably what the Roswell Incident really was. Yes, it's true, governments try to cover up for their past mistakes, but the notion you're proposing is ridiculous. If this were true, wars could be won much faster if we just unleashed some of our "insane centuries ahead technology" and let out a can of woop-ass on our enemies.


Would sort of defeat the point of it being kept secret though, right?

Besides, most major world powers are in cahoots about the Flat Earth. A lot of so-called "war" is just a political construct to give the illusion of national division, and in some cases to solve unemployment issues, etc.

Quote from: "Aralith"

 If you're going to claim conspiracy, have some evidence to back it up other than, "well that evidence proves us wrong, so we're going to come up with this elaborate conspiracy theory along with a whole slew of easily refutable weak points to make our case." I'm tired of that.


The evidence for the conspiracy is that the Earth is blatantly flat, yet the government and media keep telling us it's round.


Quote from: "Aralith"
You're not a scientific school of thought, you're a religion. Science accepts new facts and admits that it was wrong in the past, so that it can get it right in the future. Science searches for truth, it does not search for facts to prove a truth it already believes in. You people excpet no other evidence, and are working towards a final goal with your "evidence". That's just plain dangerous.


The same with you, or you wouldn't be all over this board yelling and raving like we were some sort of heathen infidels against your Round Earth dogma.
Title: antartica
Post by: Yardstick2006 on July 13, 2006, 06:51:29 AM
Shut up Dogplatter.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 06:56:17 AM
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Shut up Dogplatter.


You can't silence the truth!
Title: antartica
Post by: Aralith on July 13, 2006, 07:55:44 AM
I may have been shouting my views all over the place, but it doesnt' mean that I'm not open to new ideas. At least you can admit that you have a fault there and call yourself a religion. Now, you say that because the earth is so blatantly flat that anything against it is a conspiracy. Okay, show me the blatant evidence. Do you have any hard proof, like a photograph of the earth from space? Oh, that's right, you dont', but we do. Even if you believe that it's a hoax, at least it's something. I'm surprised no one's tried to say they built their own shuttle that could make it into space and doctored a photograph to make the earth look flat yet. Blatant means irrefutable. So, show me your absolutely irrefutable, hard evidence that the earth is flat.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 07:59:19 AM
Quote from: "Aralith"
I may have been shouting my views all over the place, but it doesnt' mean that I'm not open to new ideas. At least you can admit that you have a fault there and call yourself a religion


I am extremely open to new ideas - that's why I refuse to blindly believe what I was taught in school, in college, in the media, and everywhere else.
Title: antartica
Post by: Aralith on July 13, 2006, 08:07:08 AM
Yes, but now you're completely closed-minded to new ideas. You would had to have been pretty open-minded to join this in the first place (possibly bordering marginally insane), but now you don't want to accept anything new, because anything that opposes your idea is either wrong or conspiracy. And you can sing that song all day long, and because something like this can't be proved or disproved, it is defending your belief in a way. But it's making everyone else not believe any valid points you have. If everyone thinks that you're an ignorant fool, they're not going to be as willing to listen as if they thought that you wer open to new ideas.
Title: antartica
Post by: Mr Hanky on July 13, 2006, 08:08:45 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
In answer to your other question - yes, March of the Penguins was filmed in a studio. Those penguins were probably animatronic replicas though, because the government can't afford to use large numbers of penguins except for feeding ice-wall guards.


 :lol: Please stop.  My sides are splitting.  :lol:
Title: antartica
Post by: Aralith on July 13, 2006, 08:13:27 AM
I agree with you Hanky. To say that penguins acting just like they do in real life, in all aspects, can be replicated by computers and robots is absolutely insane. March of the Penguins was filmed by using real penguins in the wild, actually being chased by predators, in the flat, non ice-wall Antarctica.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 08:30:57 AM
Quote from: "Aralith"
in the flat, non ice-wall Antarctica.


Oh, woops.  :)
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 08:32:06 AM
Quote from: "Aralith"
If everyone thinks that you're an ignorant fool, they're not going to be as willing to listen as if they thought that you wer open to new ideas.


They don't though. I'm under the impression that many of the FE'ers (and hell, even some of the RE'ers) on this site respect my opinion as a fairly valid one (or at least some of my reasoning to be sound).
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 13, 2006, 10:07:53 AM
Ummm I think not Dogplatter, after the penguins, and insinuating that Dinosaurs had powertools and CAD/CAM  (in this thread, check it out), I think everyone has basically decided youre insane.

Dogplatter, saying that wars are just a "political construct" is amazingly dumb, go to any veterans society, you will be killed.  You cant fake PTSD, and you cant fool that many people into just believe theyre shooting at people, and those warm dead bodies still bleeding, how do you explain those? Surely the government isnt making animatronic replicas of people and sending real people to fight them, like in their stunning blockbuster success March of the Penguins?

How about Vietnam, PTSD can be seen in many of the veterans from that war?  Korea? Same deal

Lets even go to WW2, where in my opinion some of the greatest political minds the world has ever seen were all together on one stage.  I can go to Dresden and see ruins from the firebombings, I can go to the concentration camps and see all kinds of starvation and death (photographed of course).
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 10:47:30 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Ummm I think not Dogplatter, after the penguins, and insinuating that Dinosaurs had powertools and CAD/CAM  (in this thread, check it out), I think everyone has basically decided youre insane.


I NEVER implied that they did. My point, when I used that colourful analogy, as anyone with decent comprehension of English will gather, was that we have no idea what technology dinosaurs were capable of, so they could well have built boats.

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

Dogplatter, saying that wars are just a "political construct" is amazingly dumb, go to any veterans society, you will be killed.  You cant fake PTSD, and you cant fool that many people into just believe theyre shooting at people, and those warm dead bodies still bleeding, how do you explain those? Surely the government isnt making animatronic replicas of people and sending real people to fight them, like in their stunning blockbuster success March of the Penguins?


Ok, so the exact degree of cahoots about the true nature of the Earth is unknown. It's concievable that very real conflicts could have been fought about political matters while still keeping the shape of the Earth under wraps though.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 13, 2006, 11:07:54 AM
So youre saying Pangaea had to exist? it is either one of the other, either there was Pangaea, or there ships that can transport thosuands of animals weighing tons, and plants for thousands of miles of turbulant ocean.


If there were very real conflicts, than someone would make the threat to release the information, and say it was all opponent's fault.  Make all their people rise against them, that would be the greatest way to topple a country.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 11:09:31 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
So youre saying Pangaea had to exist? it is either one of the other, either there was Pangaea, or there ships that can transport thosuands of animals weighing tons, and plants for thousands of miles of turbulant ocean.


Yes, the ships existed. Powertools and CAD/CAM aren't prerequesites for intercontinental shipbuilding.

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

If there were very real conflicts, than someone would make the threat to release the information, and say it was all opponent's fault.  Make all their people rise against them, that would be the greatest way to topple a country.


Obviously not, since it never occured.
Title: antartica
Post by: EnCrypto on July 13, 2006, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
So youre saying Pangaea had to exist? it is either one of the other, either there was Pangaea, or there ships that can transport thosuands of animals weighing tons, and plants for thousands of miles of turbulant ocean.


Yes, the ships existed. Powertools and CAD/CAM aren't prerequesites for intercontinental shipbuilding.

For 60 ton, 100 foot long dinosaurs, they are.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 13, 2006, 11:16:45 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

If there were very real conflicts, than someone would make the threat to release the information, and say it was all opponent's fault.  Make all their people rise against them, that would be the greatest way to topple a country.


Obviously not, since it never occured.


or you know... there could be no conspiracy
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: "EnCrypto"

For 60 ton, 100 foot long dinosaurs, they are.


How do we know that it wasn't just the lightest dinosaurs that colonised? Baby versions of heavier dinosaurs (like Allosaurus and Brontosaurus) may have been escorted across the sea by more responsible, but smaller, adult dinosaurs (like Deinonychus or Protoceratops).
Title: antartica
Post by: General Dallows on July 13, 2006, 11:27:46 AM
How exactly would the tools to make these boats be build?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: "General Dallows"
How exactly would the tools to make these boats be build?


This is speculation, but I'd imagine dinosaurs would initially have used claws to grasp rocks and break them into shapes (much as humans must originally have done). Shafts for said tools would be easy to make using teeth and claws.

I'm doubtful as to whether or not the dinosaurs had mastered the art of metal extraction from ore - this is the sort of thing that would have left significant, undestroyable evidence (which it didn't).

Advanced tools of stone and wood would probably be sufficient to build a small fleet of crafts capable of intercontinental travel.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 13, 2006, 11:44:47 AM
good tools are very complicated to create.  There would also be some evidence of the tools themselves, like for example, if they were using sharp rocks as tools, I'm sure they would use them as weapons as well.  Think dinosaur with rock stabbed into its throat.

so you are trying to say that there were many types of dinosaurs with near-human intelegent, enough to overcome the predator/prey instinct.  They overcome the fear of being near an animal that was killing them by he thousands everywhere (i.e. allosaurus).
Title: antartica
Post by: EnCrypto on July 13, 2006, 01:24:06 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "EnCrypto"

For 60 ton, 100 foot long dinosaurs, they are.


How do we know that it wasn't just the lightest dinosaurs that colonised? Baby versions of heavier dinosaurs (like Allosaurus and Brontosaurus) may have been escorted across the sea by more responsible, but smaller, adult dinosaurs (like Deinonychus or Protoceratops).

Because even light ones still weighed several tons.

And if they had the capability to form an axe, they would certainly be able to only ever strip meat from their prey and never have to eat them whole, bones and all. If they had the brains you suggest, they would skin their prey and cook it, using tools, like early man did. Yet, we find no evidence on the bones of dinosaur prey, like we do on the prey of early man.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 13, 2006, 01:59:46 PM
Wow, encrypto, youre awesome, i have NOTHING to add
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 02:39:05 PM
Quote from: "EnCrypto"

Because even light ones still weighed several tons.


No they didn't. Animals like Compsognathus and Deinonychus were barely the size of a human.

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

And if they had the capability to form an axe, they would certainly be able to only ever strip meat from their prey and never have to eat them whole, bones and all. If they had the brains you suggest, they would skin their prey and cook it, using tools, like early man did. Yet, we find no evidence on the bones of dinosaur prey, like we do on the prey of early man.


Perhaps, like native Americans, they used every part of the animal (skin for clothing - which WOULD HAVE DISINTEGRATED DURING FOSSILIZATION before you ask), guts for sinews (sailing related?) which would also be biodegradable, and bones to make more advanced tools. Bone tools have never been found because fossil remains only occur in extreme, rare conditions like lava flows and tar pits, and any dinosaur smart enough to make tools would know to steer clear of these.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 02:41:40 PM
Also, bear in mind that widespread killing of other dinosaurs may have been discouraged as murder if dinosaurs had a society. Meat-eaters would probably either have feasted on corpses (soylent green style) or eaten meat substitutes, so evidence of cooking may have been very limited.
Title: antartica
Post by: EnCrypto on July 13, 2006, 02:56:54 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
No they didn't. Animals like Compsognathus and Deinonychus were barely the size of a human.

Brontosaurs weren't quite so small.

Quote
Perhaps, like native Americans, they used every part of the animal (skin for clothing - which WOULD HAVE DISINTEGRATED DURING FOSSILIZATION before you ask), guts for sinews (sailing related?) which would also be biodegradable, and bones to make more advanced tools. Bone tools have never been found because fossil remains only occur in extreme, rare conditions like lava flows and tar pits, and any dinosaur smart enough to make tools would know to steer clear of these.

First of all, fossilization is not that rare and does not occur in only those instances. Secondly, when we find dinosaur fossils, like dinosaurs that had been killed and eaten, there isn't any skin, but there is the imprint of skin etched around them.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 03:00:30 PM
Quote from: "EnCrypto"
Brontosaurs weren't quite so small.


Baby ones were probably only a little bigger than a very fat cow or horse.

Quote

First of all, fossilization is not that rare and does not occur in only those instances. Secondly, when we find dinosaur fossils, like dinosaurs that had been killed and eaten, there isn't any skin, but there is the imprint of skin etched around them.


I thought it did. How does it occur in other situations though? I was under the impression that fossils required an anaerobic environment to form into rock "casts" of bone.
Title: antartica
Post by: EnCrypto on July 13, 2006, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Baby ones were probably only a little bigger than a very fat cow or horse.

Brontos weren't even the biggest, though. I'll put it this way, dinosaurs would have to be as advanced as the Egyptian culture (if not more advanced) to be able to build a craft that could carry several tons from one continent to another. There is no way a culture that advanced and widespread could not leave a trace. Not to mention the question of what happened to them? See, a lot of dinosaurs were wiped out by environmental changes and meteors, but not the strongest (and smartest)... those evolved into modern birds and reptiles. So, why would they evolve into a dumber species?

Quote
I thought it did. How does it occur in other situations though? I was under the impression that fossils required an anaerobic environment to form into rock "casts" of bone.

In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment such as at the bottom of a lake.

If your dinosaurs were so advanced, they'd probably perform burial rituals, which would be perfect for fossilization.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 03:33:33 PM
Quote from: "EnCrypto"

Brontos weren't even the biggest, though. I'll put it this way, dinosaurs would have to be as advanced as the Egyptian culture (if not more advanced) to be able to build a craft that could carry several tons from one continent to another. There is no way a culture that advanced and widespread could not leave a trace. Not to mention the question of what happened to them? See, a lot of dinosaurs were wiped out by environmental changes and meteors, but not the strongest (and smartest)... those evolved into modern birds and reptiles. So, why would they evolve into a dumber species?


Do we know for sure that they actually died out? In the "Alternative Science" forum at this very moment, a thread by Dionysios is discussing the possibility that dinosaurs lived well into the middle ages and may still be alive today (under the pseudonyms of "dragons", "thunderbirds" and so on).

Quote

In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment such as at the bottom of a lake.


Yeah, but what intelligent, boat-building dinosaur would accidentally drown itself in a lake, or die by freezing in some stupidly cold place? A very stupid one, that's what.

Quote

If your dinosaurs were so advanced, they'd probably perform burial rituals, which would be perfect for fossilization.


Not if they pragmatically used the cadavers of their dead to build tools and sinews (for rope), and idea which I have already laid down in one of the two current dino-centric threads.
Title: antartica
Post by: EnCrypto on July 13, 2006, 03:56:51 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Do we know for sure that they actually died out? In the "Alternative Science" forum at this very moment, a thread by Dionysios is discussing the possibility that dinosaurs lived well into the middle ages and may still be alive today (under the pseudonyms of "dragons", "thunderbirds" and so on).

Yes, we know for sure. Dragon myths came about from the discovery of fossils and the mistaken belief that they were living creatures (not that the bones were alive, but that the bones were only a few weeks or maybe years old, not millions of years). What few "dragon" artifacts were collected and preserved were later proven to be dinosaur fossils.

Quote
Yeah, but what intelligent, boat-building dinosaur would accidentally drown itself in a lake, or die by freezing in some stupidly cold place? A very stupid one, that's what.

You're joking, right? Accidents have nothing to do with intelligence. And what about suicide and murder? You know, depression is very common in creatures of high intelligence. And you're suggesting they were intelligent enough to have a society with a lower murder rate than the lowest city in the country, but they didn't have a written language? They built boats (literally) impossibly large and complex boats, but nothing else? They had an advanced culture that was more widespread than any other in history, but disappeared without a trace? That is, literally, impossible.

Quote
Not if they pragmatically used the cadavers of their dead to build tools and sinews (for rope), and idea which I have already laid down in one of the two current dino-centric threads.
Sinew is too weak for rope.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 04:40:04 PM
Quote from: "EnCrypto"

Yes, we know for sure. Dragon myths came about from the discovery of fossils and the mistaken belief that they were living creatures (not that the bones were alive, but that the bones were only a few weeks or maybe years old, not millions of years). What few "dragon" artifacts were collected and preserved were later proven to be dinosaur fossils.


Ok.

Quote

You're joking, right? Accidents have nothing to do with intelligence. And what about suicide and murder? You know, depression is very common in creatures of high intelligence. And you're suggesting they were intelligent enough to have a society with a lower murder rate than the lowest city in the country, but they didn't have a written language? They built boats (literally) impossibly large and complex boats, but nothing else? They had an advanced culture that was more widespread than any other in history, but disappeared without a trace? That is, literally, impossible.


You're raising some really good points here, some of which I can't really come back against with any validity. I'd say the likelyhood of a tarpit-type incident would be at least greatly reduced if the dinosaur was brainy though - why would a clever dino just hang out by a death trap? (Plus, a REALLY clever dinosaur could probably free himself from a tarpit, glacier or lava flow - or get his friends to help him.)

I never claimed that dinosaurs didn't have a written language, and I contest the idea that boats for dinosaurs are impossibly large or complex.

Quote
Sinew is too weak for rope.


Not if you dry it and then twist several sinews into larger strings which then form a single rope.
Title: antartica
Post by: EnCrypto on July 13, 2006, 05:28:18 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
You're raising some really good points here, some of which I can't really come back against with any validity. I'd say the likelyhood of a tarpit-type incident would be at least greatly reduced if the dinosaur was brainy though - why would a clever dino just hang out by a death trap? (Plus, a REALLY clever dinosaur could probably free himself from a tarpit, glacier or lava flow - or get his friends to help him.)
Tarpits and lava weren't covering the landscape millions of years ago, and getting out of the tar is only the first hurdle (a hurdle that would be hard even with a 180 IQ and some friends helping out), he'd then have to remove the tar, because it would seal up his pores and cause death. And removing tar requires more than just water and a towel.

And it just IS impossible that a society that advanced and widespread could come to an end with the citizens de-evolving and all traces of said civilization disappearing.
Quote
I never claimed that dinosaurs didn't have a written language, and I contest the idea that boats for dinosaurs are impossibly large or complex.

They would be. A simple raft couldn't make for dependable intercontinental travel, and even to carry just a few dozen dinosaurs, the proportions would have to be immense. You have to know of the species that are found on more than one continent, and they are incredibly large beasts, that grew at a very fast pace, so they would have to take into consideration that from the beginning of the journey to the end, the size of their passengers would double, and in some cases triple. Not to mention how they would steer or navigate the vessels, or what powered them.

Quote
Not if you dry it and then twist several sinews into larger strings which then form a single rope.
Firstly, try taking a dozen pieces of string and intertwining them into a rope with just three fingers. Secondly, dinosaur claws weren't as dextrous as human fingers. Thirdly, rope made from sinew would not be strong enough to hold anything together heavier than a bundle of sticks. Fourthly, the sinew would decompose, not dry out.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 13, 2006, 05:51:20 PM
Quote from: EnCrypto
Tarpits and lava weren't covering the landscape millions of years ago, and getting out of the tar is only the first hurdle (a hurdle that would be hard even with a 180 IQ and some friends helping out), he'd then have to remove the tar, because it would seal up his pores and cause death. And removing tar requires more than just water and a towel.

When I refer to tarpits and lava, what I mean is tarpits, lava, glaciers, lake-bed dino-murders and anything else which can cause fossilisation conditions.

Yes, tar pit extraction would be difficult, but a team of intelligent dinosaurs communicating and using tools would have an incredible advantage over a lone dinosaur with no cognitive ability in the task of escaping death-by-tar.

(By the way, a dinosaur killed by the post-tarpit experience described above would likely not fossilise - tarpits only cause fossilisation by anaerobically preserving remains, and a partial, thin layer of tar on a dinosaur cadaver wouldn't be enough - ESPECIALLY if his tissue, bone and other bodyparts were used by his comrades for tools and rope).

Quote from: EnCrypto
And it just IS impossible that a society that advanced and widespread could come to an end with the citizens de-evolving and all traces of said civilization disappearing.

De-evolution is more possible and true than you believe. It does occur regularly in populations where technology is comprehensive enough to prevent natural selection - and technology levels don't really have to go too high before this happens. Equip a population with crude medicine, houses and significantly fast transport and you've already weakened the natural selectors of disease, exposure to the elements and predation.

Quote
They would be. A simple raft couldn't make for dependable intercontinental travel, and even to carry just a few dozen dinosaurs, the proportions would have to be immense. You have to know of the species that are found on more than one continent, and they are incredibly large beasts, that grew at a very fast pace, so they would have to take into consideration that from the beginning of the journey to the end, the size of their passengers would double, and in some cases triple. Not to mention how they would steer or navigate the vessels, or what powered them.

I think it's likely that swimming pseudo-dinosaurs like the Plesiosaurus or Icthyosaurus would have played a major role in both navigation and in ensuring that boats stayed together - or were even augmented in transit. In much the same way as space stations are (allegedly) assembled from smaller parts launched piece by piece into space, perhaps maritime dinosaur superstructures were assembled at sea in order to meet the need of the growing cargo of baby dinosaurs.

Quote
Firstly, try taking a dozen pieces of string and intertwining them into a rope with just three fingers. Secondly, dinosaur claws weren't as dextrous as human fingers. Thirdly, rope made from sinew would not be strong enough to hold anything together heavier than a bundle of sticks. Fourthly, the sinew would decompose, not dry out.

With determination, tools and the help of several others, rope-making is entirely feasable. (One method is to secure the ends of all involved sinews on a horizontal plane quite close together and then just twirl them around with a crude circular motion until they're tautly intertwined. Don't say it can't be done - I've tried this myself using only "monkey hands" (where you don't use your thumb, just use the four fingers as one crude mega-finger). If all the sinews are secure at the other end, it's a piece of cake).

If sinew can't be dried and made into rope, how is it that past human civilizations have made string, twine and rope from animal remains for centuries?
Title: antartica
Post by: EnCrypto on July 13, 2006, 06:10:13 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
When I refer to tarpits and lava, what I mean is tarpits, lava, glaciers, lake-bed dino-murders and anything else which can cause fossilisation conditions.

Yes, tar pit extraction would be difficult, but a team of intelligent dinosaurs communicating and using tools would have an incredible advantage over a lone dinosaur with no cognitive ability in the task of escaping death-by-tar.

(By the way, a dinosaur killed by the post-tarpit experience described above would likely not fossilise - tarpits only cause fossilisation by anaerobically preserving remains, and a partial, thin layer of tar on a dinosaur cadaver wouldn't be enough - ESPECIALLY if his tissue, bone and other bodyparts were used by his comrades for tools and rope).

We were making so much progress.

Quote from: "EnCrypto"
De-evolution is more possible and true than you believe. It does occur regularly in populations where technology is comprehensive enough to prevent natural selection - and technology levels don't really have to go too high before this happens. Equip a population with crude medicine, houses and significantly fast transport and you've already weakened the natural selectors of disease, exposure to the elements and predation.

But there would be a direct correllation between the rise of technology and stagnation of the species. Like modern humans.

Quote
I think it's likely that swimming pseudo-dinosaurs like the Plesiosaurus or Icthyosaurus would have played a major role in both navigation and in ensuring that boats stayed together - or were even augmented in transit. In much the same way as space stations are assembled from smaller parts launched piece by piece into space, perhaps maritime dinosaur superstructures were assembled at sea in order to meet the need of the growing cargo of baby dinosaurs.

I'm arguing that they didn't have the proper tools or materials (let alone brain capacity) to build giant ships.

Quote
With determination, tools and the help of several others, rope-making is entirely feasable. (One method is to secure the ends of all involved sinews on a horizontal plane quite close together and then just twirl them around with a crude circular motion until they're tautly intertwined. Don't say it can't be done - I've tried this myself using only "monkey hands" (where you don't use your thumb, just use the four fingers as one crude mega-finger). If all the sinews are secure at the other end, it's a piece of cake).

If sinew can't be dried and made into rope, how is it that past human civilizations have made string, twine and rope from animal remains for centuries?

I'll give you that one (not necessarily a dinosaur) could you parts of an animal to make a rope-like material... it would still be impossible to make something strong enough to hold together a barge-like sea-faring vessel.
Title: antartica
Post by: Aralith on July 13, 2006, 07:58:38 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
De-evolution is more possible and true than you believe. It does occur regularly in populations where technology is comprehensive enough to prevent natural selection - and technology levels don't really have to go too high before this happens. Equip a population with crude medicine, houses and significantly fast transport and you've already weakened the natural selectors of disease, exposure to the elements and predation.

Excuse me?! You ready to back that one up. Because you can't be making claims like that without some kind of hard evidence. As of now, we are the most technological civilization in existence. We're not de-evolving, so to suggest that a society of less technology would de-evolve for that very reason is ludicrous. Not to mention, evolution is about survival and success of the species, not about, "Oh God, out technology might soon destroy us, so we'll de-evolve to stop that from happening." Sorry. Doesn't work that way. I am done arguing your ridiculous notion that dinosaurs built boats to cross the continents. You would be laughed right out of any scientific community for proposing something that ludicrous. It didn't happen. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it didn't.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on July 14, 2006, 10:18:51 AM
An interesting discussion on http://dml.cmnh.org/2001May/msg00761.html is relevant to this one.

Prominent archaeologist and dinosaur website admin Steve Brusatte says, and I quote:

Quote from: "Steve Brusatte"

The problem with brain mass to body mass ratio is it only takes in size, not the volume of gray matter, the speed of electrial impulses, etc., which really are the factors that determine intelligence.


And what's more:

Quote
Until we can find a good sample (a few
hundred) of dinosaur brains composed of living tissue, then discerning exactly how intelligent Velociraptor was in relation to Dromaeosaurus or Troodon is next to impossible.
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 14, 2006, 10:31:16 AM
What Aralith was saying is completely true, the modern understanding of the structure of the brain, there is a reptilian brain, involving simple things like breathing and allowing the heart to beat.  It involves only the most basic of emotions.

In higher animals, there is a "malmilian brain" that has emotions like happiness and anger, which can be seen in mamilian creatures.

In only one animal so far, the human, the cerebral cortex comes into play with the most complicated supervising brain functions.

So in retrospect, any animal that only has a reptilian brain has not nearly enough brain function to pull off anything complicated

Thanks Aralith, I totally forgot about that concept until you brought it up
Title: antartica
Post by: EnCrypto on July 14, 2006, 11:37:44 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
An interesting discussion on http://dml.cmnh.org/2001May/msg00761.html is relevant to this one.

Prominent archaeologist and dinosaur website admin Steve Brusatte says, and I quote:

Quote from: "Steve Brusatte"

The problem with brain mass to body mass ratio is it only takes in size, not the volume of gray matter, the speed of electrial impulses, etc., which really are the factors that determine intelligence.


And what's more:

Quote
Until we can find a good sample (a few
hundred) of dinosaur brains composed of living tissue, then discerning exactly how intelligent Velociraptor was in relation to Dromaeosaurus or Troodon is next to impossible.

Yeah, they're not debating whether it could build and use complex tools, they're debating it's hunting skills and thought process. Once again, please read over Aralith's explanation of the brain.
Title: antartica
Post by: gc on August 12, 2006, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Except antarctica is LANDMASS, as in a mass, with land, not a big wall of ice, so it is fundamentally different, good try though


No, it's just ice. The reason it formed was due to none of it being in the sun's circular path, preventing it from melting. How would land just magically freeze there with it?


If it's just ice, how come it doesn't float away? Ice floats.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on August 12, 2006, 05:09:50 PM
Quote from: "gc"

If it's just ice, how come it doesn't float away? Ice floats.


Float away? Float away where? We're talking about a circular wall of ice which meets the "base" of the Earth to form a bowl which holds in the ocean and atmosphere. Where, pray tell, is it going to float away to?
Title: antartica
Post by: gc on August 12, 2006, 05:13:50 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "gc"

If it's just ice, how come it doesn't float away? Ice floats.


Float away? Float away where? We're talking about a circular wall of ice which meets the "base" of the Earth to form a bowl which holds in the ocean and atmosphere. Where, pray tell, is it going to float away to?


How about over the edge?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on August 12, 2006, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: "gc"

How about over the edge?


It's attached. It's a big fat ring of ice - the largest structure on Earth, and it's frozen into the ground for thousands of miles. It's not just gonna float over the edge.
Title: antartica
Post by: gc on August 12, 2006, 05:32:44 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "gc"

How about over the edge?


It's attached. It's a big fat ring of ice - the largest structure on Earth, and it's frozen into the ground for thousands of miles. It's not just gonna float over the edge.


Except that it would float to the top. Gravity, or whatever you call it, would push it upwards because ice is less dense than water. There is obviously water surrounding this ice wall which means there is an equilibrium where ice is constantly melting and water is constantly freezing. Eventually though the ice would break. Try it at home. Freeze some water into the ground and build yourself a nice little ice pool, and see how long it lasts.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on August 12, 2006, 05:43:04 PM
Quote from: "gc"

Except that it would float to the top. Gravity, or whatever you call it, would push it upwards because ice is less dense than water. There is obviously water surrounding this ice wall which means there is an equilibrium where ice is constantly melting and water is constantly freezing. Eventually though the ice would break. Try it at home. Freeze some water into the ground and build yourself a nice little ice pool, and see how long it lasts.


That's because in such a localised experiment, the Sun's heat and light is equally distributed over the minature globe. Nice try. Remember, Antarctica is freezing because the Sun never shines directly onto it.
Title: antartica
Post by: gc on August 12, 2006, 05:50:11 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "gc"

Except that it would float to the top. Gravity, or whatever you call it, would push it upwards because ice is less dense than water. There is obviously water surrounding this ice wall which means there is an equilibrium where ice is constantly melting and water is constantly freezing. Eventually though the ice would break. Try it at home. Freeze some water into the ground and build yourself a nice little ice pool, and see how long it lasts.


That's because in such a localised experiment, the Sun's heat and light is equally distributed over the minature globe. Nice try. Remember, Antarctica is freezing because the Sun never shines directly onto it.


But there's water touching the ice-wall! There can't be much of a temperature difference between the ice and the water touching the ice. So, there is still an equilibrium and the ice will eventually break off and float. Try the experiment in the winter when it's below freezing and it still won't last.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on August 12, 2006, 05:53:04 PM
Quote from: "gc"

But there's water touching the ice-wall! There can't be much of a temperature difference between the ice and the water touching the ice. So, there is still an equilibrium and the ice will eventually break off and float. Try the experiment in the winter when it's below freezing and it still won't last.


You can't simulate the freezing, ultimate coldness of space in your kitchen with a plate covered in water and ice. Remember, the outside of the ice wall is "naked" against space itself - and space is damn chilly - stuff in space is gonna stay frozen.
Title: antartica
Post by: gc on August 12, 2006, 05:59:15 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "gc"

But there's water touching the ice-wall! There can't be much of a temperature difference between the ice and the water touching the ice. So, there is still an equilibrium and the ice will eventually break off and float. Try the experiment in the winter when it's below freezing and it still won't last.


You can't simulate the freezing, ultimate coldness of space in your kitchen with a plate covered in water and ice. Remember, the outside of the ice wall is "naked" against space itself - and space is damn chilly - stuff in space is gonna stay frozen.


You are ignoring my point. There is water touching the ice. There can't be a sudden drop in temperature from the ice and the water touching the ice. That "ultimate coldness of space" obviously doesn't occur where there is water, so why should it occur directly next to it.

Also, if light isn't reaching the ice wall (and if it is then it would be warmed) how can you even see the ice wall or know it is there?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on August 12, 2006, 06:08:06 PM
Quote from: "gc"

You are ignoring my point. There is water touching the ice. There can't be a sudden drop in temperature from the ice and the water touching the ice. That "ultimate coldness of space" obviously doesn't occur where there is water, so why should it occur directly next to it.


Who said there was a sheer drop of ice-wall followed by perfect water? I daresay the transition between ice and water is gradual just like in RET.

Quote from: "gc"

Also, if light isn't reaching the ice wall (and if it is then it would be warmed) how can you even see the ice wall or know it is there?


We're pretty much just guessing.
Title: antartica
Post by: gc on August 12, 2006, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "gc"

You are ignoring my point. There is water touching the ice. There can't be a sudden drop in temperature from the ice and the water touching the ice. That "ultimate coldness of space" obviously doesn't occur where there is water, so why should it occur directly next to it.


Who said there was a sheer drop of ice-wall followed by perfect water? I daresay the transition between ice and water is gradual just like in RET.


The FAQ said so. Are you saying there is no liquid water touching any ice at the ice wall? If so, please explain how ice can hold water in without touching it! And if not, then my previous point still applies.

Quote from: "gc"

Also, if light isn't reaching the ice wall (and if it is then it would be warmed) how can you even see the ice wall or know it is there?


We're pretty much just guessing.[/quote]

Are you admitting that there is no evidence for an ice wall?
Title: antartica
Post by: CrimsonKing on August 12, 2006, 06:20:40 PM
The evidence of the ice wall is that the world is flat, since the world is flat, there needs to be something holding the water back from falling off the face of the earth.  This is a giant wall of ice, sometimes observed as Antarctica.
Title: antartica
Post by: gc on August 12, 2006, 06:23:17 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
The evidence of the ice wall is that the world is flat, since the world is flat, there needs to be something holding the water back from falling off the face of the earth.  This is a giant wall of ice, sometimes observed as Antarctica.


By observed, do you mean we can see it? In order to see it, light would have to shine on it.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on August 12, 2006, 06:23:43 PM
Quote from: "gc"

The FAQ said so. Are you saying there is no liquid water touching any ice at the ice wall? If so, please explain how ice can hold water in without touching it! And if not, then my previous point still applies.


Ice and water have an intermediate stage, slush. It's the slightly wet snow which you get when you warm regular snow up a bit. It figures that the Ice wall would go

Ice------Slush------Water.

Quote from: "gc"

Are you admitting that there is no evidence for an ice wall?


No, what I mean is there's no DIRECT evidence. The Con stops us taking pictures and recording data, but given other factors we can see that Ice Wall theory is the only way it CAN be. It's a sort of Socratic/Taoistic "definition by process of elimination".
Title: antartica
Post by: James on August 12, 2006, 06:24:37 PM
Quote from: "gc"

By observed, do you mean we can see it? In order to see it, light would have to shine on it.


Yeah, some light shines on it, just much less than on the Equator. It never shines DIRECTLY on it.
Title: antartica
Post by: gc on August 12, 2006, 06:42:17 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "gc"

The FAQ said so. Are you saying there is no liquid water touching any ice at the ice wall? If so, please explain how ice can hold water in without touching it! And if not, then my previous point still applies.


Ice and water have an intermediate stage, slush. It's the slightly wet snow which you get when you warm regular snow up a bit. It figures that the Ice wall would go

Ice------Slush------Water.


Ok a few points here:

1. Assuming there is an intermediate "slush" stage, that would be in equilibrium with both the water and the ice. Water would be moving back and forth between those three stages, eventually resulting in the ice breaking off and floating.

2. "Slush" would float. Deep down underwater, the water would be touching the ice. Actually you explain my point pretty well with your slush theory. There would be a mixture of water and ice in (relative) equilibrium, but as soon as the ice melts a bit and refreezes it would float to the top.

3. Slush is not a state of matter, it's a mixture of water and ice. So there is still water in contact with the ice, so the point I keep bringing up (and you have yet to refute) is still valid.
Title: antartica
Post by: Astantia on August 12, 2006, 06:44:36 PM
Okay, how do explain Antarctica in the RE model?  Surely that continent must be touching water, and it is mostly ice.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on August 12, 2006, 06:50:40 PM
Quote from: "gc"

1. Assuming there is an intermediate "slush" stage, that would be in equilibrium with both the water and the ice. Water would be moving back and forth between those three stages, eventually resulting in the ice breaking off and floating.

2. "Slush" would float. Deep down underwater, the water would be touching the ice. Actually you explain my point pretty well with your slush theory. There would be a mixture of water and ice in (relative) equilibrium, but as soon as the ice melts a bit and refreezes it would float to the top.

3. Slush is not a state of matter, it's a mixture of water and ice. So there is still water in contact with the ice, so the point I keep bringing up (and you have yet to refute) is still valid.


The floatation of the slush is precisely the reason for the formation of the wall.

And yes, hypothetically, areas of the wall could turn to water - but they'd be instantly frozen by the chilling vacuum of space again.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on August 12, 2006, 06:51:11 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
Okay, how do explain Antarctica in the RE model?  Surely that continent must be touching water, and it is mostly ice.


Antarctica IS the Ice Wall.
Title: antartica
Post by: Erasmus on August 12, 2006, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: "gc"
You are ignoring my point. There is water touching the ice. There can't be a sudden drop in temperature from the ice and the water touching the ice.


All you need is for the water in the ice wall and the water in the oceans to have different salinity: specifically, if the water in the ice wall is purer, then it will freeze at a higher temperature than the water in the oceans.
Title: antartica
Post by: gc on August 12, 2006, 07:04:57 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"

The floatation of the slush is precisely the reason for the formation of the wall.


Please explain.

Quote
And yes, hypothetically, areas of the wall could turn to water - but they'd be instantly frozen by the chilling vacuum of space again.


They wouldn't freeze in exactly the same spot. And it wouldn't be instantaneous, otherwise the water/slush that is next to the ice wall would instantaneously freeze as well.

Quote
Okay, how do explain Antarctica in the RE model? Surely that continent must be touching water, and it is mostly ice.


I never claimed that Antarctica is frozen to the earth miles below the ocean. Read my previous posts and you will see why I brought it up.

Of course antarctica is touching water. It is also on land I believe. And even if it wasn't touching land, it would be floating. Once again read my previous posts and you will see why this is important.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Mr Andy on December 25, 2006, 03:45:58 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.

Penguins were deliberately engineered to be very easy to catch (hence their lack of flight), but also to be extremely efficient at catching and eating fish. It is economically easier for conspiracy ice-wall guards to have penguins indirectly harvest fish for them, then shoot or trap the fish-filled penguins with ease.

In answer to your other question - yes, March of the Penguins was filmed in a studio. Those penguins were probably animatronic replicas though, because the government can't afford to use large numbers of penguins except for feeding ice-wall guards.


Ok dude. Im not ignorent enough to call you an idiot or a dick. However i will ask for proof. Where is it? If not where is your source?
Cheers
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on December 25, 2006, 04:47:33 AM
I'd just like to say that Mr Andy's bumping of this epic thread is a wonderful festive gift for which I am grateful.

Quote from: "Mr Andy"

Ok dude. Im not ignorent enough to call you an idiot or a dick. However i will ask for proof. Where is it? If not where is your source?
Cheers


The penguin is an evolutionary oddity. Excellent at catching fish, yet terrible at escaping predation (due to flightlessness and inadequate walking abilities), it is the perfect nutritional tool for the Ice Wall Guards. The penguins reap the energy of the sea by catching difficult fish, then they can be rounded up almost effortlessly, cooked and eaten.

The evidence comes in the utterly unconvincing fossil record allegedly left by the ancestors of penguins. We can trace human evolution from a common primate ancestor pretty well, filling in the missing links of homo ergaster, neanderthal and so on, but the same cannot be said for penguins. There are pretty much no missing links or fossil evidence of the natural evolution of the penguin.

Also, documentation of penguins actually existing before the mid-20th century is sketchy at best, and we can pretty much discount all records of them as faked. Scott of the Antarctic's journal, allegedly penned in 1912, for example, documents the existence of penguins. But Scott's journal also claims a South Pole conveniently in line with Round Earth Theory - and let's remember - Scott, and HIS ENTIRE PARTY conveniently froze to death before returning to tell their story in person!! Clearly, he was murdered and his journal replaced with a fake, penguin documenting, Round Earth supporting one!

There are a few other bogus penguin reports pre-circa. 1960 which are debunkable on similar precedents.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Mr Andy on December 25, 2006, 01:10:31 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
I'd just like to say that Mr Andy's bumping of this epic thread is a wonderful festive gift for which I am grateful.

Quote from: "Mr Andy"

Ok dude. Im not ignorent enough to call you an idiot or a dick. However i will ask for proof. Where is it? If not where is your source?
Cheers


The penguin is an evolutionary oddity. Excellent at catching fish, yet terrible at escaping predation (due to flightlessness and inadequate walking abilities), it is the perfect nutritional tool for the Ice Wall Guards. The penguins reap the energy of the sea by catching difficult fish, then they can be rounded up almost effortlessly, cooked and eaten.

The evidence comes in the utterly unconvincing fossil record allegedly left by the ancestors of penguins. We can trace human evolution from a common primate ancestor pretty well, filling in the missing links of homo ergaster, neanderthal and so on, but the same cannot be said for penguins. There are pretty much no missing links or fossil evidence of the natural evolution of the penguin.

Also, documentation of penguins actually existing before the mid-20th century is sketchy at best, and we can pretty much discount all records of them as faked. Scott of the Antarctic's journal, allegedly penned in 1912, for example, documents the existence of penguins. But Scott's journal also claims a South Pole conveniently in line with Round Earth Theory - and let's remember - Scott, and HIS ENTIRE PARTY conveniently froze to death before returning to tell their story in person!! Clearly, he was murdered and his journal replaced with a fake, penguin documenting, Round Earth supporting one!

There are a few other bogus penguin reports pre-circa. 1960 which are debunkable on similar precedents.


Ah, touche. However I was more concerned with the evidence about the Russian's creating the Penguin. Is there any credible evidence? As you seem to trust only very reliable evidence, i dear sir, hope for the same.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Zulroth on December 25, 2006, 03:16:04 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
I'd just like to say that Mr Andy's bumping of this epic thread is a wonderful festive gift for which I am grateful.

Quote from: "Mr Andy"

Ok dude. Im not ignorent enough to call you an idiot or a dick. However i will ask for proof. Where is it? If not where is your source?
Cheers


The penguin is an evolutionary oddity. Excellent at catching fish, yet terrible at escaping predation (due to flightlessness and inadequate walking abilities), it is the perfect nutritional tool for the Ice Wall Guards. The penguins reap the energy of the sea by catching difficult fish, then they can be rounded up almost effortlessly, cooked and eaten.

The evidence comes in the utterly unconvincing fossil record allegedly left by the ancestors of penguins. We can trace human evolution from a common primate ancestor pretty well, filling in the missing links of homo ergaster, neanderthal and so on, but the same cannot be said for penguins. There are pretty much no missing links or fossil evidence of the natural evolution of the penguin.

Also, documentation of penguins actually existing before the mid-20th century is sketchy at best, and we can pretty much discount all records of them as faked. Scott of the Antarctic's journal, allegedly penned in 1912, for example, documents the existence of penguins. But Scott's journal also claims a South Pole conveniently in line with Round Earth Theory - and let's remember - Scott, and HIS ENTIRE PARTY conveniently froze to death before returning to tell their story in person!! Clearly, he was murdered and his journal replaced with a fake, penguin documenting, Round Earth supporting one!

There are a few other bogus penguin reports pre-circa. 1960 which are debunkable on similar precedents.


I think someone needs a hug.
Title: antartica
Post by: Astantia on December 25, 2006, 04:46:39 PM
Quote
The evidence comes in the utterly unconvincing fossil record allegedly left by the ancestors of penguins. We can trace human evolution from a common primate ancestor pretty well, filling in the missing links of homo ergaster, neanderthal and so on, but the same cannot be said for penguins. There are pretty much no missing links or fossil evidence of the natural evolution of the penguin.


Wait... couldn't we just 'fill in' those missing links like we 'fill in' the missing links in human ancestry...?


Since we can't find Neanderthal or Ergaster, couldn't we assume that we were created?  Or not?

I say that penguins are actually normal animals that live around the outer regions of the earth.  Why do they not come to where it is warm?  I think they like to eat chilled fish, and where else can you find such cool fish?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on December 26, 2006, 06:18:25 AM
Quote from: "Astantia"

Since we can't find Neanderthal or Ergaster, couldn't we assume that we were created?  Or not?


We find multitudes of fossils testifying to their existence.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: dantheman40k on December 26, 2006, 06:30:57 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
I'd just like to say that Mr Andy's bumping of this epic thread is a wonderful festive gift for which I am grateful.

Quote from: "Mr Andy"

Ok dude. Im not ignorent enough to call you an idiot or a dick. However i will ask for proof. Where is it? If not where is your source?
Cheers


The penguin is an evolutionary oddity. Excellent at catching fish, yet terrible at escaping predation (due to flightlessness and inadequate walking abilities), it is the perfect nutritional tool for the Ice Wall Guards. The penguins reap the energy of the sea by catching difficult fish, then they can be rounded up almost effortlessly, cooked and eaten.

The evidence comes in the utterly unconvincing fossil record allegedly left by the ancestors of penguins. We can trace human evolution from a common primate ancestor pretty well, filling in the missing links of homo ergaster, neanderthal and so on, but the same cannot be said for penguins. There are pretty much no missing links or fossil evidence of the natural evolution of the penguin.

Also, documentation of penguins actually existing before the mid-20th century is sketchy at best, and we can pretty much discount all records of them as faked. Scott of the Antarctic's journal, allegedly penned in 1912, for example, documents the existence of penguins. But Scott's journal also claims a South Pole conveniently in line with Round Earth Theory - and let's remember - Scott, and HIS ENTIRE PARTY conveniently froze to death before returning to tell their story in person!! Clearly, he was murdered and his journal replaced with a fake, penguin documenting, Round Earth supporting one!

There are a few other bogus penguin reports pre-circa. 1960 which are debunkable on similar precedents.


Youre inventive, I'll give you that. But until you give me evidence then I will assume you are talking out of your ass.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on December 26, 2006, 08:42:13 AM
Just examining R F Scott's assassination-by-freezing in any detail should give you a pretty strong conviction that something fishy is going on at the South pole.
Title: antartica
Post by: Cdesign on December 27, 2006, 06:56:20 PM
assasination by freezing?? Holy crap batman, that theory is much easier to swallow than they were frozen because they were unprepared.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: dantheman40k on December 28, 2006, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Just examining R F Scott's assassination-by-freezing in any detail should give you a pretty strong conviction that something fishy is going on at the South pole.


Either come up with proof or STFU.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on December 28, 2006, 09:49:09 AM
Quote from: "Cdesign"
assasination by freezing?? Holy crap batman, that theory is much easier to swallow than they were frozen because they were unprepared.


They were going to the Antarctic, and not for the first time either! Why would they have been unprepared?

And why was Scott's corpse found frozen in a position trying to claw its way out of the tent? Surely if he'd died naturally of the cold he would have been huddled in the tent attempting to stay warm!
Title: antartica
Post by: dantheman40k on December 28, 2006, 09:57:32 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "Cdesign"
assasination by freezing?? Holy crap batman, that theory is much easier to swallow than they were frozen because they were unprepared.


They were going to the Antarctic, and not for the first time either! Why would they have been unprepared?

And why was Scott's corpse found frozen in a position trying to claw its way out of the tent? Surely if he'd died naturally of the cold he would have been huddled in the tent attempting to stay warm!


Proove he was assasinated.
Title: antartica
Post by: dantheman40k on December 29, 2006, 03:57:47 AM
No replies eh? :lol:
Title: antartica
Post by: James on December 29, 2006, 04:33:27 AM
Quote from: "dantheman40k"

Proove he was assasinated.


The fact of his journal (the one that was found) supporting

A) the roundness of the Earth, and
B) the existence of penguins prior to the mid 20th century

may not show that he was assassinated. It is possible that he did indeed die naturally and that his journal was merely switched when he was found. This complicates matters by implying that either the Atkinson party was part of the Conspiracy, or that the Conspiracy found him dead (and clawing at the tent), went in and switched the journal. Assassination seems the most likely, least complicated explanation which is why I assume it during this argument (I know this is theoretic science not zetetic science, I hope any diehard zetetecists on the forum will forgive me).
Title: antartica
Post by: James on December 29, 2006, 04:34:50 AM
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
No replies eh? :lol:


I lead a pretty busy non-internet life, don't expect me to post everyday.
Title: antartica
Post by: dantheman40k on December 29, 2006, 04:54:10 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "dantheman40k"

Proove he was assasinated.


The fact of his journal (the one that was found) supporting

A) the roundness of the Earth, and
B) the existence of penguins prior to the mid 20th century

may not show that he was assassinated. It is possible that he did indeed die naturally and that his journal was merely switched when he was found. This complicates matters by implying that either the Atkinson party was part of the Conspiracy, or that the Conspiracy found him dead (and clawing at the tent), went in and switched the journal. Assassination seems the most likely, least complicated explanation which is why I assume it during this argument (I know this is theoretic science not zetetic science, I hope any diehard zetetecists on the forum will forgive me).


So, in other words, you have no proof that:

a) He was assassinated
b) Penguins were created in the 60's

Either put up or shut up.
Title: antartica
Post by: dantheman40k on December 29, 2006, 04:55:34 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
No replies eh? :lol:


I lead a pretty busy non-internet life, don't expect me to post everyday.


I suppose your right, FES leaflets dont hand themselves out on street corners!
Title: antartica
Post by: Yeah, sure... on December 29, 2006, 04:59:05 AM
lol (I can imagine it soooo clear...)
Title: antartica
Post by: midgard on December 29, 2006, 05:01:06 AM
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
I suppose your right, FES leaflets dont hand themselves out on street corners!


 :lol:

It's sooo true!  :D

...you did forget to mention the orange jumpsuits.
Title: antartica
Post by: Yeah, sure... on December 29, 2006, 05:08:37 AM
Quote from: "midgard"

...you did forget to mention the orange jumpsuits.


Don't faze my imagination - I was thinking about green-blue ones.
Title: antartica
Post by: midgard on December 29, 2006, 05:09:41 AM
The orange ones stand out more.
Title: antartica
Post by: Yeah, sure... on December 29, 2006, 05:12:11 AM
That's somehow right, but I imagined something old and grubby. Hm...probably that works with the orange ones, too.
Title: antartica
Post by: dantheman40k on December 29, 2006, 03:23:47 PM
I notice Dogplatter has not replied. I guess he has conceded. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Title: antartica
Post by: Wolfwood on December 29, 2006, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
No replies eh? :lol:


I lead a pretty busy non-internet life, don't expect me to post everyday.


Maybe thats why dan? Yanno... He has like... A life? Something you could probably use.
Title: antartica
Post by: James on December 30, 2006, 02:11:23 PM
Yeah again you'll notice I didn't reply right away.

What Wolfwood said was pretty much spot on.

While I hate to blow my own trumpet, I'd like to point out that while you were sitting alone, insulting me over the internet, I was out enjoying a drink with friends after a hard day at (paid, non-Flat-Earth related) work.

Quote
So, in other words, you have no proof that:

a) He was assassinated
b) Penguins were created in the 60's

Either put up or shut up.


Did you actually read the paragraph you quoted? There's no concrete proof that he didn't die of natural causes, it's just by far the most reasonable explanation given the circumstances surrounding his death.
Title: antartica
Post by: Xargo on December 30, 2006, 02:18:35 PM
How about answering the op in the thread of my sig instead of wasting time in threads like these?  :?
Title: antartica
Post by: GeoGuy on December 30, 2006, 02:20:37 PM
Because there is a grand total of one question posed in his post that isn't answered on a daily basis elsewhere.
Title: antartica
Post by: Xargo on December 30, 2006, 02:26:15 PM
You're unable to answer his questions because they're too many?..
Title: antartica
Post by: GeoGuy on December 30, 2006, 02:29:53 PM
What part of "There is a grand total of one question posed that is not answered elsewhere on a daily basis" could be possibly be taken to mean "I won't answer his questions because there are too many of them"?
Title: antartica
Post by: Xargo on December 30, 2006, 02:33:07 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
What part of "There is a grand total of one question posed that is not answered elsewhere on a daily basis" could be possibly be taken to mean "I won't answer his questions because there are too many of them"?


Because you ignored the subject of my question. You'd rather answer this thread because there is a one question in the original post, rather than the thread in my sig, which has several questions.
Title: antartica
Post by: GeoGuy on December 30, 2006, 02:38:14 PM
The one question I am talking about is in the thread in your signature, Xargo.
Title: antartica
Post by: Xargo on December 30, 2006, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
The one question I am talking about is in the thread in your signature, Xargo.


Have you read the full post or did you just scroll through the page to notice "Why is there a conspiracy?" in bold, or are you just being a smartass? Not thinking you don't understand what my meaning was, I obviously meant all the points which the authout mentions. Explain them, as he wants you to, instead of wasting time in a not-to-change-anything-thread like this one here.

Edit: And I do hope you don't mean the quote above the link...
Title: antartica
Post by: cmdshft on January 15, 2007, 05:44:06 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
How else do you explain that penguins are unable to fly, and why penguin fossil records are basically non-existant? There are no penguin fossils because penguins didn't evolve - they were MADE.


Then Ostriches must be genetically engineered as well, huh?
Title: antartica
Post by: James on January 15, 2007, 09:13:24 AM
Quote from: "Hara Taiki"

Then Ostriches must be genetically engineered as well, huh?


There's no reason to assume they were, since there would be no plausible motive for genetically engineering them. Also, unlike penguins they do have a natural escape/defense mechanism - they can run like the wind, and an ostrich can disembowel a man by kicking him. This suggests natural evolution.

The complete helplessness of penguins (of which flightlessness is a component) implies human design.
Title: antartica
Post by: Sanirius on January 15, 2007, 09:35:17 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
How else do you explain that penguins are unable to fly, and why penguin fossil records are basically non-existant? There are no penguin fossils because penguins didn't evolve - they were MADE.


Yeah or they evolved on Antartica and the remains are on the bottom of an ice cold ocean or dozens of meters under the ice...
And why would a pinguin need to fly, when it's food source is under sea level? I suppose you say a ostrich was made aswell, since they're unable to fly?

If that was just a joke of yours, i apologize for this.
Title: antartica
Post by: Sanirius on January 15, 2007, 09:37:00 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"


The complete helplessness of penguins (of which flightlessness is a component) implies human design.


Penguins can swim verywell, and catch fish very well, isnt this just prove for evolution.??
Title: antartica
Post by: me on January 15, 2007, 09:41:55 AM
for their natural environment, they are properly evolved, an ostrich has to deal with various types of predators that would try to eat their eggs. Penguins are not threatened by any landbased animal, however, they are threatened at sea by the lion seal which resides in the water. Penguins are highly adapted to being in water. They can swim hella fast.

Oh and dogplatter? the oldest known penguin fossil is....  62 million years old
Title: antartica
Post by: me on January 15, 2007, 09:42:56 AM
for their natural environment, they are properly evolved, an ostrich has to deal with various types of predators that would try to eat their eggs. Penguins are not threatened by any landbased animal, however, they are threatened at sea by the lion seal which resides in the water. Penguins are highly adapted to being in water. They can swim hella fast.

Oh and dogplatter? the oldest known penguin fossil is....  62 million years old.
Do you think they were genetically engineered then? OH NO! The russians invented a time machine :o OR maybe it was the dinosaurs :o
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: spaceshipone on January 15, 2007, 10:52:36 AM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.

Penguins were deliberately engineered to be very easy to catch (hence their lack of flight), but also to be extremely efficient at catching and eating fish. It is economically easier for conspiracy ice-wall guards to have penguins indirectly harvest fish for them, then shoot or trap the fish-filled penguins with ease.

In answer to your other question - yes, March of the Penguins was filmed in a studio. Those penguins were probably animatronic replicas though, because the government can't afford to use large numbers of penguins except for feeding ice-wall guards.


Wow that is soo gay and yet soo funny dude you should be writing like science fiction comedy books or something what an imagination
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on January 15, 2007, 11:06:59 AM
Quote from: "spaceshipone"
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.

Penguins were deliberately engineered to be very easy to catch (hence their lack of flight), but also to be extremely efficient at catching and eating fish. It is economically easier for conspiracy ice-wall guards to have penguins indirectly harvest fish for them, then shoot or trap the fish-filled penguins with ease.

In answer to your other question - yes, March of the Penguins was filmed in a studio. Those penguins were probably animatronic replicas though, because the government can't afford to use large numbers of penguins except for feeding ice-wall guards.


Wow that is soo gay and yet soo funny dude you should be writing like science fiction comedy books or something what an imagination


Last I checked, stories couldn't have sexual orientations.  Maybe you should get yourself checked out if you believe that letters can reproduce.
Title: antartica
Post by: Laurie on January 15, 2007, 11:24:48 AM
Quote from: "me"
for their natural environment, they are properly evolved, an ostrich has to deal with various types of predators that would try to eat their eggs. Penguins are not threatened by any landbased animal, however, they are threatened at sea by the lion seal which resides in the water. Penguins are highly adapted to being in water. They can swim hella fast.

Oh and dogplatter? the oldest known penguin fossil is....  62 million years old.
Do you think they were genetically engineered then? OH NO! The russians invented a time machine :o OR maybe it was the dinosaurs :o


Lmao, they'll be saying that fossils are hand made next  :lol:
Title: antartica
Post by: cmdshft on January 15, 2007, 04:41:12 PM
Museum of Natural History has completely lied to me. :cry:



Yeah right... :roll:
Title: antartica
Post by: James on January 16, 2007, 12:21:11 PM
Quote from: "me"
for their natural environment, they are properly evolved, an ostrich has to deal with various types of predators that would try to eat their eggs. Penguins are not threatened by any landbased animal, however, they are threatened at sea by the lion seal which resides in the water. Penguins are highly adapted to being in water. They can swim hella fast.


They're threatened by man, and they can't escape him at all well, entirely by design.

Quote from: "me"

Oh and dogplatter? the oldest known penguin fossil is....  62 million years old


Oldest known or oldest fabricated?

The first verifiable, legitimate records of penguin existence come mid-20th century.


Quote from: "Sanirius"
Yeah or they evolved on Antartica and the remains are on the bottom of an ice cold ocean or dozens of meters under the ice...



Ice is one of the best fossil preserving conditions in natural history, alongside tar and others.

The frozenness of Antarctica doubley implicates man as a penguin-engineerer - we have tons of fossils for animals which died in warm areas brimming with decompository life, yet comparitively few for penguins which surely should have been even more prone to preservation.

Quote from: "Sanirius"

And why would a pinguin need to fly, when it's food source is under sea level? I suppose you say a ostrich was made aswell, since they're unable to fly?


Leapord seals can flop around on land. And men can hunt penguins.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: The Communist on October 04, 2007, 12:32:44 PM
Extinct penguin fossil (http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=58191)
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on October 04, 2007, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: me
for their natural environment, they are properly evolved, an ostrich has to deal with various types of predators that would try to eat their eggs. Penguins are not threatened by any landbased animal, however, they are threatened at sea by the lion seal which resides in the water. Penguins are highly adapted to being in water. They can swim hella fast.

They're threatened by man, and they can't escape him at all well, entirely by design.

Quote from: me
Oh and dogplatter? the oldest known penguin fossil is....  62 million years old

Oldest known or oldest fabricated?

The first verifiable, legitimate records of penguin existence come mid-20th century.


Quote from: Sanirius
Yeah or they evolved on Antartica and the remains are on the bottom of an ice cold ocean or dozens of meters under the ice...


Ice is one of the best fossil preserving conditions in natural history, alongside tar and others.

The frozenness of Antarctica doubley implicates man as a penguin-engineerer - we have tons of fossils for animals which died in warm areas brimming with decompository life, yet comparitively few for penguins which surely should have been even more prone to preservation.

Quote from: Sanirius
And why would a pinguin need to fly, when it's food source is under sea level? I suppose you say a ostrich was made aswell, since they're unable to fly?

Leapord seals can flop around on land. And men can hunt penguins.
They are not completely defenceless to humans, dodos however, were.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Kris on June 19, 2008, 06:06:29 AM
Dinosaurs sailing.
You guys are fucking insane.
Really a) needa see somebody about it, or b) get out more.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: theonlydann on June 19, 2008, 06:09:12 AM
NO U
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on June 19, 2008, 06:30:04 AM
Dinosaurs sailing.
You guys are fucking insane.
Really a) needa see somebody about it, or b) get out more.

Three ad hominems in one post! Truly the hallmark of a sound argument.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: theonlydann on June 19, 2008, 06:43:29 AM
Needa is also a weak word.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: charlie on June 19, 2008, 06:45:40 AM
Extinct penguin fossil (http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=58191)

I believe you, butt those guys are probebly going to say: 'It all an conspyrasy,'
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: theonlydann on June 19, 2008, 07:02:42 AM
naw. that would be lame
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: SnowMike on June 19, 2008, 10:28:18 AM
Hey all, my name is Mike McConnell and I have a interesting conundrum to present all of the members of the Flat Earth Society with. I am a geologist with the USGS that has recently returned from a six month stay at the Casey Station in Antarctica ( 66 16′ 54″ S, 110 31′ 28″ E ) where I was studying the "Law Dome" ( 66 44′ 0″ S, 112 50′ 0″ E ) which is actually a very intriguing formation which is basically a mini Antarctic ice cap. While I spent a majority of my time in and around the Casey Station or the Law Dome, I did venture with others much deeper into the continent to explore other formations via helicopter and even on foot at times. I do my best to maintain an open mind to all theories, but I find it hard to believe in this "Ice Wall" considering I just got back from spending half a year on this continent. I did not experience any guards, or actually much of any living being the deeper I got into this very unforgiving landscape. I am curious to what possible explanations you can offer to my experience. Thank you for your time. - Mike
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Snaaaaake on June 19, 2008, 10:31:42 AM
Quote from: Sepulchre
Crimson you just made me think of another thing that helps disprove unimportants FE theory statement that antarctica is a ring shaped continent.

Assuming that FE theory believes the  supercontinent Pangaea existed at some point and that antarctica is actually just a big ring shaped continent that surrounds the rest of the earth.

This presents a problem because in order for Pangaea to have broken apart the outer ring (antarctica in the FE model) would have had to expand, providing space for the other continents to move into.  How could a ring of land increase its radius without breaking at some point?

We can therefore conclude that Pangea didn't exist. And before you try and use fossil evidence to debunk this - the fact that dinosaur fossils are spread out in confusing ways reflects the fact that dinosaurs were actually much more highly advanced than we think they were - they had mastered the technology of intercontinental travel. Heck, they probably knew about the ice wall too, and who knows, their governments (if they had any) were probably surpressing it even back then.

ARE YOU CRAZY?! Pangea existed!! Phsyco.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: theonlydann on June 19, 2008, 10:39:15 AM
Hey all, my name is Mike McConnell and I have a interesting conundrum to present all of the members of the Flat Earth Society with. I am a geologist with the USGS that has recently returned from a six month stay at the Casey Station in Antarctica ( 66 16′ 54″ S, 110 31′ 28″ E ) where I was studying the "Law Dome" ( 66 44′ 0″ S, 112 50′ 0″ E ) which is actually a very intriguing formation which is basically a mini Antarctic ice cap. While I spent a majority of my time in and around the Casey Station or the Law Dome, I did venture with others much deeper into the continent to explore other formations via helicopter and even on foot at times. I do my best to maintain an open mind to all theories, but I find it hard to believe in this "Ice Wall" considering I just got back from spending half a year on this continent. I did not experience any guards, or actually much of any living being the deeper I got into this very unforgiving landscape. I am curious to what possible explanations you can offer to my experience. Thank you for your time. - Mike
Liar. Prove it.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: physics101 on June 19, 2008, 10:41:19 AM
Quote from: Sepulchre
Crimson you just made me think of another thing that helps disprove unimportants FE theory statement that antarctica is a ring shaped continent.

Assuming that FE theory believes the  supercontinent Pangaea existed at some point and that antarctica is actually just a big ring shaped continent that surrounds the rest of the earth.

This presents a problem because in order for Pangaea to have broken apart the outer ring (antarctica in the FE model) would have had to expand, providing space for the other continents to move into.  How could a ring of land increase its radius without breaking at some point?

We can therefore conclude that Pangea didn't exist. And before you try and use fossil evidence to debunk this - the fact that dinosaur fossils are spread out in confusing ways reflects the fact that dinosaurs were actually much more highly advanced than we think they were - they had mastered the technology of intercontinental travel. Heck, they probably knew about the ice wall too, and who knows, their governments (if they had any) were probably surpressing it even back then.

ARE YOU CRAZY?! Pangea existed!! Phsyco.

Is the bold word an intentional typo?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Snaaaaake on June 19, 2008, 10:43:37 AM
Typo. How'd that S get there? I'll fix it later.

Anyways Dogplatter, show me proof that Pangea didn't exist.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Benocrates on June 19, 2008, 10:53:59 AM
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.

Penguins were deliberately engineered to be very easy to catch (hence their lack of flight), but also to be extremely efficient at catching and eating fish. It is economically easier for conspiracy ice-wall guards to have penguins indirectly harvest fish for them, then shoot or trap the fish-filled penguins with ease.

In answer to your other question - yes, March of the Penguins was filmed in a studio. Those penguins were probably animatronic replicas though, because the government can't afford to use large numbers of penguins except for feeding ice-wall guards.

Wow, you do troll hard...
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Snaaaaake on June 19, 2008, 03:33:55 PM
I REALLY hope that Dogplatter doesn't believe that. If he does then well...I can't trust anything that he says.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on June 19, 2008, 04:58:26 PM
I REALLY hope that Dogplatter doesn't believe that. If he does then well...I can't trust anything that he says.

I don't give a damn who you trust. The trust you've laid in the scientific elite sets a precedent for the rest of your trust. If that's the caliber of your trust, I don't want any of it.

The thing which you're too blinkered to even realised, though, is that I don't want you to trust me. I don't want you to trust anyone. I want you to find out for yourself.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: CaptainBaconMan on June 19, 2008, 05:01:16 PM
We can therefore conclude that Pangea didn't exist. And before you try and use fossil evidence to debunk this - the fact that dinosaur fossils are spread out in confusing ways reflects the fact that dinosaurs were actually much more highly advanced than we think they were - they had mastered the technology of intercontinental travel. Heck, they probably knew about the ice wall too, and who knows, their governments (if they had any) were probably surpressing it even back then.
Yeah, you know. Because people without opposable thumbs can hold tools, and use them to build things. Mkaes perfect sense to me! That or the dinosaurs morphed into boats. Using their advanced knowledge of their genomes, they invented temporary enzyme catalysts that edited their DNA and turned them into organic sea vessels.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on June 19, 2008, 05:05:30 PM
Yeah, you know. Because people without opposable thumbs can hold tools, and use them to build things. Mkaes perfect sense to me! That or the dinosaurs morphed into boats. Using their advanced knowledge of their genomes, they invented temporary enzyme catalysts that edited their DNA and turned them into organic sea vessels.

Congratulations on disregarding the debate worked through in this thread!

Your retarded disanalogy fails utterly. People who have made complex tools have not understood genetics.

We've already discussed the nuances of dinosaur brains and their potential capabilities, and I have personally performed experiments showing the versatility of three-fingered hands. Perhaps you should read more and post less.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: CaptainBaconMan on June 19, 2008, 05:06:30 PM
Yeah, you know. Because people without opposable thumbs can hold tools, and use them to build things. Mkaes perfect sense to me! That or the dinosaurs morphed into boats. Using their advanced knowledge of their genomes, they invented temporary enzyme catalysts that edited their DNA and turned them into organic sea vessels.

Congratulations on disregarding the debate worked through in this thread!

Your retarded disanalogy fails utterly. People who have made complex tools have not understood genetics.

We've already discussed the nuances of dinosaur brains and their potential capabilities, and I have personally performed experiments showing the versatility of three-fingered hands. Perhaps you should read more and post less.

Good job at getting worked up over a joke.

By the way. Did you explore the possibility of your arms being totally useless, and two feet long, while your body is ten times bigger? That and not being able to see anything that is not in motion? You would have to constantly shake your head.

I can say whatever I god damned please. Seeing as that is exactly what you are doing.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on June 19, 2008, 05:09:00 PM
Good job at getting worked up over a joke.

Kudos for cracking lame jokes as your only contribution to an important debate.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on June 19, 2008, 05:10:18 PM
By the way. Did you explore the possibility of your arms being totally usless and two feet long while you body is ten times bigger?

Did you ever consider the possibility that not all dinosaurs were tyrannosaurs?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: CaptainBaconMan on June 19, 2008, 05:10:31 PM
Good job at getting worked up over a joke.

Kudos for cracking lame jokes as your only contribution to an important debate.
That's the joke
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: CaptainBaconMan on June 19, 2008, 05:11:54 PM
By the way. Did you explore the possibility of your arms being totally usless and two feet long while you body is ten times bigger?

Did you ever consider the possibility that not all dinosaurs were tyrannosaurs?
Yes, most of them have elephant feet. Which is a crude way of putting it. The only dinosaurs I can think of that have long enough arms would be raptors. I'm not an archaeologist so excuse me for not knowing every damn dinosaur ever.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on June 19, 2008, 05:15:13 PM
Yes, most of them have elephant feet. Which is a crude way of putting it. the only dinosaurs I can think of that have long enough arms would be raptors. I'm not an archaeologist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achillobator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasaurolophus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corythosaurus

Etc., etc., etc.

Regardless, modern birds use their mouths in complex tool manipulation.

Even if dinosaurs had been paraplegic, they could still have constructed formidable navies.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: CaptainBaconMan on June 19, 2008, 05:19:17 PM
Yes, most of them have elephant feet. Which is a crude way of putting it. the only dinosaurs I can think of that have long enough arms would be raptors. I'm not an archaeologist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achillobator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasaurolophus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corythosaurus

Etc., etc., etc.

Regardless, modern birds use their mouths in complex tool manipulation.

Even if dinosaurs had been paraplegic, they could still have constructed formidable navies.
Modern birds can manipulate those tools, but the most complex 'tool' I've seen a bird create, is a nest.
Anyways, are you saying that only those genus are capable of tool manipulation and creation? What about the other dinosaurs? Are they even capable of complex cognitive functions?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on June 19, 2008, 05:28:40 PM
Modern birds can manipulate those tools, but the most complex 'tool' I've seen a bird create, is a nest.
Anyways, are you saying that only those genus are capable of tool manipulation and creation? What about the other dinosaurs? Are they even capable of complex cognitive functions?

Birds are one of the modern species most closely related to dinosaurs. However, species of many different subclassifications have exhibited varying degrees of tool use - otters, for example, which are mammals, routinely use rocks as tools for breaking open shellfish.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Benocrates on June 19, 2008, 07:54:35 PM
dogplatter is approaching narcy in troll nonsense.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 19, 2008, 08:25:21 PM
Yeah, you know. Because people without opposable thumbs can hold tools, and use them to build things. Mkaes perfect sense to me! That or the dinosaurs morphed into boats. Using their advanced knowledge of their genomes, they invented temporary enzyme catalysts that edited their DNA and turned them into organic sea vessels.

Congratulations on disregarding the debate worked through in this thread!

Your retarded disanalogy fails utterly. People who have made complex tools have not understood genetics.

We've already discussed the nuances of dinosaur brains and their potential capabilities, and I have personally performed experiments showing the versatility of three-fingered hands. Perhaps you should read more and post less.

Yeah, it's really easy to prove what the capabilities of dinosaurs are, what with all of the evidence we have and live dinosaur specimens to test on
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 19, 2008, 09:35:33 PM
Yeah, it's really easy to prove what the capabilities of dinosaurs are, what with all of the evidence we have and live dinosaur specimens to test on

Precisely why we cannot rule out boat building. Here is a composite of some posts I have already made on the subject.

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. All dinosaurs had such a nerve plexus, though it was most pronounced in the sauropods.
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.

Title: Re: antartica
Post by: [][][] on June 19, 2008, 09:52:02 PM
Not true, toolmaking in chimpanzees has been a well documented phenomenon ever since Jane Goodall's studies. Here is a more recent study demonstrating chimps making hunting tools.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2007/feb/chimpstools.shtml
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 19, 2008, 10:15:07 PM
Crows 'make' tools cognitively. They do not simply use them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2178920.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0423_030423_crowtools.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/crow/
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 19, 2008, 10:22:18 PM
Again with the boat thing. If dinosaurs were so smart, why is evolution so fucking slow? I mean, seriously. Dinosaurs build boats, and then there's a span of hundreds of millions of years where non boat building animals exist, then humans pop up and the practice starts up again.

What happened in the animal world that suddenly nobody made boats, was it a union issue or something?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 19, 2008, 10:37:13 PM
If humans and most other animals are wiped out tomorrow in a cataclysmic event, how long do you expect before another animal starts building boats?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 19, 2008, 11:44:09 PM
If humans and most other animals are wiped out tomorrow in a cataclysmic event, how long do you expect before another animal starts building boats?

Why have humans done so much in their existence when compared to any other animal whose existence spans over hundreds of millions of years. But then again this is pointless to argue because you can't prove they actually built boats, because there is no physical evidence to put into the equation
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: theonlydann on June 20, 2008, 04:39:19 AM
Cuz Dinosaurs didn't have fossil fuels to power their inventions.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 20, 2008, 10:02:59 AM
Cuz Dinosaurs didn't have fossil fuels to power their inventions.
First fossil fuels would be available -- I sincerely doubt they used them, however, as there is no evidence to support such an infrastructure. Why in the world would you believe that fossil fuels are necessary for boats, I'll never know.

Title: Re: antartica
Post by: theonlydann on June 20, 2008, 12:26:08 PM
Cuz Dinosaurs didn't have fossil fuels to power their inventions.
First fossil fuels would be available -- I sincerely doubt they used them, however, as there is no evidence to support such an infrastructure. Why in the world would you believe that fossil fuels are necessary for boats, I'll never know.



Dinosaurs were smart, but not smart enough to use solar power. So how would they power their outboard motors? Thats why they werent as advanced as we are. No fossil fuels. Otherwise they would have traveled the oceans faster than with their primitive sails.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 20, 2008, 12:52:03 PM
Now you're just being silly.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: theonlydann on June 20, 2008, 03:22:28 PM
Incorrect. I am winning the topic.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: charlie on June 20, 2008, 03:31:27 PM
And how on earth (for a moment I don't carre if it's flat or not.) how are they going to use those machines or all those other things without opposeble thumbs?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 20, 2008, 04:18:08 PM
The same way other animals use things without opposable thumbs?   ???
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: theonlydann on June 20, 2008, 05:02:44 PM
And how on earth (for a moment I don't carre if it's flat or not.) how are they going to use those machines or all those other things without opposeble thumbs?

Why would a creature without opposable thumbs build something that needs opposable thumbs to use?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 20, 2008, 10:48:21 PM
You need opposable thumbs to use a boat? Pirates only need one leg and one good hand -- they get by with a peg leg, and a hook. I'm pretty sure the dinosaurs would manage to sit their asses on a boat.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 20, 2008, 11:46:45 PM
You need opposable thumbs to use a boat? Pirates only need one leg and one good hand -- they get by with a peg leg, and a hook. I'm pretty sure the dinosaurs would manage to sit their asses on a boat.

Quote
Why would a creature without opposable thumbs build something that needs opposable thumbs to use?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 21, 2008, 12:15:16 AM
You don't need opposable thumbs to use a boat. You guys are dense.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 21, 2008, 12:34:11 AM
You don't need opposable thumbs to use a boat. You guys are dense.

Again with the "using" of boats, you're pretty dense
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 21, 2008, 01:36:17 AM
You need opposable thumbs to use a boat? Pirates only need one leg and one good hand -- they get by with a peg leg, and a hook. I'm pretty sure the dinosaurs would manage to sit their asses on a boat.

Quote
Why would a creature without opposable thumbs build something that needs opposable thumbs to use?


 ???
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: charlie on June 21, 2008, 02:09:08 AM
and how are they going to build a boat without opposeble thumbs?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 21, 2008, 09:13:32 AM
It's already been demonstrated animals can use tools without thumbs.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: charlie on June 21, 2008, 09:28:54 AM
It's already been demonstrated animals can use tools without thumbs.

but can they built a boat or something other complecated?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 21, 2008, 09:42:51 AM
It's already been demonstrated animals can use tools without thumbs.

But how will they build a boats, what is it made of, and what do they look like?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 21, 2008, 10:03:19 AM
I'd suspect they'd be relatively simple boats or rafts. How the hell should I know what they looked like?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: markjo on June 21, 2008, 10:09:19 AM
I'd suspect they'd be relatively simple boats or rafts. How the hell should I know what they looked like?

I would think that it couldn't get any more sophisticated than something resembling a floating nest. 
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 21, 2008, 10:27:24 AM
I'd suspect they'd be relatively simple boats or rafts. How the hell should I know what they looked like?

What do you mean by simple boat, what could they possibly build a functioning raft out of?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Mrs. Peach on June 21, 2008, 10:55:59 AM
One could assume the boats were built of naturally occuring materials but let us not make the mistake of over speculation.  We just do not have enough data about their technology.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Mrs. Peach on June 21, 2008, 11:05:53 AM
And so you decided to spam it with a totally unrelated large graphic?

*Edit*  Retro thanks to Goldstein for the removal.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Wendy on June 21, 2008, 12:54:35 PM
Hi, my name is Ciaran and i'm a firm believer in the round earth theory, i think that flat earth theories are fundamentally flawed and i find it difficult to believe that anyone truly still think that our earth is flat. However, i don't want to angrily rant at those who persist in being comedically ignorant.
so, i'd like to ask, if the continent of antartica doesn't exist, then do penguins exist? do they live on this supposed "ice wall"? what about the film "march of the penguins", was this filmed in a studio? are the penguins just good character actors? is morgan freeman a government agent?

I just can't belive someone is trying to come on to this forum and think they'll get respected if they think you spell antarctica like a texan pronounces it. "Antartica"... Really.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 21, 2008, 01:38:26 PM
Can some one please draw a picture of a dinosaur building a boat? That would make my day.


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1838
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Wendy on June 21, 2008, 01:43:05 PM
Nobody really pays attention to detail any more, I didn't even see it was dinosaurs. ;D
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 21, 2008, 08:29:55 PM
Were I at all talented I'd draw a picture of dinosaurs building a boat with a large active volcano or two and flashing lightning in the background.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: theonlydann on June 22, 2008, 10:11:34 AM
Im sure the dinosaurs took pictures of their boats. We just havent unearthed the photographs yet. When we do, we will have all the proof we need.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Benocrates on June 22, 2008, 09:44:18 PM
haha, I picture a t-rex attempting to build a boat, but getting frustrated by his little arms.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 22, 2008, 10:04:34 PM
"I've got a big head and little arms!"  :-\
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: cmdshft on June 22, 2008, 10:05:20 PM
No.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ski on June 22, 2008, 10:30:43 PM
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk133/FlatEarthSki/DinoIdea.jpg)

Necessity is the mother of invention.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on June 30, 2008, 06:52:07 PM
The first page of this thread is one of the funniest things Ive read on this whole forum

I laughed right out loud.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Dont fear teh sphere on July 01, 2008, 08:06:04 AM
So you believe that a great deal of the different dinosaur species had the capacity to build boats?

Whys that when only a small group of mammals "to our knowledge" have been capable of this. And as of now only one remains.

By the way building a nest is in no way equivalent of building a boat and traveling to a different continent.

Building a nest is an instinctive trait passed on to enable the species to survive.
Birds do not learn how to build a nest from there parent (as far as i know) whereas mammals like humans learn this kind of behavior though cognitive reasoning.

Therefore i don't really see that nest building among birds in any way is an argument for such an outlandish theory.

Using that argument you could say that ants are intelligent because they build colonies and farm bugs. This is also an instinctive behavior which has existed for millions of years and is not the same as evolution of a society which goes much faster because it relies on the passing on of skills to the next generation.

Tool building in the animal kingdom is mostly very inflexible. it is homed for a certain environment and situation and isn't capable of transferring into a new situation.

Building a boat requires a GREAT deal of cognitive skills. Firstly you(the animal in question) would have to be able to imagine that there is an continent at the other side of a great sea. Secondly they would have to have some sort of idea about tool building which usually would come from evolving into a tool building animal. Like having opposable thumbs.

most animals use instincts along with operant conditioning to survive.

And judging by the fossil records of dinosaur i don't really see any evidence of them having any use for tools.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 01, 2008, 11:54:19 AM
So you believe that a great deal of the different dinosaur species had the capacity to build boats?

Whys that when only a small group of mammals "to our knowledge" have been capable of this. And as of now only one remains.

By the way building a nest is in no way equivalent of building a boat and traveling to a different continent.

Building a nest is an instinctive trait passed on to enable the species to survive.
Birds do not learn how to build a nest from there parent (as far as i know) whereas mammals like humans learn this kind of behavior though cognitive reasoning.

Therefore i don't really see that nest building among birds in any way is an argument for such an outlandish theory.

Using that argument you could say that ants are intelligent because they build colonies and farm bugs. This is also an instinctive behavior which has existed for millions of years and is not the same as evolution of a society which goes much faster because it relies on the passing on of skills to the next generation.

Tool building in the animal kingdom is mostly very inflexible. it is homed for a certain environment and situation and isn't capable of transferring into a new situation.

Building a boat requires a GREAT deal of cognitive skills. Firstly you(the animal in question) would have to be able to imagine that there is an continent at the other side of a great sea. Secondly they would have to have some sort of idea about tool building which usually would come from evolving into a tool building animal. Like having opposable thumbs.

most animals use instincts along with operant conditioning to survive.

And judging by the fossil records of dinosaur i don't really see any evidence of them having any use for tools.

Well obviously if the theory is correct dinosaurs were far more intelligent than we give them credit for being.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on July 03, 2008, 10:51:47 AM
So you believe that a great deal of the different dinosaur species had the capacity to build boats?

Whys that when only a small group of mammals "to our knowledge" have been capable of this. And as of now only one remains.

Even if only one species of dinosaur attained naval capabilities, their travel would doubtless have included the transportation of "livestock" analogous to human society's domain over less developed animals, which would still corroborate fossil evidence.

However, it's entirely plausible that many species of dinosaur became enlightened and would have used their skills to compliment one another's in building a fleet of intercontinental boats. Given the amount of time dinosaurs ruled the Earth compared with humans, it's quite likely that dinosaurs would have overcome the petty prejudices which still plague mankind today, and created a harmonious society in which several species had a legitimate role.

By the way building a nest is in no way equivalent of building a boat and traveling to a different continent.

I'm not suggesting it is, the reason for nest-building as an example is that it exhibits fine-motor skills and tool use.

Building a nest is an instinctive trait passed on to enable the species to survive.

Building a boat may have been an instinctive trait passed on to enable the species to survive (though I don't believe it was).

Birds do not learn how to build a nest from there parent (as far as i know) whereas mammals like humans learn this kind of behavior though cognitive reasoning.

Therefore i don't really see that nest building among birds in any way is an argument for such an outlandish theory.

It's nowhere near that clear cut. Many, many birds demonstrate learning from environment rather than through instinct. Crows, parrots, and, oh - pigeons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon) - are just some of the birds which are capable of environmental learning.

Mammals also exhibit a great deal of instinctive behaviour.

Using that argument you could say that ants are intelligent because they build colonies and farm bugs. This is also an instinctive behavior which has existed for millions of years and is not the same as evolution of a society which goes much faster because it relies on the passing on of skills to the next generation.

Yes but you'll see that I'm arguing that boat building was the result of cognition, not instinct.

Tool building in the animal kingdom is mostly very inflexible. it is homed for a certain environment and situation and isn't capable of transferring into a new situation.

Nope, it isn't. Almost all human tool use is cognitive and adaptive, so is much avian cognition.

Building a boat requires a GREAT deal of cognitive skills. Firstly you(the animal in question) would have to be able to imagine that there is an continent at the other side of a great sea. Secondly they would have to have some sort of idea about tool building which usually would come from evolving into a tool building animal.

You just described what people have done. Why can't dinosaurs have done it?...

Like having opposable thumbs.

...and here's the reason for the nest example. How many times do I have to reiterate that OPPOSABLE THUMBS ARE NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR ADVANCED TOOL USE?

Not only does nest-building provide a robust rebuttal to this misconception, it's also disproven by my favorite FE-related experiment, the dinosaur-hands experiment. I have personally conducted an experiment proving that advanced tools can be used without opposable thumbs by taping the digits of my hands together in the configuration [thumb-index; middle-ring; little finger] and then doing all kinds of stuff. Eventually, I am going to organise a mass experiment in which a group of people with this taping restriction construct a seaworthy boat using natural materials. It will be great.

most animals use instincts along with operant conditioning to survive.

Dinosaurs (and people) are not most animals.

And judging by the fossil records of dinosaur i don't really see any evidence of them having any use for tools.

Read the thread please, we've discussed this. The statistical likelyhood of wooden tools surviving (on the basis of proportions of dinosaur remains which fossilize against those which don't) is very slim. The likelyhood of stone tools being distinguishable from those of a human origin is very slim.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: benjboi on August 05, 2008, 06:22:36 PM
Except that human stone tools and dinosaur stone tools would not be at the same point in the fossil record. In fact a human stone tool would not take any part of the fossil record.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Paizuri on August 14, 2008, 05:17:31 AM
*Cough*  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/photogalleries/giant-penguins/index.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/photogalleries/giant-penguins/index.html)  *Cough*
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Crudblud on August 14, 2008, 05:59:09 AM
Incredible, human sized penguins, that should be a monster movie.


Also, according to my understanding, some FEers believe Antarctica is a peninsula attached to the inside of the southern ice wall, whereas some believe that Antarctica is the ice wall itself or even that there is no Antarctica and only the "Ice Wall."
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Wendy on August 14, 2008, 06:57:31 AM
Those pictures are photoshopped. Except for the one with the skulls. The larger skull is made of composite materials.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Paizuri on August 14, 2008, 09:54:48 AM
So, I've read this whole thread, and chunks of some of the others, and I've gotta say "Wow".  I honestly had no idea there were still people out there who believe the Earth is flat.  I mean, I love a good conspiracy theory (9/11, JFK, I could even see the faked moon landing being possible) but this takes the cake.  Sentient dinosaurs traveling between the continents, bio-engineered penguins, ice guards (I can't even type that without cracking a smile).  I've just got a couple of questions before I trade in my globe for a map on a table with some ice cubes around the perimeter...

1.)  If the Earth is traveling upward at a rate of 1G, wouldn't we
 a. Get closer to the stars etc.
 b. Hit things as we travel
 c. Move into a different area of the universe
 
2.)  Do you guys tell the people you know in real life that you believe the Earth is flat?   (not trying to be offensive, I'm honestly curious about this)
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Wendy on August 14, 2008, 10:09:42 AM
1.)
a.) No, the stars are moving as well.
b.) Well, meteorites and asteroids smash into the earth a lot, but that is fact in the RE model of the universe too.
c.) Well, that too is a fact in the RE model of the universe.

2.) My old friends didn't believe me, so I made new ones here. ;D
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Parsifal on August 14, 2008, 10:12:30 AM
1.)  If the Earth is traveling upward at a rate of 1G, wouldn't we
 a. Get closer to the stars etc.
 b. Hit things as we travel
 c. Move into a different area of the universe
 
2.)  Do you guys tell the people you know in real life that you believe the Earth is flat?   (not trying to be offensive, I'm honestly curious about this)

1.)
 a. No.
 b. Yes, they're called meteors.
 c. Yes.

2.) No.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Paizuri on August 14, 2008, 01:35:50 PM
1.)  If the Earth is traveling upward at a rate of 1G, wouldn't we
 a. Get closer to the stars etc.
 b. Hit things as we travel
 c. Move into a different area of the universe
 
2.)  Do you guys tell the people you know in real life that you believe the Earth is flat?   (not trying to be offensive, I'm honestly curious about this)

1.)
 a. No.
 b. Yes, they're called meteors.
 c. Yes.

2.) No.


In order for us to not hit the stars (or get closer to them at least) the stars and more or less every planetary body would need to be traveling at the same constant speed.

I realize that meteors and other such space debris hits us, but I was referring to things such as other planets, and black holes, etc.

Of course in the current round earth model we move to different parts of the universe, but it's on an orbit of the sun, we never stray too far from our current position in the universe.  I was more saying "Wouldn't we end up in a different galaxy".  What happens when we run out of milky way ... we'd notice that.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Wendy on August 14, 2008, 01:44:09 PM
You are aware that the entire milky way is moving in RET, right?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Paizuri on August 14, 2008, 01:56:50 PM
You are aware that the entire milky way is moving in RET, right?

I believe that's more of an expansion than movement.  Could be wrong though.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Wendy on August 14, 2008, 02:05:46 PM
You are. In any case, the rest of the universe is accelerating too in FET.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Paizuri on August 14, 2008, 02:54:30 PM
You are. In any case, the rest of the universe is accelerating too in FET.

All in the same direction (the one perceived by us as "up"), I assume.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Wendy on August 14, 2008, 02:57:58 PM
I'm not quite certain, but I think it's accelerating outwards from a percieved middle point.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 14, 2008, 03:03:17 PM
How else do you explain that penguins are unable to fly, and why penguin fossil records are basically non-existant? There are no penguin fossils because penguins didn't evolve - they were MADE.

Ostriches can't fly or chickens or emus or kiwis.  All spawns of the government I'm sure.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: markjo on August 14, 2008, 07:21:51 PM
How else do you explain that penguins are unable to fly, and why penguin fossil records are basically non-existant? There are no penguin fossils because penguins didn't evolve - they were MADE.

No penguin fossil records?
http://www.eliasdesigns.com/penguins/history.htm
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200706293
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Paizuri on August 14, 2008, 07:25:11 PM
I don't see why you need the acceleration in your theory at all.  I mean you guys believe in gravity, which as I understand it is caused by a objects of large mass causing a curvature of the space-time, which a giant flat earth would still do.  
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Ke0 on August 14, 2008, 07:38:20 PM
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.

Penguins were deliberately engineered to be very easy to catch (hence their lack of flight), but also to be extremely efficient at catching and eating fish. It is economically easier for conspiracy ice-wall guards to have penguins indirectly harvest fish for them, then shoot or trap the fish-filled penguins with ease.

In answer to your other question - yes, March of the Penguins was filmed in a studio. Those penguins were probably animatronic replicas though, because the government can't afford to use large numbers of penguins except for feeding ice-wall guards.

Seeing as penguins have been documented as early as 1901....your argument falls apart...
See Discovery Expedition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Expedition.

While I have no qualms about people believing in a flat earth, please for the love of god educate yourselves on basic knowledge, so that you don't shove your own foot in your mouth and destroy your theory.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 14, 2008, 07:42:18 PM

While I have no qualms about people believing in a flat earth, please for the love of god educate yourselves on basic knowledge, so that you don't shove your own foot in your mouth and destroy your theory.

WHich happens on a daily if not hourly basis here by the FE'ers usually Tom, Narc, and Dogplatter.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: ghost_hacked on August 26, 2008, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: CrimsonKing
Ummm I think not Dogplatter, after the penguins, and insinuating that Dinosaurs had powertools and CAD/CAM  (in this thread, check it out), I think everyone has basically decided youre insane.

I NEVER implied that they did. My point, when I used that colourful analogy, as anyone with decent comprehension of English will gather, was that we have no idea what technology dinosaurs were capable of, so they could well have built boats.

No tools, no boats.

Quote from: EnCrypto
For 60 ton, 100 foot long dinosaurs, they are.

How do we know that it wasn't just the lightest dinosaurs that colonised? Baby versions of heavier dinosaurs (like Allosaurus and Brontosaurus) may have been escorted across the sea by more responsible, but smaller, adult dinosaurs (like Deinonychus or Protoceratops).

How do you explain the fact that large dinosaurs fossiles have been discovered all over the world. Since you have fossiles of large dinosaurs in more than one continent, then you understand the rest. They would have had to build bigger and multiple boat, fleets if you will. This would mean serious organization skills. This would mean intelligence. Then you understand the rest. This would leave some evidence of an intelligent, possibly civilized society. Why, they would have port 'cities' if you will. And there is really no evidence that they made these ports.

OH and to get to those ports, they would also have to understand nagivation. They would know basic elementary math. But the theory is that the Dino governments suppressed the knowledge of the earth being flat.

Do FE'ers think early man lived in the time of dinosaurs?? :)

Do we know for sure that they actually died out? In the "Alternative Science" forum at this very moment, a thread by Dionysios is discussing the possibility that dinosaurs lived well into the middle ages and may still be alive today (under the pseudonyms of "dragons", "thunderbirds" and so on).

Yeah, but what intelligent, boat-building dinosaur would accidentally drown itself in a lake, or die by freezing in some stupidly cold place? A very stupid one, that's what.

Stupid people go out in such fantastic ways. Drowning, freezing to death..... *sigh*

Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Richard Head on August 27, 2008, 04:39:08 AM
Quote from: CrimsonKing
Ummm I think not Dogplatter, after the penguins, and insinuating that Dinosaurs had powertools and CAD/CAM  (in this thread, check it out), I think everyone has basically decided youre insane.

I NEVER implied that they did. My point, when I used that colourful analogy, as anyone with decent comprehension of English will gather, was that we have no idea what technology dinosaurs were capable of, so they could well have built boats.

No tools, no boats.

Quote from: EnCrypto
For 60 ton, 100 foot long dinosaurs, they are.

How do we know that it wasn't just the lightest dinosaurs that colonised? Baby versions of heavier dinosaurs (like Allosaurus and Brontosaurus) may have been escorted across the sea by more responsible, but smaller, adult dinosaurs (like Deinonychus or Protoceratops).

How do you explain the fact that large dinosaurs fossiles have been discovered all over the world. Since you have fossiles of large dinosaurs in more than one continent, then you understand the rest. They would have had to build bigger and multiple boat, fleets if you will. This would mean serious organization skills. This would mean intelligence. Then you understand the rest. This would leave some evidence of an intelligent, possibly civilized society. Why, they would have port 'cities' if you will. And there is really no evidence that they made these ports.

OH and to get to those ports, they would also have to understand nagivation. They would know basic elementary math. But the theory is that the Dino governments suppressed the knowledge of the earth being flat.

Do FE'ers think early man lived in the time of dinosaurs?? :)

Do we know for sure that they actually died out? In the "Alternative Science" forum at this very moment, a thread by Dionysios is discussing the possibility that dinosaurs lived well into the middle ages and may still be alive today (under the pseudonyms of "dragons", "thunderbirds" and so on).

Yeah, but what intelligent, boat-building dinosaur would accidentally drown itself in a lake, or die by freezing in some stupidly cold place? A very stupid one, that's what.

Stupid people go out in such fantastic ways. Drowning, freezing to death..... *sigh*



you need to keep an open mind...

what kinda cities that we have now would last over 65 million years?

also,not all dinosaurs need to have developed...look at dinosauroids  troodon etc:reptilians?

after all,humans can do all those things,but can other primates?

xx

Title: Re: antartica
Post by: GoodPoint on September 08, 2008, 06:13:07 PM
How else do you explain that penguins are unable to fly, and why penguin fossil records are basically non-existant? There are no penguin fossils because penguins didn't evolve - they were MADE.

Penguins can't fly because they don't need to. They have survived without it this far, haven't they? Were chickens also created by Russian scientists?

There are no fossils because the government Ice-Wall guards won't let any archeologists down there, of course! At least, that would be the case if your theory were true, so I'm not sure why you even had to bring that up.

In the real world, they haven't really dug up Antarctica yet. Although I'm sure that in a few months Sarah Palin will find some fossils.  :'(
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: James on September 09, 2008, 03:31:31 AM
Quote from: EnCrypto
For 60 ton, 100 foot long dinosaurs, they are.

How do we know that it wasn't just the lightest dinosaurs that colonised? Baby versions of heavier dinosaurs (like Allosaurus and Brontosaurus) may have been escorted across the sea by more responsible, but smaller, adult dinosaurs (like Deinonychus or Protoceratops).

How do you explain the fact that large dinosaurs fossiles have been discovered all over the world. Since you have fossiles of large dinosaurs in more than one continent, then you understand the rest. They would have had to build bigger and multiple boat, fleets if you will. This would mean serious organization skills. This would mean intelligence. Then you understand the rest. This would leave some evidence of an intelligent, possibly civilized society. Why, they would have port 'cities' if you will. And there is really no evidence that they made these ports.

You didn't even read the excerpt you're quoting, did you?

Here:
How do we know that it wasn't just the lightest dinosaurs that colonised? Baby versions of heavier dinosaurs (like Allosaurus and Brontosaurus) may have been escorted across the sea by more responsible, but smaller, adult dinosaurs (like Deinonychus or Protoceratops).

OH and to get to those ports, they would also have to understand nagivation. They would know basic elementary math.

So do migratory birds understand basic elementary math? They manage intercontinental navigation just fine, and incidentally, are direct descendants of dinosaurs.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 09, 2008, 08:58:23 PM
So do migratory birds understand basic elementary math? They manage intercontinental navigation just fine, and incidentally, are direct descendants of dinosaurs.

Aren't we all?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 09, 2008, 09:38:49 PM
So do migratory birds understand basic elementary math? They manage intercontinental navigation just fine, and incidentally, are direct descendants of dinosaurs.

Aren't we all?

No...
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 09, 2008, 11:43:42 PM
Dinosaurs weren't before mammals?
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Parsifal on September 09, 2008, 11:52:50 PM
(http://i36.tinypic.com/34pi5ua.jpg)
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 09, 2008, 11:53:45 PM
(http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2281/loltrekke3.jpg)
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: dyno on September 09, 2008, 11:59:30 PM
Wow I'm amazed.

Dogplatter, do you mean to say those little fairy penguins living in Australia that were here when the settlers landed 200+ years ago are actually Russian creations sent back in time?

We really are in trouble if the reds can do that.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Paizuri on September 10, 2008, 07:06:02 AM
Wow I'm amazed.

Dogplatter, do you mean to say those little fairy penguins living in Australia that were here when the settlers landed 200+ years ago are actually Russian creations sent back in time?

We really are in trouble if the reds can do that.

In Soviet Russia, Penguins build YOU.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 11, 2008, 02:12:34 PM
So do migratory birds understand basic elementary math? They manage intercontinental navigation just fine, and incidentally, are direct descendants of dinosaurs.


OK Ive been reading up about this since the facepalm post.  Everything I've read said dinosaurs came before mammals.  So I stand by that statement.  Also in my reading I have come to find out that the "extinction" event killed half of the species on earth and all the dinosaurs except for modern birds.  So with that evidence I would say that birds are not decedents of dinosaurs.  Dogplatter's statement is incorrect.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Parsifal on September 11, 2008, 02:18:18 PM
(http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2281/loltrekke3.jpg)
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 11, 2008, 02:19:53 PM
Nice quote.  Looks like a win for me.

Title: Re: antartica
Post by: Parsifal on September 11, 2008, 02:21:15 PM
Nice quote.  Looks like a win for me.

I'd reason with you if you were making any sort of sense at all.
Title: Re: antartica
Post by: RE_FTW on September 14, 2008, 04:45:44 PM
Okay, I wasn't going to read through this whole topic so a few things...

Pangaea existed. It has been proved by geologists and archaelogists. This also explains for dinosaur fossils being found all over the world. The dinosaurs died on one supercontinent and were then split up as the continent split. FET cannot be true as the 'Ice ring' is solid ground with a hell of a lot of ice frozen on it. Fair enough, in both models Antartica/The ice ring is far away from the Sun and receives little heat. BUT, for FET to be true, this ground would have had to expanded to make way for the splitting of Pangaea. As there are no gaps in the supposed ice ring, this is impossible.

Also, dinosaurs would not have been capable of inter-continental travel. Building boats requires the use of advanced mathematics and opposable thumbs. I can tell you now, dinosaurs lacked both opposable thumbs and any grasp on mathematics. They were hunters, just as animals are today. Their main aim was not to socialise or find a cure for cancer, but to live by eating what they could, when they could and continuing the species.