The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Crustinator on November 09, 2009, 02:46:24 PM

Title: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 09, 2009, 02:46:24 PM
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 10, 2009, 01:43:16 AM
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.


Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 10, 2009, 07:03:05 AM
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.


Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.
To be fair, they are hypotheses.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 10, 2009, 08:57:31 AM
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.


Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.

Then it must be passive and unspoken support. I've never seen anyone else make a post promoting colonial dinosaurs.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 10, 2009, 08:58:55 AM
Hypothesis or theory,  it merits more than just compulsive skepticism disguised as clear-sightedness.  I support James and I think there are others, Ski for instance.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 10, 2009, 11:22:32 AM
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.


Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.

Then it must be passive and unspoken support. I've never seen anyone else make a post promoting colonial dinosaurs.


I've done so on several occasions. You've been here two months, I've been here 31/2 years. Just because you haven't seen something happen in the last two month isn't a reason to assume it hasn't happened at all.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 11, 2009, 04:28:43 AM
I've done so on several occasions. You've been here two months, I've been here 31/2 years. Just because you haven't seen something happen in the last two month isn't a reason to assume it hasn't happened at all.

First you're appealing to ignorance in that we are to assume that such evidence exists. Then you're appealing to antiquity in that the fact that you've been here longer than me means that you shouldn't have to present such evidence.

That's not the zetetic way.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 11, 2009, 05:03:18 AM
I'm not appealing to ignornance, because you are free to use the search function. If you do so, you will easily find several, lengthy threads where I defend that theory. In fact, I doubt there's more than one or two significant threads on that subject in which I do not state my support for that theory. Honestly, search dinosaurs, and you'll find me in those threads. Search for dinosaurs under my username, and you'll find endless examples.


To prove how easy it would be for you to use the search function, I just did so. Searching 'dinosaurs' under my username, one of the dirst results is this:


To be honest, that this is even a matter of debate any more perplexes me. Given the evidence, to doubt that dinosaurs had a maritime society strikes me as irrational.


I made that post within the last two weeks. Really, you had no reason to assume what you did.


Secondly, appealing to antiquity? You came out point blank and told me that you'd


never seen anyone else make a post promoting colonial dinosaurs.


My point is that you not having seen it doesn't mean you should assume that my support


must be passive and unspoken support.


It really is very simple.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 11, 2009, 05:18:55 AM
My point is that you not having seen it doesn't mean you should assume that my support "must be passive and unspoken support."

Are we to assume things are true without seeing evidence for them?

To be honest, that this is even a matter of debate any more perplexes me. Given the evidence, to doubt that dinosaurs had a maritime society strikes me as irrational.
I made that post within the last two weeks. Really, you had no reason to assume what you did.

You could have just posted this first time round.

*shrugs*

However, having searched it seems that you are the only one to support James in his colonial dinosaur boat theory. So "one" not "several" support James.

The point still stands, most FEers seem to have their own "flat earth". There is little unity. See our discussion on redundancy in the FAQ for details.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 11, 2009, 05:27:25 AM
However, having searched it seems that you are the only one to support James in his colonial dinosaur boat theory. So "one" not "several" support James.


Tom Bishop has supported that theory on many occasions. So has Ski. I'm pretty sure John has as well. Learn to search better.


You could have just posted this first time round.


You could have avoided making such a groundless assumption in the first place.


Are we to assume things are true without seeing evidence for them?


Should you assume they are untrue without seeing evidence? I stated I had supported James on several occasions; you made the assumption that I had not done so openly The Zetetic way is based on removing assumptions. You should look into it.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 11, 2009, 05:44:04 AM


The point still stands, most FEers seem to have their own "flat earth". There is little unity.

The point doesn't stand because you have no idea about the unity within the FE community, flat earthers in general, or really any population other than that of a site specifically designed to encourage and bring out different theorists.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 11, 2009, 05:49:13 AM
I've in the past argued  in support of the possibility of colonial dinosaurs despite it being against my personal worldview.

I know Tom has argued for theories similar to colonial dinosaurs - but instead the methods of travel were floating eggs, etc.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 11, 2009, 07:31:27 AM


However, having searched it seems that you are the only one to support James in his colonial dinosaur boat theory. So "one" not "several" support James.


If you will only do a proper search, you will see you are wrong.  Try the threads 'Do Dinosaurs exist in FE theory?' and  'Antartica' (sic).
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 11, 2009, 07:45:05 AM
*Ahem*

The topic of discussion seems to have strayed from sky mirrors to dinosaurs.  Unless the dinos had something to do with erecting the sky mirrors, I'd say that you guys should get back on topic.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 11, 2009, 10:32:33 AM
I've in the past argued  in support of the possibility of colonial dinosaurs despite it being against my personal worldview.

I've seen no evidence of this. I have searched.

I know Tom has argued for theories similar to colonial dinosaurs - but instead the methods of travel were floating eggs, etc.

Similar is not equal to.

If you will only do a proper search, you will see you are wrong.

I've seen no evidence to indicate such. I have searched the threads mentioned.

Since we are getting off topic I suggest a new topic be launched.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 11, 2009, 09:38:19 PM
I've in the past argued  in support of the possibility of colonial dinosaurs despite it being against my personal worldview.

I've seen no evidence of this. I have searched.
Obviously larger nests might be able to weather the ocean.  I know that at least one of those species lives in the sea during certain parts of the year.

So to restate, the claim that they cannot build "technology" (which is silly, look at the level of technology present in those brave boat goers on easter island) is a bit false. 

If a bird can make a sea worthy vessel, why not a smarter creature an oceanic one? 

Many routes of travel would only require minimal travel, especially if there were less oceans  in the past.

Quote
I know Tom has argued for theories similar to colonial dinosaurs - but instead the methods of travel were floating eggs, etc.

Similar is not equal to.
It's under the same realm of theories, but you are correct.
Quote
If you will only do a proper search, you will see you are wrong.

I've seen no evidence to indicate such. I have searched the threads mentioned.
Apparently you haven't.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 12, 2009, 04:27:01 AM
Apparently you haven't.

I have.

This would be the point where you prove me wrong. Instead of just insisting I'm wrong without posting anything to back your statements up.

 :-\
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 12, 2009, 04:33:32 AM
Obviously larger nests might be able to weather the ocean.  I know that at least one of those species lives in the sea during certain parts of the year.

So to restate, the claim that they cannot build "technology" (which is silly, look at the level of technology present in those brave boat goers on easter island) is a bit false. 

If a bird can make a sea worthy vessel, why not a smarter creature an oceanic one? 

Many routes of travel would only require minimal travel, especially if there were less oceans  in the past.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 12, 2009, 04:45:34 AM
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.

edit: I see someone has locked the topic in which I asked FE'ers to declare their support for James and his civilised colonising dinosaurs.

I'm not sure why that was, it would have been much more interesting pursuing that topic of discussion rather than the dog end of another thread.

I'll have to restate the question here.


Quote from: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34160.0

In another thread Lord WIlmore suggested that there are several FEers who support James/Dogplatter in his belief that dinosaurs were an advanced and civilised race who colonised the planet building cities and boats.

Would all such supporters please state their support in no uncertain terms here.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: MikeVaughanG on November 12, 2009, 07:25:41 AM
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.

edit: I see someone has locked the topic in which I asked FE'ers to declare their support for James and his civilised colonising dinosaurs.

I'm not sure why that was, it would have been much more interesting pursuing that topic of discussion rather than the dog end of another thread.

I'll have to restate the question here.


Quote from: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34160.0

In another thread Lord WIlmore suggested that there are several FEers who support James/Dogplatter in his belief that dinosaurs were an advanced and civilised race who colonised the planet building cities and boats.

Would all such supporters please state their support in no uncertain terms here.

Alright Crustinator, instead of trying to disporve flat earth theory, You've resorted to personally attacking Lord Wiillmore, which is just.. low brow.

Now, I agree that Willmore is not a likable character, but can we try to focus on raising the average IQ of the people who red these forums, not textually attacking one person.

IOf there's one thing you learn from this forum, let it be .. Some people, You just CAN'T reach.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 12, 2009, 07:34:43 AM
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.


You never specified boat building. I also think it's hilarious that you assume you have the right to demand that other people state their beliefs to you at a time and place of your choosing. We've already shown that there are a number of people on this site who support that theory, and that your initial statement was false.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 12, 2009, 08:18:26 AM
You never specified boat building.

Yes I did. James' colonial dinosaur theory encompasses boat building amongst many other things. I claified what I was requesting in the new topic.


We've already shown that there are a number of people on this site who support that theory, and that your initial statement was false.

No you haven't. There's just you so far. All I'm asking is that the others make themselves known by stating it explicitly.

Alright Crustinator, instead of trying to disporve flat earth theory, You've resorted to personally attacking Lord Wiillmore, which is just.. low brow.

I'm not attacking Wilmore at all. I'm interested in finding out what people actually support James in his colonial dinosaurs theory. Wilmore says that there are several people. So far I've only found evidence that Wilmore alone supports this theory. If there are more I'd like to know.

If there's any doubt. Here's what I'm refering to:

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.

... building advanced tools and weapons of wood and stone, conquering the high seas to colonize the continents, developing language (maybe even writing) and so on.

My picture only spells out that dinosaurs were the first animals on Earth to build boats (the Egyptian Sun God Ra is depicted ferrying a trio of sauropods on his divine raft).

The evidence for dinosaur colonialism and seafaring is ample. Your refusal to correctly interpret the evidence is the problem. Thousands upon thousands of plant and animal remains testify to the advanced civilisation which the dinosaurs constructed.

And finally...

We can reasonably assume that an adult Deinonychus would require approximately the same capacity as an adult human based on the weight comparison I've cited (the largest Deinonychus specimens would have weighed around 73kg).

...

Further details can be found by reading those threads.

Please no posts quoting other people as believers in James theory. Let them speak for themselves.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 12, 2009, 08:39:10 AM
I somehow got the idea you disliked redundancy.  This thread is redundant.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 12, 2009, 01:14:30 PM
Yes I did. James' colonial dinosaur theory encompasses boat building amongst many other things. I claified what I was requesting in the new topic.


Your clarification came after the fact. Please excuse our lack of clairvoyance


We've already shown that there are a number of people on this site who support that theory, and that your initial statement was false.

No you haven't. There's just you so far. All I'm asking is that the others make themselves known by stating it explicitly.


First of all, your initial statement indicated that no-one else supported his theory. Simply by expressing my support (both consistent and long-standing), I have disproved your initial statement. Regarding others besides myself, what other way is there for me to show it? If they post themselves, then plainly they have shown it. By pointing to threads where others express their support, I have shown you that there are a number of people on this site who support his theory.


Please no posts quoting other people as believers in James theory. Let them speak for themselves.


To quote someone is to provide an example of people speaking for themselves. Nobody is obligated to come running at your beck and call.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 12, 2009, 03:01:05 PM
By pointing to threads where others express their support, I have shown you that there are a number of people on this site who support his theory.

You haven't pointed to any such threads.

If there are supporters for this theory then they can show their support here, thereby proving that it is true that there are several who support James in his colonial dinosaur theory.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 12, 2009, 04:23:34 PM
You haven't pointed to any such threads.


You've specifically asked us not to quote such threads! All I can tell you to do is to search for them!



If there are supporters for this theory then they can show their support here, thereby proving that it is true that there are several who support James in his colonial dinosaur theory.


They already proved as much by supporting his theories in previous threads.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 12, 2009, 07:58:24 PM
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.
I disagree, they are the same thing.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 13, 2009, 02:57:15 AM
You haven't pointed to any such threads.


You've specifically asked us not to quote such threads! All I can tell you to do is to search for them!

I did search. I didn't find any. You claimed that you showed me such threads. Now you backing away from that statement. That's fine.

That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.
I disagree, they are the same thing.

No they're not.

Let me help you.

Floating nest: http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/13985/wm/pd610785.jpg
Boat building: http://www.indiadailyphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/boat_building_veraval.jpg

I'll ask you directly John. Do belief that dinosaurs were an advanced and civilised race who colonised the planet building cities and boats?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 13, 2009, 03:23:28 AM
I've already answered that.

A nest that travels across oceans is a boat.  A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 13, 2009, 03:50:37 AM
You haven't pointed to any such threads.


You've specifically asked us not to quote such threads! All I can tell you to do is to search for them!

I did search. I didn't find any. You claimed that you showed me such threads. Now you backing away from that statement. That's fine.


You couldn't find my posts either at the start, and they definitely exist. I've used the search function, and I've found posts by others supporting his theory. Conclusion? You fail at searching. I can only show you the door, Neo. You have to walk through it yourself.


I disagree, they are the same thing.


Agreed, especially as Tom has also claimed that Dinosaurs may have used logs to float across the ocean. Used in this manner, a log is essentially a simple raft.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 13, 2009, 06:22:44 AM
I've already answered that.

A nest that travels across oceans is a boat.  A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.

Do you have any documented evidence of a nest successfully transporting a bird and/or egg across an ocean?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 13, 2009, 07:14:22 AM
Across a sea yes.  Given that dinosaur nests would likely be much larger, it is not unreasonable to say its possible.

But to answer your question: no.  But I don't support this theory.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 13, 2009, 07:19:13 AM
I've already answered that.

A nest that travels across oceans is a boat.  A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 13, 2009, 07:21:54 AM
Quote from: wiki
Colonization occurs whenever any one or more species populate an area.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 13, 2009, 09:35:23 AM
I've already answered that.

A nest that travels across oceans is a boat.  A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration

OK this is descending into semantic nitpicking. It's like Parsifal never left. John, you know perfectly well that there is a distinction between a floating nest and a boat, you're being obtuse.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 13, 2009, 09:41:20 AM
But to answer your question: no.  But I don't support this theory.

Thank you for taking the time to post.

Unfortunately I'm not looking for people who don't support this theory, but those that do.

I invite them to show themselves here.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Raist on November 13, 2009, 11:34:02 AM
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.


Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.
To be fair, they are hypotheses.

They aren't testable statements. They're ideas.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 13, 2009, 11:35:27 AM
Across a sea yes.  Given that dinosaur nests would likely be much larger, it is not unreasonable to say its possible.

Just because a few modern species of birds can build nests that float in calm waters, I don't see how it's reasonable to expect dinosaur nests to be able to survive trans-oceanic voyages without knowing more about what sort of materials and construction techniques the dinos would have used to make their nests.

But to answer your question: no.  But I don't support this theory.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 13, 2009, 01:10:17 PM
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 13, 2009, 01:16:33 PM
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.
I see no evidence that they did.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 13, 2009, 01:26:21 PM
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.
I see no evidence that they did.
I see no evidence of Pangaea
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 13, 2009, 02:05:04 PM
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.

This topic isn't about floating nests. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.

See here for details:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg838217#msg838217

Is this something you subscribe to?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 13, 2009, 02:10:00 PM
I see no evidence of Pangaea

That's because anything that points to its existence you either wilfully ignore, claim to be false, or come up with an even more far fetched explanation for (for which there will be less evidence than Pangaea). You are known for your shallowness of research and sycophantic agreement with whichever flat earth ideas are being put forward in any given thread, Kepler. I have yet to see any posts in which you express an opinion of your own.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 13, 2009, 04:47:26 PM
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.

This topic isn't about floating nests. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.

See here for details:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg838217#msg838217

Is this something you subscribe to?
I believe it is possible that dinosaurs built floating nests that enabled the dinosaurs to spread to the different continents.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Raist on November 13, 2009, 07:01:16 PM
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.

I don't see why lizards can't either. Except for the fact that they lack the parts of the brain necessary for problem solving.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 13, 2009, 07:14:11 PM
I see no reason why dinosaurs could not build floating nests.

I don't see why lizards can't either. Except for the fact that they lack the parts of the brain necessary for problem solving.

Or the requisite manual dexterity (and I'm not referring to just opposable thumbs).
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 13, 2009, 09:54:59 PM
I've already answered that.

A nest that travels across oceans is a boat.  A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration

OK this is descending into semantic nitpicking. It's like Parsifal never left. John, you know perfectly well that there is a distinction between a floating nest and a boat, you're being obtuse.
A floating nest used for travel is a boat.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: parsec on November 13, 2009, 09:56:44 PM
Dinosaurs didn't build boats. All the mods/admins are huge trolls.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 13, 2009, 10:23:50 PM
Bald eagles are the decendants of dinosaurs and they build quite large nests. Certainly it is possible for a nest to generate a bouyant force to carry a few eggs.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: parsec on November 13, 2009, 10:26:05 PM
Your logic is infallible.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 14, 2009, 04:32:45 AM
I've already answered that.

A nest that travels across oceans is a boat.  A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration

OK this is descending into semantic nitpicking. It's like Parsifal never left. John, you know perfectly well that there is a distinction between a floating nest and a boat, you're being obtuse.
A floating nest used for travel is a boat.

It's only a boat if it is built with intent to travel on the water. By that I mean a conscious decision on the part of the builders to use it to travel from point A to point B. If that is not the case, then it's not a boat, merely something that coincidentally behaves like a boat.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 14, 2009, 08:10:54 AM
I've already answered that.

A nest that travels across oceans is a boat.  A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration

OK this is descending into semantic nitpicking. It's like Parsifal never left. John, you know perfectly well that there is a distinction between a floating nest and a boat, you're being obtuse.
A floating nest used for travel is a boat.

It's only a boat if it is built with intent to travel on the water. By that I mean a conscious decision on the part of the builders to use it to travel from point A to point B. If that is not the case, then it's not a boat, merely something that coincidentally behaves like a boat.

Intent doesn't matter of the creator, only those who view it retrospectively.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 14, 2009, 08:26:39 AM
Intent doesn't matter of the creator, only those who view it retrospectively.

How would a dinosaur steer a floating nest?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 14, 2009, 08:57:14 AM
The same way coracles are steered.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 14, 2009, 09:33:57 AM

Intent doesn't matter of the creator, only those who view it retrospectively.

If you want it that way, then an iceberg with a penguin standing on it is a boat.  A floating dandelion seed on a breeze is an aircraft. An apple falling off a tree and rolling down a hill is a vehicle. Is that the way you want it, John?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Raist on November 14, 2009, 10:48:43 AM
I've already answered that.

A nest that travels across oceans is a boat.  A boat is a vessel that allows travels of its occupants across water.
then it isnt colonization, its migration

OK this is descending into semantic nitpicking. It's like Parsifal never left. John, you know perfectly well that there is a distinction between a floating nest and a boat, you're being obtuse.
A floating nest used for travel is a boat.

It's only a boat if it is built with intent to travel on the water. By that I mean a conscious decision on the part of the builders to use it to travel from point A to point B. If that is not the case, then it's not a boat, merely something that coincidentally behaves like a boat.

Intent doesn't matter of the creator, only those who view it retrospectively.

So you aren't saying dinosaurs built boats, you are saying dinosaurs got washed away in nests? A reptile nest being a loosely piled mat of sticks and leaves. I somehow doubt this (we've seen fossilized dinosaur nests) and even so those aren't boats, and that certainly was not his idea.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 14, 2009, 11:01:36 AM
How would the dinosaurs communicate and work together? ???
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 14, 2009, 11:19:36 AM
The same way coracles are steered.
Not exactly my first choice for crossing an ocean.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Coracles_River_Teifi.jpg/629px-Coracles_River_Teifi.jpg)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 14, 2009, 11:39:54 AM
The same way coracles are steered.
Not exactly my first choice for crossing an ocean.

Simply speculating, I imagine there were many disasters as with countless other ancient migrations. The success of these dinosaurs should provide us with a new appreciation of their apparent energetic natures.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Raist on November 14, 2009, 11:43:43 AM
So a success rate of 1/100 would be hopeful. And then they'd have to get two different sexes across, so 1/200 that they get two across, and then a 1/400 that they get a male and female across.

Then you have to factor in that they'd have to have enough for genetic diversity, 100 should be enough for genetic diversity. so the loss of life would be 398*100, though the numbers should allow you to ignore sex, so 198*100 would be the total losses, or 19,800. That of course is per species. I don't think their populations were high enough.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 14, 2009, 11:54:53 AM
I  think your 1/100 success rate might be pessimistic, but again this is all speculation. Before applying your numbers, we should try to establish good climate models of the migration periods.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 14, 2009, 12:05:46 PM
How would the dinosaurs communicate and work together? ???

There is already evidence the Theropods were pack hunters.  This would require coordination and some form of communication.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Raist on November 14, 2009, 12:09:27 PM
I  think your 1/100 success rate might be pessimistic, but again this is all speculation. Before applying your numbers, we should try to establish good climate models of the migration periods.

Well considering the size of the boats it might be horribly optimistic, we'd have to figure the distance between continents at the time, but the ice caps certainly would be smaller meaning larger oceans.

Also, you'd have to factor in how they'd bring the food and water for month long voyages, and what this sort of stored diet would do to them nutritionally. Basically what kind of scurvy do dinosaurs get.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 14, 2009, 12:12:09 PM
Also, you'd have to factor in how they'd bring the food and water for month long voyages, and what this sort of stored diet would do to them nutritionally. Basically what kind of scurvy do dinosaurs get.

How would dinosaurs even have the intelligence and foresight necessary to plan something like that?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EnigmaZV on November 14, 2009, 12:51:04 PM
I  think your 1/100 success rate might be pessimistic, but again this is all speculation. Before applying your numbers, we should try to establish good climate models of the migration periods.

Well considering the size of the boats it might be horribly optimistic, we'd have to figure the distance between continents at the time, but the ice caps certainly would be smaller meaning larger oceans.

Also, you'd have to factor in how they'd bring the food and water for month long voyages, and what this sort of stored diet would do to them nutritionally. Basically what kind of scurvy do dinosaurs get.

Dinosaurs might not get any kind of scurvy, humans and guinea pigs are the only animals (that we know of) that are incapable of synthesizing their own vitamin C.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 14, 2009, 01:03:03 PM
Simply speculating,

This topic isn't about coracles. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.

See here for details:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg838217#msg838217

Is this something you subscribe to?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Raist on November 14, 2009, 01:04:30 PM
I  think your 1/100 success rate might be pessimistic, but again this is all speculation. Before applying your numbers, we should try to establish good climate models of the migration periods.

Well considering the size of the boats it might be horribly optimistic, we'd have to figure the distance between continents at the time, but the ice caps certainly would be smaller meaning larger oceans.

Also, you'd have to factor in how they'd bring the food and water for month long voyages, and what this sort of stored diet would do to them nutritionally. Basically what kind of scurvy do dinosaurs get.

Dinosaurs might not get any kind of scurvy, humans and guinea pigs are the only animals (that we know of) that are incapable of synthesizing their own vitamin C.

Wow, I wasn't using scurvy as an example of a disease sailors get due to malnutrition, I totally meant that dinosaurs have the same vitamin c deficiency reaction as humans. Thank you for jerking off on your fun fact of the day.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 15, 2009, 09:13:01 AM

This topic isn't about coracles. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.

See here for details:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg838217#msg838217

Is this something you subscribe to?

So it's your contention that coracles aren't boats?  The type, shape, and complexity of the boats used by the migratory/colonizing dinosaurs is at present, I believe,  unknown.

Why semi-weekly affirmations are required I have no idea but yes, I subscribe to Dogplatter's theory.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 15, 2009, 09:14:40 AM
I subscribe to Dogplatter's theory.

Hurrey!
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 15, 2009, 09:16:17 AM
He's not called Dogplatter any more.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 15, 2009, 09:21:27 AM
@ Therm:
How could that be?  I just now called him Dogplatter.

@Crust:
Just as I said earlier in this thread. Why do you require all the repeats?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 15, 2009, 09:40:36 AM
So it's your contention that coracles aren't boats?  The type, shape, and complexity of the boats used by the migratory/colonizing dinosaurs is at present, I believe,  unknown.

Yes, coracles are indeed boats.  However, I don't see how they would be appropriate for any sort of travel outside of the calmest of waters.  I also don't see room for provisions amounting to much more than a picnic lunch.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 15, 2009, 09:54:41 AM
So it's your contention that coracles aren't boats?  The type, shape, and complexity of the boats used by the migratory/colonizing dinosaurs is at present, I believe,  unknown.

Yes, coracles are indeed boats.  However, I don't see how they would be appropriate for any sort of travel outside of the calmest of waters.  I also don't see room for provisions amounting to much more than a picnic lunch.

Or room for livestock.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 15, 2009, 10:13:47 AM

Perhaps they used a flotilla of coracles/nests.  But as I said before:


The type, shape, and complexity of the boats used by the migratory/colonizing dinosaurs is at present, I believe,  unknown.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 15, 2009, 10:16:26 AM
@ Therm:
How could that be?  I just now called him Dogplatter.


Are you wanting people to call you Robosteve, then?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 15, 2009, 10:19:23 AM
That not only is totally off topic, it makes no sense.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 15, 2009, 11:11:14 AM
Perhaps they used a flotilla of coracles/nests.  But as I said before:


The type, shape, and complexity of the boats used by the migratory/colonizing dinosaurs is at present, I believe,  unknown.

Which is exactly why there is no reason to believe that any dinosaurs ever used any sort of boat or nest for migration/colonization.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 15, 2009, 11:28:16 AM
I don't find any reasonable doubt that some dinosaurs migrated.  The colonization may have occurred as an evolutionary event of such migrations. If you are disputing any possibility of overseas travel, then, my good friend, we'll just agree to differ.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 15, 2009, 01:42:24 PM
That not only is totally off topic, it makes no sense.

It is pertinent to your assertion that referring to James as Dogplatter makes him so; secondly, since your comment was the sort of semantic nitpicking that the late Parsifal enjoyed so much, that is why I suggested I should call you by his previous name.
If you can't work that out [ad hominem] then you're a bit dim. [/ad hominem]
I can just call you The Rotten Fruit if you like?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 15, 2009, 03:19:51 PM
I don't find any reasonable doubt that some dinosaurs migrated. 
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that dinosaurs migrated.  I just don't believe that it's reasonable to believe that they crossed oceans without some pretty compelling evidence.

If you are disputing any possibility of overseas travel, then, my good friend, we'll just agree to differ.
If you, or dogplatter, or anyone else can provide some evidence that dinosaurs actually did build boats instead of merely speculating as to what kind of boats they might have built, then you might have a Nobel prize in your future.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on November 15, 2009, 03:33:05 PM
I don't find any reasonable doubt that some dinosaurs migrated.  The colonization may have occurred as an evolutionary event of such migrations. If you are disputing any possibility of overseas travel, then, my good friend, we'll just agree to differ.

What a nice change of words. Now the dinosaurs are migrating (something nobody doubts) and colonizing (also, something nobody doubts). There is no attempt at all to add to the real issue, which is "overseas travel", however.

I have no quarrel at all with anyone who declares him/herself as non-scientist and talks about ufo abductions, Yetis, and, oh yes, dinosaurs using a nest as a boat. If they declare themselves non-scientists, that is.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2009, 03:56:19 PM
Quote
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that dinosaurs migrated.  I just don't believe that it's reasonable to believe that they crossed oceans without some pretty compelling evidence.

Why is it so hard to believe that they crossed the bearing straight like we did?

How would the dinosaurs communicate and work together? ???

The same way beavers do. Working together to build dams of waterways is an instinct.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 15, 2009, 04:03:41 PM
Quote
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that dinosaurs migrated.  I just don't believe that it's reasonable to believe that they crossed oceans without some pretty compelling evidence.

Why is it so hard to believe that they crossed the bearing straight like we did?

Because the Bering Strait didn't exist when the dinosaurs did.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2009, 04:04:42 PM
Quote
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that dinosaurs migrated.  I just don't believe that it's reasonable to believe that they crossed oceans without some pretty compelling evidence.

Why is it so hard to believe that they crossed the bearing straight like we did?

Because the Bering Strait didn't exist when the dinosaurs did.

Not according to the static continent model!
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 15, 2009, 04:07:19 PM
Not according to the static continent model!

The static continent model is wrong, as can be demonstrated by ongoing continental drift.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 16, 2009, 04:41:47 AM
All this talk of coracles and nests is mere pandering to globularist doubts. They will never admit that dinosaurs could have the same intelligence as birds (capable of tool creation!), despite all the evidence supporting it. Every year, more and more research is rejecting the traditional idea of dinosaurs as lumbering, cumbersome giants. Take this story for example:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/11/t-rex-dinosaurs-warm-blooded


So now, instead of being a cold-blooded, ungainly beast, scientists now believe that Tyrannosaurus Rex may have been a nimble, warm-blooded animal! This shows how little modern scientists really know about dinosaurs. I am of the opinion that dinosaurs had a maritime civilisation, and possessed the necessary intelligence to construct large rafts, and perhaps even fully fledged sea faring vessels, similar to the Viking longboat:


(http://www.burrard-lucas.com/photo/norway/oslo/longboat.big.jpg)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 16, 2009, 04:50:56 AM
All this talk of coracles and nests is mere pandering to globularist doubts.

Being a globularist has very little to do with dinosaur studies, apart from the firm rebuttals that are required against the warped logic needed to keep flat earth theory propped up.

This topic is simply created for those who subscribe to James' civilised dinosaur theory to present themselves.

Please stay on topic.

Why is it so hard to believe that they crossed the bearing straight like we did?


This topic isn't about crossing the bearing straight like we did. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.

See here for details:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.msg838217#msg838217

Is this something you subscribe to?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2009, 04:54:14 AM
Not according to the static continent model!

The static continent model is wrong, as can be demonstrated by ongoing continental drift.

I haven't seen any drifting continents, have you?

It's actually just a hypothesis from the 1960's. No one actually saw the continents move.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 16, 2009, 04:57:21 AM
Please stay on topic.


Are you a moderator? No. So don't pretend to be one. Never mind that you're being totally hypocritical, in saying that this is off topic:


I am of the opinion that dinosaurs had a maritime civilisation, and possessed the necessary intelligence to construct large rafts, and perhaps even fully fledged sea faring vessels, similar to the Viking longboat


and then saying this:


This topic isn't about crossing the bearing straight like we did. It's about seafaring dinosaurs building boats (with livestock on board no less) to spread their great civilisation across the world.


I'd say that's just about as on-topic as one can be. Now quit memberating.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 16, 2009, 05:11:21 AM
Please stay on topic.


Are you a moderator? No. So don't pretend to be one.

I'm not a moderator but I am the thread creator. I am only interested in hearing from those who subscribe to James' civilised dinosaurs theory. You have already made it clear that you do. Thankyou for your participation.

Please don't derail threads by discussing moderating issues. If you wish to discuss it further then take it to Suggestions and Concerns (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=18.0).
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 16, 2009, 06:12:53 AM
Crusty, don't try it. I got a ban for making comments in my own thread once.  :-\
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 16, 2009, 07:19:49 AM
Please stay on topic.


Are you a moderator? No. So don't pretend to be one.

I'm not a moderator but I am the thread creator. I am only interested in hearing from those who subscribe to James' civilised dinosaurs theory. You have already made it clear that you do. Thankyou for your participation.

Please don't derail threads by discussing moderating issues. If you wish to discuss it further then take it to Suggestions and Concerns (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=18.0).


I'd tried being subtle, but you obviously enjoy trying to rub people the wrong way. Let me make this clear: stop memberating, or I'll suspend you for troublemaking. Being thread creator gives you zero ownership over this thread. My advice is to wise up.


And if you have a problem with that, then make sure to follow your own advice.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 16, 2009, 10:15:16 AM
Not according to the static continent model!

The static continent model is wrong, as can be demonstrated by ongoing continental drift.

I haven't seen any drifting continents, have you?

Sounds like you need to take a field trip to Iceland.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Iceland_Mid-Atlantic_Ridge_Fig16.gif)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/albaret-boit/176502393/

It's actually just a hypothesis from the 1960's. No one actually saw the continents move.

Tom, seeing as you live in California, you should be well aware of the effects of continental drift and plate tectonics in the form of earthquakes.  Besides, I didn't say that it was necessarily a visible process, just a measurable one.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 16, 2009, 11:00:37 AM
All this talk of coracles and nests is mere pandering to globularist doubts. They will never admit that dinosaurs could have the same intelligence as birds (capable of tool creation!), despite all the evidence supporting it. Every year, more and more research is rejecting the traditional idea of dinosaurs as lumbering, cumbersome giants. Take this story for example:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/11/t-rex-dinosaurs-warm-blooded


So now, instead of being a cold-blooded, ungainly beast, scientists now believe that Tyrannosaurus Rex may have been a nimble, warm-blooded animal! This shows how little modern scientists really know about dinosaurs. I am of the opinion that dinosaurs had a maritime civilisation, and possessed the necessary intelligence to construct large rafts, and perhaps even fully fledged sea faring vessels, similar to the Viking longboat:




I don't think that anyone here will dispute that most birds are capable of tool creation, some more complex than others in their use.
I would hardly call it an acceptable leap to go from birds creating simple tools to dinosaurs constructing purpose built seafaring vessels for the puropse of trans-oceanic voyage, mercantile exchange and livestock transportation. 

How far does the dollar of simple tools buy them along the road of technology?  Is it possible that they had organized ship building organizations?  Did they build marinas?  Have manufacturing plants?  Be segregated into blue and white collar workers?  Could they have implemented an assembly line? Could they have formed organized labor unions and gone on strike if not provided a fair wage? 

Where does one draw the line of feasibility?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 17, 2009, 02:18:40 AM
We're trying to say that some dinosaurs would have had the intelligence of birds, minimum. That means they would have possessed problem solving abilities and the mental capacity to construct tools. Now, dinosaurs also had far greater physical dexterity and strength than birds, not mention claws and limbs which are far more suitable to tool construction than, say, wings. All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do. And remember, this is a conservative assessment.


Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds. Hardly a giant leap, especially now that more and more scientists believe they may have been warm blooded. What then? Why couldn't they have built simple rafts? Obviously, there would have to have been pressure to migrate in the first place, but that goes without saying. Now, over the kind of periods we're talking about (several million years), why wouldn't such dinosaurs get better at boat construction?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 17, 2009, 05:27:42 AM
We're trying to say that some chimpanzees would have had the intelligence of birds, minimum. That means they would have possessed problem solving abilities and the mental capacity to construct tools. Now, chimpanzees also have far greater physical dexterity and strength than birds, not mention hands and feet which are far more suitable to tool construction than, say, wings, and are similar to ours. All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that chimpanzees would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do. And remember, this is a conservative assessment.



Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds. Hardly a giant leap, especially now that more and more scientists agree they are warm blooded. What then? Why couldn't they have built expanding cities as we have? Obviously, there would have to have been pressure to migrate in the first place, but that goes without saying. Now, over the kind of periods we're talking about (several million years), why wouldn't such chimpanzees get better at house construction?

Bolded and revised for effect.

Again, where does one draw the line?
How far does the dollar of simple tools buy them along the road of technology?  Is it possible that they had organized ship building organizations?  Did they build marinas?  Have manufacturing plants?  Be segregated into blue and white collar workers?  Could they have implemented an assembly line? Could they have formed organized labor unions and gone on strike if not provided a fair wage?  
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 17, 2009, 05:55:22 AM
Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work. Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 17, 2009, 08:03:49 AM
We're trying to say that some dinosaurs would have had the intelligence of birds, minimum. That means they would have possessed problem solving abilities and the mental capacity to construct tools. Now, dinosaurs also had far greater physical dexterity and strength than birds, not mention claws and limbs which are far more suitable to tool construction than, say, wings. All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do. And remember, this is a conservative assessment.

Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds. Hardly a giant leap, especially now that more and more scientists believe they may have been warm blooded. What then? Why couldn't they have built simple rafts? Obviously, there would have to have been pressure to migrate in the first place, but that goes without saying. Now, over the kind of periods we're talking about (several million years), why wouldn't such dinosaurs get better at boat construction?

There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did.  I have yet to see any evidence that any dinosaurs were intellectually or bio-mechanically suited to building boats.  Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, this is all just speculation bordering on mental masturbation.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 17, 2009, 09:09:00 AM

There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did.  I have yet to see any evidence that any dinosaurs were intellectually or bio-mechanically suited to building boats.  Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, this is all just speculation bordering on mental masturbation.

I invite you to read any of Karl Popper's writings on the philosophy of science.  Creative speculation has a most respectable place in the generation of scientific theories.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 17, 2009, 09:13:26 AM
All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do.

What you meant to say was "All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to make the baseless conjecture that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do."

Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds.

Let's not. There's no evidence to support it. The smartest dinosaurs are rated at about ostrich level.

Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work.

Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.

Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.

No it doesn't. Not at all.

PS. If there are any other members who support James' idea that dinosaurs were master boat builders who travelled the high seas spreading dino civilisation, let yourself be known.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 17, 2009, 09:14:14 AM
Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work. Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.

There is a record of these craft in the fossil record?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 17, 2009, 09:27:08 AM
Here's an interesting read on dino intel:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls143.html

Just interesting, not making any claims to back it.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 17, 2009, 09:27:53 AM

Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work.

Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.



Christopher Bird, the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Nathan Emery,Queen Mary University of London
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 17, 2009, 09:37:45 AM
Christopher Bird, the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Nathan Emery,Queen Mary University of London

You forgot the part where you quote them.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Eddy Baby on November 17, 2009, 09:41:15 AM
Well, Christopher Bird would think that, wouldn't he. Were his exact words, 'Birds are the best!'?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 17, 2009, 09:46:43 AM
Here's an interesting read on dino intel:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls143.html

Just interesting, not making any claims to back it.

Intersting indeed, so far.

 
Quote
The thesis is not self-evidently false, as, say, the idea of a flat earth is.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 17, 2009, 11:43:20 AM

Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work.

Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.



Christopher Bird, the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Nathan Emery,Queen Mary University of London
Actually, limited to corvids and parrots, not birds in general. And they are tremendously unusual among birds indeed, however talented they are, so to extend that back to dinosaurs is a stretch.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 17, 2009, 11:43:58 AM
I invite you to read any of Karl Popper's writings on the philosophy of science.  Creative speculation has a most respectable place in the generation of scientific theories.

Speculation, no matter how creative, is just that, speculation.  Speculation gives you an idea of where to look for supporting evidence.  However, it's not until that supporting evidence is actually found that you can move your idea into the realm of theory.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 17, 2009, 11:53:43 AM

Actually, limited to corvids and parrots, not birds in general. And they are tremendously unusual among birds indeed, however talented they are, so to extend that back to dinosaurs is a stretch.

Well, there we differ.  I don't consider it to be a stretch.

@Markjo 
We were speaking of hte generation of theory.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 17, 2009, 12:26:17 PM
@Markjo 
We were speaking of hte generation of theory.

A theory without any supporting evidence isn't much of a theory, is it?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 17, 2009, 12:34:40 PM
@Markjo 
We were speaking of hte generation of theory.



Nice try though.  ;D


Gad, I hate it when a typo of mine gets quoted,  carved in stone for posterity, or two minutes anyway.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 17, 2009, 05:24:21 PM
There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did.


Even something as basic as whether dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded is essentially a matter of speculation, as proven by the discourse of the last three decades. All studies on how they lived, behaved etc. is essentially speculative in nature. That's a given, and can be applied any suh theory, not just ours. Here's how the section on dinosaur behaviour is introduced on wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Behavior

Quote
Interpretations of dinosaur behavior are generally based on the pose of body fossils and their habitat, computer simulations of their biomechanics, and comparisons with modern animals in similar ecological niches. As such, the current understanding of dinosaur behavior relies on speculation, and will likely remain controversial for the foreseeable future. However, there is general agreement that some behaviors which are common in crocodiles and birds, dinosaurs' closest living relatives, were also common among dinosaurs.


What you meant to say was "All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to make the baseless conjecture that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do."


It's no more baseless than any other claim regarding dinosaur intelligence. Give us evidence to the contrary, or admit as much.



Let's not. There's no evidence to support it. The smartest dinosaurs are rated at about ostrich level.


There's no real evidence to support that, either. All we have to go on is encephalization quotient, and that's a really dodgy method. For example, Dolphins have a far larger EQ than any primate besides humans, yet most scientists agree that Chimpanzees are probably smarter than Dolphins.



Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.


No problem:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2178920.stm


Quote
The crow is putting our closest cousins to shame.

Experiments show the humble bird is better than the chimp at toolmaking.


British zoologists were astonished when a captive crow called Betty fashioned a hook out of wire to reach food.

It is the first time any animal has been found to make a new tool for a specific task
, say Oxford University researchers.

They believe the bird shows some understanding of cause and effect.

"It is not only cleverer than we think in this particular direction but probably, at least in relation to tools, has a higher level of understanding than chimpanzees," says Alex Kacelnik, Professor of Behavioural Ecology.

. . .

"Experiments with primates, who are much closer relatives of humans than birds, have failed to show any deliberate, specific tool making" ~ Alex Kacelnik, Oxford University


Fairly explicit, eh? You can watch a video of it here:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8029977.stm


Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.

No it doesn't. Not at all.


Yes it does. James has talked about this in past, so use the search function. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you to posts you could easily find yourself.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 17, 2009, 10:00:03 PM
There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did.

Even something as basic as whether dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded is essentially a matter of speculation, as proven by the discourse of the last three decades. All studies on how they lived, behaved etc. is essentially speculative in nature. That's a given, and can be applied any suh theory, not just ours. Here's how the section on dinosaur behaviour is introduced on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Behavior
Quote
Interpretations of dinosaur behavior are generally based on the pose of body fossils and their habitat, computer simulations of their biomechanics, and comparisons with modern animals in similar ecological niches. As such, the current understanding of dinosaur behavior relies on speculation, and will likely remain controversial for the foreseeable future. However, there is general agreement that some behaviors which are common in crocodiles and birds, dinosaurs' closest living relatives, were also common among dinosaurs.

You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains.  When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 12:00:57 AM
Quote
You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains.  When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.

There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.

Wood rots.
Metal corrodes.
But solid rock stays around forever.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 03:17:39 AM
Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.
No problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2178920.stm

See this is how it's done Mrs Peach. It's not hard is it?

However, the eye catching headline is all hooked around this one unscientific sentence:

Quote
"Although many animals use tools, purposeful modification of objects to solve new problems, without training or prior experience, is virtually unknown," adds Professor Kacelnik.

That article was written in 2002. This is no longer true For example:

Quote from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201007.html
Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals -- the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.

However, it is true that the point remains, regardless of comparative work, which can be deceptive, crows can fashion crude tools.

However, crows bending wire does not a seafaring nation of dinosaurs make.

The smartest dinosaurs are rated at about ostrich level.

There's no real evidence to support that, either. All we have to go on is encephalization quotient, and that's a really dodgy method.

Th EQ is all we can go on, at the moment, to estimate the dinosaurs intelligence. In fact the EQ was good enough for James before it was pointed out that he had completely misunderstood what it meant. Oh dear. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.0) You now want to throw it away because it doesn't agree with your preformed conclusions?

For example, Dolphins have a far larger EQ than any primate besides humans, yet most scientists agree that Chimpanzees are probably smarter than Dolphins.

No I doubt your broad generalisations are true. There is much debate about which is the smartest, probably due to the difficulty in observing both parties exhibit their intelligence. It seems broadly true that they have similar intelligence with aspects such as planning, self recognition, mimicry and so forth.

The EQ is a broad comparative measure that holds true for most animal groups alive today. The reason it's probably skewed for dophins is because they hunt by echo-location. Something chimpanzees don't do.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/smarter.html


There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.

Wood rots.

Orly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 05:30:32 AM
However, the eye catching headline is all hooked around this one unscientific sentence:

Quote
"Although many animals use tools, purposeful modification of objects to solve new problems, without training or prior experience, is virtually unknown," adds Professor Kacelnik.

That article was written in 2002. This is no longer true For example:

Quote from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201007.html
Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals -- the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.

However, it is true that the point remains, regardless of comparative work, which can be deceptive, crows can fashion crude tools.


I used that article in particular because it had very emphatic quotes. However, crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals. You can find many different studies which reach the same conclusion via a quick google, all from recent years.


However, crows bending wire does not a seafaring nation of dinosaurs make.


True enough, but if crows can construct tools and use them in complex tasks, then I really don't see why we cannot speculate that dinosaurs could do the same, and perhaps more. Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.


Th EQ is all we can go on, at the moment, to estimate the dinosaurs intelligence. In fact the EQ was good enough for James before it was pointed out that he had completely misunderstood what it meant. Oh dear. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.0) You now want to throw it away because it doesn't agree with your preformed conclusions?


I really don't feel that's true:


"The size of a brain does not dictate its intelligence, although in some species it can be indicative of it. The cereberal cortex, a relatively small part of the brain, plays a crucial role in the intelligence of an animal, the size and configuration of which do not necessarily correlate with the size of the whole brain. You have no idea how dinosaurs compared in intelligence to modern animals."

The EQ, as I just said... so yes, I have a pretty good idea how dinousaurs compared in intelligence to moderne animals

No, you are wrong. The configuration of the cerebral cortex can potentially affect intelligence far more than brain-body ratio. Dolphins, for example, have a very high brain-body ratio, but they are also phenomenally stupid.


No I doubt your broad generalisations are true. There is much debate about which is the smartest, probably due to the difficulty in observing both parties exhibit their intelligence. It seems broadly true that they have similar intelligence with aspects such as planning, self recognition, mimicry and so forth.

The EQ is a broad comparative measure that holds true for most animal groups alive today. The reason it's probably skewed for dophins is because they hunt by echo-location. Something chimpanzees don't do.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/smarter.html


Well, it's necessary to generalise to some degree, when the subject is the position of the entire scientific community. It makes a lot more sense than taking the view of one group of scientists and taking that alone as the truth. I'm not denying there's debate on the subject, but through a few quick, intelligent searches it's fairly easy to conclude that most scientists rate Dolphins as less intelligent than, say, chimpanzees.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 18, 2009, 06:51:15 AM
Quote
You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains.  When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.

There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.

Wood rots.
Metal corrodes.
But solid rock stays around forever.

*sigh*  Tom, are you serious?  Can you say "petrified wood"?  I knew that you could.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood
Petrified wood (from the Greek root "petro" meaning "rock" or "stone", literally "wood turned into stone") is a type of fossil: it consists of fossil wood where all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals (most often a silicate, such as quartz), while retaining the original structure of the wood.

If 250 million year old dinosaur skeletons can be preserved through fossilization, then why couldn't their boats?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 06:56:00 AM
How many petrified human boats have been found? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to guess not that many, but maybe you'll prove me wrong. How many have been found that weren't built in the last thouand years? How many Roman and Greek Galleys have we found?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 18, 2009, 07:30:58 AM
How many petrified human boats have been found? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to guess not that many, but maybe you'll prove me wrong. How many have been found that weren't built in the last thouand years? How many Roman and Greek Galleys have we found?
Quite a few actually, but you are right that it is not a huge number. We have even found a number of Phoenician ships, and I think they recently found one in England, though I will have to find the article.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Eddy Baby on November 18, 2009, 07:39:28 AM
However, crows bending wire does not a seafaring nation of dinosaurs make.


True enough, but if crows can construct tools and use them in complex tasks, then I really don't see why we cannot speculate that dinosaurs could do the same, and perhaps more. Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.

A bird reaching visible food to eat so it can stay alive is incomparable to a reptile crossing the sea, essentially to 'see what happens'.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 07:42:06 AM
Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Eddy Baby on November 18, 2009, 07:44:25 AM
Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.

If you can't see land over the ocean, you'd have no reason to assume there was any.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 07:54:43 AM
Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.

If you can't see land over the ocean, you'd have no reason to assume there was any.


Where can you see Hawaii from? Or New Zealand?


For a wonderful, fictional account of how Hawaii may have been colonised, I highly reccomend James Michener's epic novel:


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5149RWBHYHL.jpg)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Eddy Baby on November 18, 2009, 07:58:26 AM
Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.

If you can't see land over the ocean, you'd have no reason to assume there was any.


Where can you see Hawaii from? Or New Zealand?


For a wonderful, fictional account of how Hawaii may have been colonised, I highly reccomend James Michener's epic novel:


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5149RWBHYHL.jpg)


I was going to mention this. You can't see it from anywhere; this is why it is astonishing that people did colonise these islands. Let's assume dinosaurs could also. How did they get to America?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 07:59:58 AM
However, crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.

Feel free to show me a study which shows crows going beyond the chimpanzees creation of spears to hunt small game. I've not seen one.


True enough, but if crows can construct tools and use them in complex tasks, then I really don't see why we cannot speculate that dinosaurs could do the same, and perhaps more.

We can't make such speculation because crows haven't built boats, and they aren't dinosaurs.

...Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.

No it doesn't.

I really don't feel that's true:
No, you are wrong. The configuration of the cerebral cortex can potentially affect intelligence far more than brain-body ratio. Dolphins, for example, have a very high brain-body ratio, but they are also phenomenally stupid.

So you want me to take someone who's opinion is that "dolphins" are stupid over the opinion of countless academics. Interesting.

How many petrified human boats have been found? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to guess not that many, but maybe you'll prove me wrong. How many have been found that weren't built in the last thouand years? How many Roman and Greek Galleys have we found?

You need to get an understanding of how long it takes to petrify wood.

There are countless Roman and Greek galleys found. If they were left a few hundred million years instead of a few thousand then they would petrify. Nice fail.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 18, 2009, 08:19:53 AM

Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.

No it doesn't. Not at all.


Yes it does. James has talked about this in past, so use the search function. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you to posts you could easily find yourself.

I'm assuming this is the evidence I was searching the forum for:

Quote
Go to your nearest natural history museum. Fossil distributions which indicate the existence of individuals of the same species on different continents testify to the fact that dinosaurs built boats and colonised the world.

and:
Quote
Since the distribution of modern wild flora and fauna is a direct result of the distribution of prehistoric flora and fauna, I will continue. The continents have always been roughly as they are now, though sea-levels have fluctuated throughout natural history. The simple fact of the matter regarding fossil and biological evidence is that dinosaurs travelled between the continents using boats, often taking their crops and livestock with them. In this way, species of the same genus colonised much of the world's landmass, just as humanity has done millions of years later.

The same evidence could then testify to the fact that dinosaurs got there through the building of gliders.  They had ample evidence that flight was possible.  Perhaps they preceeded the Wright brothers by millions of years. 

I'd still like to know how far you think they could have gone given birds can make simple tools.  Did they have a system of irrigation for their crops and a farming community to support their livestock?  Could they have made processed foods and goods from these?  I mean it's not that far of a leap to think that if they were producing crops for a purpose that they could process those crops to make other foods.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 09:00:56 AM
However, crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.

Feel free to show me a study which shows crows going beyond the chimpanzees creation of spears to hunt small game. I've not seen one.


No problem:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8182446.stm


Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.


We can't make such speculation because crows haven't built boats, and they aren't dinosaurs.


Then any and all comparison with other animals is rendered obsolete. Say goodbye to your EQ comparisons.


...Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.

No it doesn't.


Yes, it does.


So you want me to take someone who's opinion is that "dolphins" are stupid over the opinion of countless academics. Interesting.


You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense. You claimed James though EQ was a valid means of comparison. The quote I supplied proves otherwise.

www.rif.org


You need to get an understanding of how long it takes to petrify wood.

There are countless Roman and Greek galleys found. If they were left a few hundred million years instead of a few thousand then they would petrify. Nice fail.


From the link you provided earlier:


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

Quote
In general, wood takes less than 100 years to petrify.


www.rif.org
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 18, 2009, 09:42:05 AM
How many petrified human boats have been found? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to guess not that many, but maybe you'll prove me wrong. How many have been found that weren't built in the last thouand years? How many Roman and Greek Galleys have we found?

*sigh*
Quote from: http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/archaeology/6203/Ancient-Greek-ship-fished-from-sea-Vessel-found-off-Sicilian
? 2008-07-28 18:21 Ancient Greek ship fished from sea Vessel found off Sicilian coast is the largest of its kind

(ANSA) - Gela, July 28 - An ancient Greek trading ship that had lain on the seabed off the coast of Gela in southern Sicily for 2,500 years was brought to the surface for the first time on Monday. The ancient Greek vessel is 21 metres long and 6.5 metres wide, making it by far the biggest of its kind ever discovered. Four Greek vessels found off the coasts of Israel, Cyprus and France are at most 15 metres long.

The one in Gela is also of particular value for scholars who will be able to delve into Greek naval construction techniques thanks to the amazing find of still-intact hemp ropes used to 'sew' together the pine planks in its hull - a technique described in Homer's Iliad.  ''Gela's ancient ship is the patrimony not only of Sicily but of all humanity,'' said Sicily's regional councillor for culture Antonello Antinoro, who watched Monday's operation.

Quote from: http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/ships/ancient_greek_ships/index.shtml
One of the most exciting ancient Greek naval finds was discovered off the northern coast of Cyprus in the 1960s. The wreck of Kyrenia ? a port town in northern Cyprus - was explored by a team of experts in 1967 and recovery work began in 1968.

The wreck was the most well preserved maritime find of its type in the world and was recovered in 6,000 pieces, having been protected in the mud and sand of the sea-bottom.

Well, that took me all of about two minutes to Google.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 09:49:08 AM
Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.

No apes can use several tools. They have also been observed whittling their own spears. Those crows were given the tools and given the opportunity to figure out which one to use where. Again your fail is showing.

Then any and all comparison with other animals is rendered obsolete. Say goodbye to your EQ comparisons.

Nope. Even the EQ comparison would not suggest dinosaurs built boats.  It might suggest dinosaurs could use twigs to get at nuts down a hole though.

...Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.

No it doesn't.


Yes, it does.

No. Insisting it is so does not make it so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense. You claimed James though EQ was a valid means of comparison. The quote I supplied proves otherwise.

No. I said James used the EQ comparison to insist dinosaurs were capable of building boats. Then he was shown that he'd mis-applied the science. Then he changed his mind and decided that EQ didn't matter anymore. These facts remain true. Read the thread I linked to.

From the link you provided earlier:
Quote
In general, wood takes less than 100 years to petrify.

You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense.  We have found boats from Roman and Greek civilisations. They weren't petrified. If they were left long enough they would be.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 11:07:14 AM
Quote
You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains.  When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.

There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.

Wood rots.
Metal corrodes.
But solid rock stays around forever.

*sigh*  Tom, are you serious?  Can you say "petrified wood"?  I knew that you could.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood
Petrified wood (from the Greek root "petro" meaning "rock" or "stone", literally "wood turned into stone") is a type of fossil: it consists of fossil wood where all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals (most often a silicate, such as quartz), while retaining the original structure of the wood.

If 250 million year old dinosaur skeletons can be preserved through fossilization, then why couldn't their boats?

Wood doesn't petrify at the bottom of the ocean.

When a ship is no longer in use, you sink it. The NAVY does it all the time.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Eddy Baby on November 18, 2009, 11:34:05 AM
The Navy still uses wood to build its ships? Shit!



Also, you are saying that the dinosaurs were successful. Ergo, the boats made it to land. Wood petrifies on land, and I'm fairly sure it's not literally impossible for it to happen underwater.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 01:44:17 PM
Well, that took me all of about two minutes to Google.


Sorry, I had class, and I have a lot of work this week. They were two minutes I didn't have. Anyway, as I said, I was genuinely curious, and seems I was right. We don't have many boats from that period. Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.


Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.

No apes can use several tools. They have also been observed whittling their own spears. Those crows were given the tools and given the opportunity to figure out which one to use where. Again your fail is showing.


Crows have been shown creating their own tools, and not just spears ('pointy object bad'), but (relatively) complex tools for manipulating other objects. They have also shown the capacity to use several tools for different purposes. You're attempting to point out a 'fail' that was never there. Nothing you've said contradicts anything in my original statement.


Nope. Even the EQ comparison would not suggest dinosaurs built boats.  It might suggest dinosaurs could use twigs to get at nuts down a hole though.


Sorry, but you can't pick and choose when speculation is and isn't acceptable. Stop flip-flopping. I really don't mind which you pick, but you have to pick one.



No. Insisting it is so does not make it so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking


Insisting it doesn't is no better. The difference is, we've provided evidence to back up our theory. You haven't.


You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense.  We have found boats from Roman and Greek civilisations. They weren't petrified. If they were left long enough they would be.


What do you mean "if they were left ling enough"? The link YOU provided says that it takes less than a hundred years for wood to petrify. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the classical era began well over 2,000 years ago. You know, B.C., before cornflakes. Why would they need to be there any longer?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Moon squirter on November 18, 2009, 01:46:04 PM
Quote
You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains.  When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.

There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.

Wood rots.
Metal corrodes.
But solid rock stays around forever.

*sigh*  Tom, are you serious?  Can you say "petrified wood"?  I knew that you could.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood
Petrified wood (from the Greek root "petro" meaning "rock" or "stone", literally "wood turned into stone") is a type of fossil: it consists of fossil wood where all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals (most often a silicate, such as quartz), while retaining the original structure of the wood.

If 250 million year old dinosaur skeletons can be preserved through fossilization, then why couldn't their boats?

Wood doesn't petrify at the bottom of the ocean.

When a ship is no longer in use, you sink it. The NAVY does it all the time.

The dino Navy scuttles its ships.  I love this thread!
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 18, 2009, 01:58:41 PM
Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work. Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.
Quote
Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.

I never knew that lack of evidence was supporting evidence.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 02:26:01 PM
Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.

I never knew that lack of evidence was supporting evidence.


I didn't claim it was. You guys are the ones expecting there to be fossilised boats. I'm just pointing out that to do so is completely unrealistic.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 02:46:51 PM
Nothing you've said contradicts anything in my original statement.

Then you weren't paying attention. You claimed:

Quote
crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.

And I said I doubt it. Look at these monkeys making spears to hunt with.

And you said:

Quote
Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.

I then told you apes don't use just one tool to aquire food. Here's an article. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=on-the-job-chimps-use-multiple-tool-09-09-09) And another. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31066482/)

So you gave us a crow that can use the different tools it's given for different purposes.

Crows: Different length sticks. Can also bend sticks.
Chimps: Spears, hammers, drills, pounders, enlargers, collectors, perforators and swabbers.

And you want us to believe that crows have gone beyond what has been observed in other animals? That's prime failsteak.

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose when speculation is and isn't acceptable.

I can. One uses a reasonable comparison of brain size in comparable species to infer comparable intelligence and skills.

The other uses... wishful thinking?

Insisting it doesn't is no better. The difference is, we've provided evidence to back up our theory. You haven't.

No. No you haven't. Pretending you have is even worse. How dull.

What do you mean "if they were left ling enough"? The link YOU provided says that it takes less than a hundred years for wood to petrify. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the classical era began well over 2,000 years ago. You know, B.C., before cornflakes. Why would they need to be there any longer?

Oh dear lord.

The petrified wood that we find today was petrified relatively quickly. However they were petrified millions of years ago. It's all about the conditions they find themselves in, the chemicals in the ground necessary to create petrification. Volcanic ash is supposed to be good.

Wood is preserved by denying bacteria, oxygen and disturbance. It is then petrified by silicates. If the silicates are in abundance as was the case millions of years ago, then the process can be quick. If not, then it'll take longer.

Strangely, the same conditions that would be preserving wood at the time of the dinosaurs would also be preserving boats. Hmm.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 03:23:25 PM
So you gave us a crow that can use the different tools it's given for different purposes.


Incorrect: I gave you a crow that was able to use several tools towards the same goal, in sequence. This is not the same as an ape using a spear to kill prey and a leaf to wipe its ass when it's done digesting said prey. Using multiple tools for different tasks is totally different to using multiple tools in the same task.


I can. One uses a reasonable comparison of brain size in comparable species to infer comparable intelligence and skills.

The other uses... wishful thinking?


The other uses a reasonable comparison with animals that have a similar capability. If the best dinosaur experts in the world can compare them with birds, why can't we? The simple answer is that we can.


No. No you haven't. Pretending you have is even worse. How dull.


Do you actually have anything to contribute? Because as it stands, we've presented an argument, and you're just shaking bleating 'no'.


Oh dear lord.

The petrified wood that we find today was petrified relatively quickly. However they were petrified millions of years ago. It's all about the conditions they find themselves in, the chemicals in the ground necessary to create petrification. Volcanic ash is supposed to be good.

Wood is preserved by denying bacteria, oxygen and disturbance. It is then petrified by silicates. If the silicates are in abundance as was the case millions of years ago, then the process can be quick. If not, then it'll take longer.

Strangely, the same conditions that would be preserving wood at the time of the dinosaurs would also be preserving boats. Hmm.


Ah, so now you're claiming that the conditions during the period in question were exceptionally propitious for the petrification of wood. Can you back this up with evidence of an abundance of petrified wood dating from, say, the Cretaceous period? You're going to need to prove that more petrified wood dates from this period than other periods in history, because otherwise, you're making pie in the sky claims.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 18, 2009, 04:03:02 PM
Well, that took me all of about two minutes to Google.


Sorry, I had class, and I have a lot of work this week. They were two minutes I didn't have.

And yet, you found the time to post.  :-X

Anyway, as I said, I was genuinely curious, and seems I was right. We don't have many boats from that period. Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.

And yet we find dinosaur bones and petrified trees from that time frame.  Funny, don't you think?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 04:03:54 PM
Using multiple tools for different tasks is totally different to using multiple tools in the same task.

Probably so.

You said this:

Quote
crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.

I showed how wrong you were. Worming about with combinations of tools and tasks gets you nowhere. How embarrassing.

The other uses a reasonable comparison with animals that have a similar capability. If the best dinosaur experts in the world can compare them with birds, why can't we? The simple answer is that we can.

Yes. You could propose that dinosaurs were able to use sticks to get bugs out of holes. This is what I said earIier and you berated me for it. Now you're agreeing with me. Flip flop much?


Do you actually have anything to contribute? Because as it stands, we've presented an argument, and you're just shaking bleating 'no'.

As it stands you've pretended that you had some evidence. I said no. You kept saying you had without showing it. *shrugs* I can stamp my feet like a five year old too.


You're going to need to prove that more petrified wood dates from this period than other periods in history, because otherwise, you're making pie in the sky claims.

No. I just need to explain even more slowly the requirements for making petrified wood.


Quote from: http://www.petrifiedwood.com/about.htm
Around 225 million years ago, during the Triassic Era, the wood was covered up by either volcanic ash, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes or materials washed in by violent floods. This prevented oxygen from reaching the wood and prevented decay. Silica dissolved in ground water got into the individual cells and chemically effected them taking on a variety of forms; agate, jasper, chalcedony or opal. The beautiful colors are caused by other minerals that are mixed with the silica. Iron Oxide stains the wood orange, rust, red or yellow. Maganese oxide produces blues, blacks or purple.

Quote from: http://www.ncsec.org/cadre2/team2_2/Lessons/howDoesWoodPetrify.htm
Wood must first be covered with such agents as volcanic ash, volcanic lava flow, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes and swamps or material washed in by violent floods - by any means which would exclude oxygen and thus prevent decay.

Quote from: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/questions/question/2223/
You need to have water of the right chemical composition moving through the wood. It tends to be silica is the best chemical for replacing the wood. It actually reacts with cellulose and leaves a cells structure and gets bound in. Over millions of years it gradually changes from this strange mixture of cellulose and silica into opal and into a more crystallised form of silica. If you just randomly bang fence posts into British soil then probably it would take thousands of years to petrify a piece of wood in anything like normal conditions. If you have a fence post and throw it into, for instance, some of the hot springs in Yellowstone National Park then, yes you might get a decent piece of petrified wood out the end of it. That?s very unusual.

And sooooooo on....
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 04:43:56 PM
Quote
And yet we find dinosaur bones and petrified trees from that time frame.  Funny, don't you think?

Did they petrify at the bottom of the ocean?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 18, 2009, 07:39:31 PM
Quote
And yet we find dinosaur bones and petrified trees from that time frame.  Funny, don't you think?

Did they petrify at the bottom of the ocean?

They petrified in mud and/or silt.  Guess what's at the bottom of the ocean.  Did you think that all fossils of marine dinosaurs are fresh water dinos?  ???
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 02:28:26 AM
Using multiple tools for different tasks is totally different to using multiple tools in the same task.

Probably so.

You said this:

Quote
crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.

I showed how wrong you were. Worming about with combinations of tools and tasks gets you nowhere. How embarrassing.


You've done no such thing, because you've provided no evidence of apes doing the same thing. Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.


Yes. You could propose that dinosaurs were able to use sticks to get bugs out of holes. This is what I said earIier and you berated me for it. Now you're agreeing with me. Flip flop much?


But we have shown that birds can do far more than that! They can create tools and build floating structures.


As it stands you've pretended that you had some evidence. I said no. You kept saying you had without showing it. *shrugs* I can stamp my feet like a five year old too.


Sorry, but we've presented arguments complete with analysis of the fossil record in other threads, threads which you have linked to (and thus are aware of). You have said nothing in this thread which counters what we have said in previous threads.


No. I just need to explain even more slowly the requirements for making petrified wood.


Quote from: http://www.petrifiedwood.com/about.htm
Around 225 million years ago, during the Triassic Era, the wood was covered up by either volcanic ash, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes or materials washed in by violent floods. This prevented oxygen from reaching the wood and prevented decay. Silica dissolved in ground water got into the individual cells and chemically effected them taking on a variety of forms; agate, jasper, chalcedony or opal. The beautiful colors are caused by other minerals that are mixed with the silica. Iron Oxide stains the wood orange, rust, red or yellow. Maganese oxide produces blues, blacks or purple.

Quote from: http://www.ncsec.org/cadre2/team2_2/Lessons/howDoesWoodPetrify.htm
Wood must first be covered with such agents as volcanic ash, volcanic lava flow, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes and swamps or material washed in by violent floods - by any means which would exclude oxygen and thus prevent decay.

Quote from: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/questions/question/2223/
You need to have water of the right chemical composition moving through the wood. It tends to be silica is the best chemical for replacing the wood. It actually reacts with cellulose and leaves a cells structure and gets bound in. Over millions of years it gradually changes from this strange mixture of cellulose and silica into opal and into a more crystallised form of silica. If you just randomly bang fence posts into British soil then probably it would take thousands of years to petrify a piece of wood in anything like normal conditions. If you have a fence post and throw it into, for instance, some of the hot springs in Yellowstone National Park then, yes you might get a decent piece of petrified wood out the end of it. That?s very unusual.

And sooooooo on....


Very interesting. Why does any of this make it more likely that boats from the cretaceous period would be petrified than boats constructed by humans? After all, we've found a few human boats from thousands of years ago, and Austalias was settled by humans around 40,000 years ago. According to your sources, that's plenty of time for petrification. Yet, we haven't found any ancient Australian boats.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 19, 2009, 07:16:56 AM

You've done no such thing, because you've provided no evidence of apes doing the same thing.

I cannot be held responsible for your failure to read the evidence provided.

Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.

That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.

But we have shown that birds can do far more than that! They can create tools and build floating structures.

No not really. See the links you provided for details.

A few birds can build a floating nest from reeds. They are often acnhored to the shoreline/marshes.

A floating nest does not a seafaring dinotopia create.


Sorry, but we've presented arguments complete with analysis of the fossil record in other threads,.

If there is fossil evidence then post it. I have seen no evidence here or in any other threads.

Very interesting. Why does any of this make it more likely that boats from the cretaceous period would be petrified than boats constructed by humans?

Because once a boat is removed from sources of decomposition the time for petrification can vary depending on the availability of silicate to complete the petrification.

There was plenty of silicate during the Cretaceous, as witnessed by the amounts of petrified wood from the Cretaceous period. Indeed there's plenty of petrified wood in Australia. Yet no dino boats. Anywhere.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 19, 2009, 07:21:38 AM
The biggest problem with the whole theory is that the development of technology does not exist in a vacuum. It is an cumulative process, where one discovery leads to another. Boat or raft  making requires a number of individual technologies to make it viable, not it the least rope making and stone tools at the least.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 19, 2009, 07:24:11 AM
Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
LOL, is that the only thing you think apes ever made?  Ever see a chimp fish for termites or ants?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on November 19, 2009, 08:01:31 AM
The biggest problem with the whole theory is that the development of technology does not exist in a vacuum. It is an cumulative process, where one discovery leads to another. Boat or raft  making requires a number of individual technologies to make it viable, not it the least rope making and stone tools at the least.
Furthermore, a civilization does not just create boats. If at all, it incrementally creates solutions for every aspect of its life, including food, shelter, safety, transportation, social structure, preservation of knowledge, just to mention a few.

We are not looking just for a 100 million old boat, we are looking for every other evidence of civilization as well. We have even found dinosaur excrement but we still have not found the first stone or metal artifact, the first dumping ground, the first 100 million year old bone with markings that are not made with teeth.

As a matter of cheap philosophy, we can argue that anything is possible. But as a matter of simple common sense, what will you expect to find from humanity, for example, after 65 million years of extinction: only fossilized bones, or mostly concrete and stone ruins, hundreds of square kilometers of altered terrain, huge deposits of metal oxides, maybe even a dumpster or two? And, sure, a few fossilized bones, of course. Every human being leaves behind several tons of assorted objects but just 30 kilograms of bone, which in most cases is decomposed before it gets fossilized. Every civilized dinosaur would be similar to this.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 19, 2009, 08:47:12 AM

I didn't claim it was. You guys are the ones expecting there to be fossilised boats. I'm just pointing out that to do so is completely unrealistic.

Never would I expect there to be fossilized evidence of boats used by dinousaurs to ferry freight across the ocean.  The claim was that the fossil record supported sea travel by dinosaurs, yet the claim is that there is no fossilized evidence of this sea travel.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 01:49:58 PM

You've done no such thing, because you've provided no evidence of apes doing the same thing.

I cannot be held responsible for your failure to read the evidence provided.


Right back atchya'.


That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.


No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.


But we have shown that birds can do far more than that! They can create tools and build floating structures.

No not really. See the links you provided for details.

A few birds can build a floating nest from reeds. They are often acnhored to the shoreline/marshes.

A floating nest does not a seafaring dinotopia create.[/quote]


The ability to build rafts would, however, and we have shown this to be possible.


If there is fossil evidence then post it. I have seen no evidence here or in any other threads.


Then you haven't even read the threads you claim to have read, though that's no surprise, as I've already demonstrated thay you misunderstood James' opinions on EQ. The evidence I'm talking about was posted by James in a thread you linked.



There was plenty of silicate during the Cretaceous, as witnessed by the amounts of petrified wood from the Cretaceous period.
Indeed there's plenty of petrified wood in Australia. Yet no dino boats. Anywhere.


Please provide us with evidence that there is more petrified wood from that period than from, say, 40,000 years ago.



I didn't claim it was. You guys are the ones expecting there to be fossilised boats. I'm just pointing out that to do so is completely unrealistic.

Never would I expect there to be fossilized evidence of boats used by dinousaurs to ferry freight across the ocean.  The claim was that the fossil record supported sea travel by dinosaurs, yet the claim is that there is no fossilized evidence of this sea travel.


There is no fossil evidence of the boats, and I never claimed there was. That would be a fairly contradictory position to hold. The evidence I am talking about has actually been linked to in this thread, but as usual none of you can be bothered to look. Here is one example:


Here are some images of the dromaeosaur races Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, and their common ancestor, Deinonychus:

Adasaurus, pictured gingerly cradling its young in its nimble clawed hands.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/adasauro.jpg)

Dromaeosaurus, a cousin of the Adasaurus, who would have existed during the same period as the Adasaurus (the late cretacious), but on different continents.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Avian_Dromaeosaurus_03_10.jpg)

Deinonychus, the ancestor of the Dromaeosauruses and the Adasauruses.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/walters_deinonychus.jpg)

The natural history of the dromaeosaurs is a good example of the kinds of developments which the dinosaurs as a whole would have undergone. Fossil evidence indicates that Deinonychus originated in North America during the early cretacious period.

Deinonychus are thought to have been highly social, organising themselves into complex communities in order to work together. During their development, Deinonychus evolved an iconic five-inch claw on the foot, which was highly dexterous, and could be retracted and moved back and forth. Initially, this would have served a purpose in hunting and combat, though it would later have been useful in the performance of complex motor skills such as puncturing fabrics, making written inscriptions and so on. The special success of this early dromaeosaur is partly explicable by its long tail, which acting as a counterbalance allowed the use of both the hands and feet in dexterous activity.

The distribution of Deinonychus' descendants, the Adasuruses and Dromaeosauruses, suggests that one or more colonial expeditions sailed from the West Coast of North America and colonised the far East, probably landing in Japan and China and then spreading across the eastern part of Eurasia.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/npo.jpg)
Above: The Pacific Ocean

Travel between the colonies during this period seems to have been very limited, because the two previously homogenous groups of dromaeosaur began to evolve minor racial adaptions which distinguished them from one another, though they retained all of the major characteristics of the dromaeosaur species. The fact that these groups proceeded to evolve on the micro scale along different lines despite their immediate proximity in the faulty "pangea" model is testament to the fact that ocean seperated them, much as it does today.

The colonist Deinonychuses who reached the far east adapted in a number of ways. Adasauruses, probably due to massively increased tool usage and the removal of the necessity to be involved in violence as their civilisation progressed, developed much smaller foot-claws than their ancestors. A smaller claw would have been much more suitable for precision tasks like inscription, manipulation of cloth and fine materials and so on, and marks the transition from its role as a mechanism of hunting and combat to its role as an additional dexterous digit. In the absence of the selection pressures brought on by the development of a civilisation, and the mastery of the surrounding wildlife and other hazards, Adasauruses' bodies became smaller than those of their Deinonychus ancestors, who had needed to be larger because their lifestyle was primarily one based around hunting and conflict. Fossil evidence suggests that the Saurolophus, a herbiverous, docile grazing dinosaur, originating in North America, also appeared in the far East at roughly the same time, making it likely that the first Deinonychian colonists brought specimens with them on the transcontinental voyage, and probably began to farm them for food (they would have previous been hunted by tribes of Deinonychus living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the American continent). The advent of an agrarian society based on the pasturing of Saurolophus would remove the necessity for the brutalities of hunting. In order to bring down a wild Saurolophus, tribal warriors would have needed considerable bulk and might as well as cunning, but their agrarian descendants needed no such unneccessary brawn, which explains their shrinking - the average Adasaurus living during the late cretacious was around 8 feet long, whereas a North American Deinonychus of the early cretacious period, who would have had to hunt the large wild Saurolophus and Tenontosaurus (probably hunted to extinction by early Deinonychian hunters, explaining why it was not exported to the far east along with Saurolophus) would have measured 11 feet long.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/pacific_ocean_image_t1677.jpg)
Above: The west coast of North America. Groups of pioneering Deinonychus, who would later microevolve into the Asasauruses, would have set sail from shores such as these.

The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines. The Dromaeosaurus, from which the species derives its name, were Deinonychus who remained in North America. Their adaption did not include such an acute reduction in claw size as the the Adasaurus, but their body size decreased significantly, to around 6 feet long. Again, this is attributable to the development of farming, primarily of the tamed Saurolophus. That the Dromaeosauruses did not develop the highly precise small-claw of the Adasauruses suggests that they may not have involved themselves so heavily in activities such as writing. Dromaeosauruses developed a coat of downy feathers, which might suggest that colder climates prevailed in North America at this time. Their smaller size than the Adasaurus could also be indicative of evolutionary adaption in order to conserve heat. If temperatures did drop for the Dromaeosaurs entering the Late Cretacious, perhaps their society was a more rugged one, and the harsh realities of surviving the cold winters precluded such an extensive focus on writing, hence the lack of precision small-foot-claw adaption shown in the Adasaurus. The evolution of their tails gave greater flexibility and may have been indicative of adaption in favour of some civilised activity, since the balancing capability of the tail enables enhanced use not only of the forelimbs but also the foot claw.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/saurolophusC.jpg)
Above: Saurolophus. These gentle giants were probably first hunted by the North American Deinonychus, and later herded and grazed by them when farming entered their culture just prior to the colonisation era, and splitting of Asasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, the two Deinonychus descendant races.

So, fossil remains suggest that as intelligent Deinonychus became highly successful hunter-gatherers during the Early Cretacious, conquering the entire North American continent with such rampant success that they drove one of their main prey animals, the Tenontosaurus, to extinction. It is likely that the advent of Saurolophus domestication roughly coincided with, or just preceded, the maritime renaissance and colonisation period. The tendency of agrarian societies to promote massive population growth is clear, and in this scenario, facing scarcity of land and dropping temperatures, some of the Deinonychus would have begun their colonisation of China and the far East, taking with them livestock as well as elements of the budding culture of North America. Fossil evidence suggests that the Adasaurus society was massively successful, placing some of their near relatives as far afield as Denmark. An empire the size of Alexander the Great's would no doubt have been underpinned by careful organisation and a culture steeped in the written word and refinements of erudition. Meanwhile, as the Late Cretacious brought colder climates in North America, the remaining American Deinonychus grew smaller, hairier and more rugged as they faced the elements as best they could, thought they still retained their agriculture and some vestements of civilisation.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 19, 2009, 02:19:28 PM
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 19, 2009, 03:24:32 PM
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 19, 2009, 03:35:17 PM
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.

Yes, but all birds build are nests.  Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 19, 2009, 03:39:11 PM
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.

Yes, but all birds build are nests.  Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Nests are usually made out of wood. Wood has a density that will float.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 19, 2009, 03:40:59 PM
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Not in a sophisticated way capable of carrying more information than "Im here" though.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 19, 2009, 03:42:43 PM
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.

Yes, but all birds build are nests.  Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Therefore what? Termites also build nests out of material that is capable of floating. Do they make boats?
Nests are usually made out of wood. Wood has a density that will float.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 19, 2009, 03:45:30 PM
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Not in a sophisticated way capable of carrying more information than "Im here" though.
Birds fly together for thousands of miles and hunt together in packs. That seems pretty sophisticated to me.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 19, 2009, 03:48:32 PM
Yes, but all birds build are nests.  Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Nests are usually made out of wood. Wood has a density that will float.
Depending on the species of bird, nests can be made of grass, mud, twigs, string or just about anything else.  However, most of these nests are built either on or above the ground.  Only a very few bird species build nests on the water.  Besides, why are we even discussing bird nests when dinosaur nests are more likely to resemble reptile nests than bird nests.

Quote from: http://www.cyberwest.com/cw16/16scwst2.html
University of Colorado at Boulder and Emory University researchers have discovered scores of ancient reptile nests in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park, believed to be the oldest such nests ever found.

The fossil nests, dating to about 220 million years ago, are similar to modern-day crocodile and turtle nests, said Stephen Hasiotis, the CU-Boulder research associate who discovered them. Hasiotis and colleague Anthony Martin of Emory University in Atlanta believe the nests extend the fossil record of reptile nests by roughly 110 million years.

Can anyone provide any evidence of floating reptile nests?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 19, 2009, 03:57:08 PM
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Not in a sophisticated way capable of carrying more information than "Im here" though.
Birds fly together for thousands of miles and hunt together in packs. That seems pretty sophisticated to me.
Of course is "seems sophisticated" to you, since you take a VERY simplistic view of how things function. It takes far less information exchange to fly in formation or to loosely coordinate (and I do mean loosely) a hunting behavior then it does to explain the creation of a tool to someone.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 19, 2009, 03:57:16 PM
Quote
There is no fossil evidence of the boats, and I never claimed there was. That would be a fairly contradictory position to hold. The evidence I am talking about has actually been linked to in this thread, but as usual none of you can be bothered to look. Here is one example:

What you linked isn't evidence. Yes I found some of it, no I'm not going to endlessly search.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 19, 2009, 04:25:39 PM
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.

I can't believe you are as dense as this.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 19, 2009, 04:27:26 PM
Yes, but all birds build are nests.  Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Nests are usually made out of wood. Wood has a density that will float.
Depending on the species of bird, nests can be made of grass, mud, twigs, string or just about anything else.  However, most of these nests are built either on or above the ground.  Only a very few bird species build nests on the water.  Besides, why are we even discussing bird nests when dinosaur nests are more likely to resemble reptile nests than bird nests.
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 19, 2009, 04:31:28 PM
How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.
Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.
Not in a sophisticated way capable of carrying more information than "Im here" though.
Birds fly together for thousands of miles and hunt together in packs. That seems pretty sophisticated to me.
Of course is "seems sophisticated" to you, since you take a VERY simplistic view of how things function. It takes far less information exchange to fly in formation or to loosely coordinate (and I do mean loosely) a hunting behavior then it does to explain the creation of a tool to someone.
The birds that fly in the "V" formation have a system of switching position to maximize speed and endurance. That is not "loose". Birds certainly have the capacity to do advanced mental functions.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 19, 2009, 05:39:57 PM
That is hardly an "advanced mental capacity", considering it is largely instinctual behavior.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 19, 2009, 06:29:30 PM
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
I'm saying that modern birds may have descended from dinosaurs, but modern birds are not dinosaurs, so I don't see how you can apply bird behavior to dinosaur behavior.  Modern birds are more than a steps up the evolutionary ladder than dinosaurs.  Modern reptiles such as alligators are much closer to dinosaurs than modern birds are.  Show me a modern reptile that builds floating nests and then I'll give the boat building dinosaur fantasy some more consideration.  Otherwise, you're just grasping at straws.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 19, 2009, 06:45:16 PM
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
I'm saying that modern birds may have descended from dinosaurs, but modern birds are not dinosaurs, so I don't see how you can apply bird behavior to dinosaur behavior.  Modern birds are more than a steps up the evolutionary ladder than dinosaurs.  Modern reptiles such as alligators are much closer to dinosaurs than modern birds are.  Show me a modern reptile that builds floating nests and then I'll give the boat building dinosaur fantasy some more consideration.  Otherwise, you're just grasping at straws.
Proof?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2009, 06:59:50 PM
Quote
Modern birds are more than a steps up the evolutionary ladder than dinosaurs.

You're making the rather large assumption that they got smarter as they got smaller.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 19, 2009, 07:44:42 PM
Quote
Modern birds are more than a steps up the evolutionary ladder than dinosaurs.

You're making the rather large assumption that they got smarter as they got smaller.

Modern birds and dinosaurs are completely different critters.  You're the one making the rather large assumption that dinosaurs were all that smart to begin with.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2009, 07:59:17 PM
Modern birds and dinosaurs are completely different critters.  You're the one making the rather large assumption that dinosaurs were all that smart to begin with.

"To begin with"?

Would that be the several billion years it took for them to become dinosaurs?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 19, 2009, 09:28:47 PM
Modern birds and dinosaurs are completely different critters.  You're the one making the rather large assumption that dinosaurs were all that smart to begin with.

"To begin with"?

Would that be the several billion years it took for them to become dinosaurs?

*sigh*  No Tom, that would be the 200 million years or so that they were dinosaurs but weren't birds yet.

FYI Tom, using underline and italic tags is redundant as underlining text is a signal to the printer to use italics for the text being underlined during typesetting.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2009, 10:22:48 PM
Modern birds and dinosaurs are completely different critters.  You're the one making the rather large assumption that dinosaurs were all that smart to begin with.

"To begin with"?

Would that be the several billion years it took for them to become dinosaurs?

*sigh*  No Tom, that would be the 200 million years or so that they were dinosaurs but weren't birds yet.

FYI Tom, using underline and italic tags is redundant as underlining text is a signal to the printer to use italics for the text being underlined during typesetting.

Several billion years to become dinosaurs seems to be only a little longer than the 200 million years it took to become birds.

Obviously they had to lose all sorts of stuff in order to become birds.

Why not intelligence?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 20, 2009, 02:20:00 AM
Besides, why are we even discussing bird nests when dinosaur nests are more likely to resemble reptile nests than bird nests.


Why do you say that? Most scientists now agree that dinosaurs much have more in common with birds than modern reptiles, and many believe they were warm blooded to boot.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: SupahLovah on November 20, 2009, 06:28:05 AM
Did you guys skip this on purpose?
Yes, but all birds build are nests.  Birds don't farm, write inscriptions, or form complex societies like James is suggesting.
Nests are usually made out of wood. Wood has a density that will float.
Depending on the species of bird, nests can be made of grass, mud, twigs, string or just about anything else.  However, most of these nests are built either on or above the ground.  Only a very few bird species build nests on the water.  Besides, why are we even discussing bird nests when dinosaur nests are more likely to resemble reptile nests than bird nests.

Quote from: http://www.cyberwest.com/cw16/16scwst2.html
University of Colorado at Boulder and Emory University researchers have discovered scores of ancient reptile nests in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park, believed to be the oldest such nests ever found.

The fossil nests, dating to about 220 million years ago, are similar to modern-day crocodile and turtle nests, said Stephen Hasiotis, the CU-Boulder research associate who discovered them. Hasiotis and colleague Anthony Martin of Emory University in Atlanta believe the nests extend the fossil record of reptile nests by roughly 110 million years.

Can anyone provide any evidence of floating reptile nests?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on November 20, 2009, 07:50:49 AM
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
This is why people like you are confused and eventually angered by science: you make such broad generalizations that they finally have no sense at all.

First, all dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. There are theories where some dinosaurs are related to birds.
Second, there is no clear path yet between some dinosaurs (like the T-Rex, for example) and modern birds. Maybe they had a common ancestor, maybe they branched off when some big dinosaurs already existed. Maybe they are so close that both had feathers, maybe not. Maybe some dinosaurs were warm blooded, maybe not.

You are intermixing theory with hypothesis, different geological eras, well, you are intermixing every aspect of archeology just to give this "dinosaur boats" idea a chance. Science does not work like that.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on November 20, 2009, 08:01:28 AM
Besides, why are we even discussing bird nests when dinosaur nests are more likely to resemble reptile nests than bird nests.


Why do you say that? Most scientists now agree that dinosaurs much have more in common with birds than modern reptiles, and many believe they were warm blooded to boot.
You are trying to use a very old misconception to make your weak point: Dinosaurs never have had much to do with reptiles. The very first archeologists made that mistake and tried by all means to show dinosaurs creeping along with their tails lying on the ground. This has been rectified decades ago and now the name "dinosaur", which means "terrible lizard", is kept for historical reasons only.

On the other hand, birds and dinosaurs have a closer relationship but one that is still being investigated. This does not mean their nests were similar to birds nests, for a simple reason: weight.

Birds can nest in trees, dinosaurs could not. Birds can make nests that stand their own weight, but dinosaurs could not, except maybe for the lightest ones. Every species has to use the materials that work for their weight.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 20, 2009, 09:04:30 AM
Right back atchya'.

::) You really are refusing to read the evidence I gave you? That's cool.

No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.

Nope. Not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."

The point is rather academic. It doesn't matter which is "more impressive". A twig bending crow does not a dinotopia make.


Quote
A floating nest does not a seafaring dinotopia create.

The ability to build rafts would, however, and we have shown this to be possible.

Once again, no you haven't.

Please provide us with evidence that there is more petrified wood from that period than from, say, 40,000 years ago.

Why would I need to do that?! ??? If you think it'll help your argument there's a wikipedia article. Check the dates on all the petrified wood sites.

There is no fossil evidence of the boats

Oh good. I'm glad we got that sorted.

The evidence I am talking about has actually been linked to in this thread, but as usual none of you can be bothered to look. Here is one example:

...snip...
The colonist Deinonychuses who reached the far east adapted in a number of ways. Adasauruses, probably due to massively increased tool usage and the removal of the necessity to be involved in violence as their civilisation progressed, developed much smaller foot-claws than their ancestors. A smaller claw would have been much more suitable for precision tasks like inscription, manipulation of cloth and fine materials and so on, and marks the transition from its role as a mechanism of hunting and combat to its role as an additional dexterous digit.

Hold. On. Are you telling me your "source" is James?

The "source" whose theory is under discussion?

Your evidence for James being right about colonial seafaring dinosaurs is that James posted some stuff about colonial seafaring dinosaurs?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 20, 2009, 10:15:19 AM
I'm still waiting for a summary of communication methods used by dinofarmers. The question got hijacked by Kathleen Amin back there.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 20, 2009, 12:40:35 PM
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
This is why people like you are confused and eventually angered by science: you make such broad generalizations that they finally have no sense at all.

First, all dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. There are theories where some dinosaurs are related to birds.
Second, there is no clear path yet between some dinosaurs (like the T-Rex, for example) and modern birds. Maybe they had a common ancestor, maybe they branched off when some big dinosaurs already existed. Maybe they are so close that both had feathers, maybe not. Maybe some dinosaurs were warm blooded, maybe not.

You are intermixing theory with hypothesis, different geological eras, well, you are intermixing every aspect of archeology just to give this "dinosaur boats" idea a chance. Science does not work like that.
I have personally seen the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on November 20, 2009, 12:46:47 PM
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
This is why people like you are confused and eventually angered by science: you make such broad generalizations that they finally have no sense at all.

First, all dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. There are theories where some dinosaurs are related to birds.
Second, there is no clear path yet between some dinosaurs (like the T-Rex, for example) and modern birds. Maybe they had a common ancestor, maybe they branched off when some big dinosaurs already existed. Maybe they are so close that both had feathers, maybe not. Maybe some dinosaurs were warm blooded, maybe not.

You are intermixing theory with hypothesis, different geological eras, well, you are intermixing every aspect of archeology just to give this "dinosaur boats" idea a chance. Science does not work like that.
I have personally seen the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
One of many species of dinosaurs is the Archaeopteryx. There is no evidence yet to link it to either other dinosaurs or birds and there is no evidence whatsoever that it used any tools. Again, you can only come up with gross generalizations.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 20, 2009, 01:29:51 PM
I have personally seen the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
I rater doubt that, unless you're much older than you let on.  I'm guessing that you've personally seen the fossilized remains of Archeopteryx.

Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
But where is it said that dinosaurs and birds must have the same behavioral patterns?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 20, 2009, 01:50:50 PM
Quote
Modern birds are more than a steps up the evolutionary ladder than dinosaurs.

You're making the rather large assumption that they got smarter as they got smaller.

Says the person claiming seafaring merchant dinosaurs.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Johannes on November 20, 2009, 01:57:36 PM
You you going to accept the theory that Dinosaurs evolved into birds or not? Or you proposing alternative science?
This is why people like you are confused and eventually angered by science: you make such broad generalizations that they finally have no sense at all.

First, all dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. There are theories where some dinosaurs are related to birds.
Second, there is no clear path yet between some dinosaurs (like the T-Rex, for example) and modern birds. Maybe they had a common ancestor, maybe they branched off when some big dinosaurs already existed. Maybe they are so close that both had feathers, maybe not. Maybe some dinosaurs were warm blooded, maybe not.

You are intermixing theory with hypothesis, different geological eras, well, you are intermixing every aspect of archeology just to give this "dinosaur boats" idea a chance. Science does not work like that.
I have personally seen the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
One of many species of dinosaurs is the Archaeopteryx. There is no evidence yet to link it to either other dinosaurs or birds and there is no evidence whatsoever that it used any tools. Again, you can only come up with gross generalizations.
Archeopteryx is a bird. Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances. The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs. It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 20, 2009, 02:08:37 PM
Archeopteryx is a bird. Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances. The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs. It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests

Which bird travels large distances in nests?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 20, 2009, 03:01:13 PM
Archeopteryx is a bird.
No, Archeopteryx is a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds.  Some of both, but not quite one or the other.

Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances.
What does building nests have to do with traveling large distances?

The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs.
OK, sure.

It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests
No, it doesn't.  For one thing, it hasn't been established that birds use their nests to travel large distances.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 20, 2009, 04:04:22 PM
Archeopteryx is a bird. Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances. The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs. It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests

Can I add you to the growing list of Colonial Seafaring Dinosaurs Believers?

(not floating nest builders)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 20, 2009, 04:11:25 PM

I have personally seen the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.

There's not enough evidence to say that is "pretty damn clear". On the face of it, humans look like they descended from apes, and apes look like they descended from monkeys. But that's not the case - all three share a common ancestor but none is descended from the other. They are three seperate primate branches. It's possible that archaeopteryx and dinosaurs evolved seperately from a common ancestor in the same way, but since there must be thousands of species that we have no fossils of at all, it's extremely difficult to work out the exact relationship between dinosaurs, birds and archaeopteryx.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 21, 2009, 10:30:50 AM
Right back atchya'.

::) You really are refusing to read the evidence I gave you? That's cool.


I have read them, but they can't  change the fact that this is what leading thinkers in the field have to say on the subject:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows.html

Quote from: Page 2
"No other animal?not even a chimp?has ever spontaneously solved a problem like this, a fact that puts crows in a class with us as toolmakers," Savage writes in her book.


Nope. Not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."


See above.


The point is rather academic. It doesn't matter which is "more impressive". A twig bending crow does not a dinotopia make.


The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.


Once again, no you haven't.


Yes we have! We've shown they have the capacity, both physically and mentally, and the fossil record supports us.


Why would I need to do that?! ???


To back up your unsubstantiated claims?


There is no fossil evidence of the boats

Oh good. I'm glad we got that sorted.

Hold. On. Are you telling me your "source" is James?


Why are you quoting the word 'source'? I never referred to it as a source. I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.


www.rif.org


Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 21, 2009, 11:01:06 AM
::) You really are refusing to read the evidence I gave you? That's cool.
I have read them, but they can't  change the fact that this is what leading thinkers in the field have to say on the subject:

So that researcher puts the crow in the same bracket as humans for that single problem solving task.

But again that's old research and apes/chimps/bonobos have shown they are adept at tool making and problem solving. See links provided.

It doesn't really matter. Arguing that crows are smarter than chimps achieves nothing.

A twig bending crow does not a seafaring dinotopia make.


The fossil record supports us;

No the fossil records support what they show. Bones of dinosaurs. If there's bones then there were once living dinosaurs. Assuming one out of a range of possibilities is true without evidence is a broken argument.


Nope. Not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."

See above.

You gave an example of problem solving not tool creation.

The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.

This is not support by fossil records, it's support by conjecture. However there are many explanations. Most of which do not include fantasies about dinomariners. Suppressing options to force your preferred explanation to be the only explanation is a fallacy.


To back up your unsubstantiated claims?

I already did that.

Why are you quoting the word 'source'? I never referred to it as a source. I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.

Most people would recognise a source to be a source of evidence, and understand the intent of the post. However, I appologies. Let me write that out again.

Hold. On. Are you telling me your "evidence" is James?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 21, 2009, 11:50:26 AM
The point is rather academic. It doesn't matter which is "more impressive". A twig bending crow does not a dinotopia make.

The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.

Umm... No.  Continental Drift also explains the fossil record.  Continental Drift also explains the geological similarities between coastal regions that dinosaur colonization can not.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 21, 2009, 01:05:00 PM
The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.

What?  That's the only thing capable of explaining it?
They could have flown.  They could have been moved via alien technology.  They could have built bridges. They could have developed teleportaion technology.  They could have frozen the oceans and walked across.  They could have silly philosophical argument #87'd to get there too.


Maybe Jesus rode them there......
Or, perhaps what markjo said could explain it.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Delusional Pancake on November 22, 2009, 07:04:33 AM
A quick question. Wouldn't it be easier to hypothesize that there is actual tectonic movement in a FE scenario (attributed to UA or some other force), than to come up with seafaring intelligent dinosaur ranchers building colonies all around the world?

I think that a research on how the tectonic plates behave in FE would be far more convincing.... I believe that both continental drift and current seismological status of the earth can be explained in a FE scenario. At least, more easily than sentient t-rexes and nest-ships able to transport 100ton sauropods...
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 22, 2009, 09:28:49 AM
A quick question. Wouldn't it be easier to hypothesize that there is actual tectonic movement in a FE scenario (attributed to UA or some other force), than to come up with seafaring intelligent dinosaur ranchers building colonies all around the world?

Some do.  It just so happens that James isn't one of them.  For some odd reason, a few others support him (including Tom, who likes to support multiple, mutually exclusive models).
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 04:05:23 AM
So that researcher puts the crow in the same bracket as humans for that single problem solving task.

But again that's old research and apes/chimps/bonobos have shown they are adept at tool making and problem solving. See links provided.

It doesn't really matter. Arguing that crows are smarter than chimps achieves nothing.

A twig bending crow does not a seafaring dinotopia make.


Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows and superiour physiology. Additionally, the fossil record supports our theory.


No the fossil records support what they show. Bones of dinosaurs. If there's bones then there were once living dinosaurs. Assuming one out of a range of possibilities is true without evidence is a broken argument.


The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.


You gave an example of problem solving not tool creation.


I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.


This is not support by fossil records, it's support by conjecture. However there are many explanations. Most of which do not include fantasies about dinomariners. Suppressing options to force your preferred explanation to be the only explanation is a fallacy.


"Suppressing options"? ???


To back up your unsubstantiated claims?

I already did that.


Sorry, but you claimed that the period in question had better conditions for the petrification of wood than exist currently. As yet, you haven't backed that up with any evidence.


Why are you quoting the word 'source'? I never referred to it as a source. I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.

Most people would recognise a source to be a source of evidence, and understand the intent of the post. However, I appologies. Let me write that out again.

Hold. On. Are you telling me your "evidence" is James?


How could my evidence "be" James? Honestly, I made it very clear:


I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.


The evidence is the fossil distribution. James presented that evidence. What's so difficult to understand? If you can't understand this basic concept regarding the presentation of evidence, then I suggest you visit this link (http://www.hop.com) and sort the problem out yourself.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 23, 2009, 06:30:38 AM
Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows and superiour physiology. Additionally, the fossil record supports our theory.
What direct sensory evidence tells you that?

The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.
So why is a sea faring dinosaur civilization a better explanation that continental drift again?

I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.
Now if you can show us a study where crows used tools to build floating nests, then you might be onto something.

This is not support by fossil records, it's support by conjecture. However there are many explanations. Most of which do not include fantasies about dinomariners. Suppressing options to force your preferred explanation to be the only explanation is a fallacy.

"Suppressing options"? ???
Yes, like continental drift.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 23, 2009, 07:14:50 AM
Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows...

Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.

Additionally, the fossil record supports our theory.

No it doesn't.

The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.

No it can't.


I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.

So you recognise that not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."? Cool.

"Suppressing options"? ???

Continental drift. For one.

Sorry, but you claimed that the period in question had better conditions for the petrification of wood than exist currently. As yet, you haven't backed that up with any evidence.

I already did that. I told you where to look.

How could my evidence "be" James?

You provided a link to James' post.

James didn't present any evidence. He presented a cool story about how dinosaurs were good at knitting. This is not evidence, it's romance.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 07:44:38 AM
Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.


Sorry, but you took EQ out of the equation when you decided that speculation without evidence was  off-limits. Not my problem.


I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.

So you recognise that not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."? Cool.


Why do you insist on constantly butchering my quotes and taking them out of context? Is it because you know the only way you can possibly win this debate is through pathetic semantic tricks? Here is that quote verbatim:


Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.


I never claimed my sources said anything of the sort. This isn't the first time you've taken my quotes out of context, and your pathetic straw man tactics show just how weak your position is.


"Suppressing options"? ???

Continental drift. For one.


In what way have I "suppressed" continental drift? ???


Sorry, but you claimed that the period in question had better conditions for the petrification of wood than exist currently. As yet, you haven't backed that up with any evidence.

I already did that. I told you where to look.


Sorry, but it's not my job to find evidence to back up your claims. You made the claim, so back it up or else withdraw it.


How could my evidence "be" James?

You provided a link to James' post.

James didn't present any evidence. He presented a cool story about how dinosaurs were good at knitting. This is not evidence, it's romance.


James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory. You can misrepresent his theory all you want, but the fact is you haven't tackled the substance of his argument once.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 23, 2009, 07:54:07 AM
How exactly does one go from:

Quote
James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory.

to


The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record

James being incorrect is another that comes to mind quickly.

Also, which birds purposefully travel across large bodies of water in nests?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 23, 2009, 08:16:11 AM
Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.

Sorry, but you took EQ out of the equation when you decided that speculation without evidence was  off-limits. Not my problem.

??? Yes speculation without evidence is off limits. The EQ data is speculation with evidence.

I'm now confused as to whether you want to use EQ data or not. *shrugs*

But your statement is still incorrect.

I never claimed my sources said anything of the sort.

Yes you did. Allow me to once again "quote you out of context"...

Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.
No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.

Are you now acknowledging that this is not the case? Or do you want to continue insisting I'm quoting you out of context? Either is fine by me.

In what way have I "suppressed" continental drift? ???

By insisting that a seafaring dinotopia is the only explanation for the dispersal of fossil evidence.

I'm guessing you're playing for time now.


Sorry, but it's not my job to find evidence to back up your claims. You made the claim, so back it up or else withdraw it.

I gave you the evidence. Read the links. This is embarrassing now.

James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory. You can misrepresent his theory all you want, but the fact is you haven't tackled the substance of his argument once.

No he doesn't. If there's any specific thing in James post you wish to highlight then please do so now.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 01:28:10 PM
Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.

Sorry, but you took EQ out of the equation when you decided that speculation without evidence was  off-limits. Not my problem.

??? Yes speculation without evidence is off limits. The EQ data is speculation with evidence.

I'm now confused as to whether you want to use EQ data or not. *shrugs*

But your statement is still incorrect.


First of all, like I said several pages ago, you need to make your mind up. You seem to be setting 'limits' according to what you consider valid evidence or not; in other words, whatever agrees with CD theory is ok, but anything else is somehow unacceptable.


I never claimed my sources said anything of the sort.

Yes you did. Allow me to once again "quote you out of context"...

Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.
No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.

Are you now acknowledging that this is not the case? Or do you want to continue insisting I'm quoting you out of context? Either is fine by me.


No Crustinator, unlike you I am willing to concede a point when I have made an error. You are right, in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces, meaning I've had to repeat myself to stop you warping my posts. And as you were once again cutting up my posts, I thought you were doing the same thing again. My point still stands; you're debating to try and score points, rather than actually argue the matter at hand.


However, to tackle the issue at hand:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm

Quote
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.


Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task. Clearly that is more impressive than making general tools for general tasks, which is why the study was considered so impressive.


In what way have I "suppressed" continental drift? ???

By insisting that a seafaring dinotopia is the only explanation for the dispersal of fossil evidence.

I'm guessing you're playing for time now.


So by the same token, you're suppressing our theory. Seriously, since when is not agreeing with a theory eqivalent to "suppressing" it?


I gave you the evidence. Read the links. This is embarrassing now.


If I recall correctly, the only links you actually posted spoke about the triassic period. The triassic period is not the period in question.


Also, why all this "this is embarrassing" nonsense? Seriously, it's childish at best, pathetic at worst. I don't go round saying "how embarrassing" it is that you've confused the triassic and cretaceous periods despite being prompted several times.


James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory. You can misrepresent his theory all you want, but the fact is you haven't tackled the substance of his argument once.

No he doesn't. If there's any specific thing in James post you wish to highlight then please do so now.


All of it. We've presented the evidence, so the onus is on you to challenge it. Stop dodging.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 23, 2009, 02:30:30 PM
First of all, like I said several pages ago, you need to make your mind up. You seem to be setting 'limits' according to what you consider valid evidence or not; in other words, whatever agrees with CD theory is ok, but anything else is somehow unacceptable.

No my mind was always made up.

EQ is evidence to indicate a dinosaurs intelligence.

It indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as some birds and animals of today.

This does not suggest dinosaurs were a seafaring nation who spread glorious civilisations across the world in gigantic fleets of ships.

I have always made this opinion clear. Please don't try an muddy the waters.

No Crustinator, unlike you I am willing to concede a point when I have made an error. You are right, in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces, meaning I've had to repeat myself to stop you warping my posts.

Not true. However if you genuinely feel slighted I'll be happy to discuss this off topic issue in another thread under "Suggestions and Concerns".

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm

Quote
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.


Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task.

No. The conditional in that sentence was "without an extended period of trial-and-error learning." That is, what is remarkable was that the crow was able to bend the wire on first attempt, as opposed to presumed efforts in other animals who go through a period of trial and error.

It's still a bold claim to say the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hittingthings that apes have devised, since  But it's outrageous to suggest that leading scientists think the same.

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
So by the same token, you're suppressing our theory. Seriously, since when is not agreeing with a theory eqivalent to "suppressing" it?

When you insist that there are no other theories and so yours by default is the only plausible option.

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
If I recall correctly, the only links you actually posted spoke about the triassic period.

Quite likely they did.

Here's a piece from the Cretaceous. http://geology.about.com/library/bl/images/blfossilwood.htm

I'm not sure how this helps you but I hope you like it.

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
Also, why all this "this is embarrassing" nonsense? Seriously, it's childish at best, pathetic at worst. I don't go round saying "how embarrassing" it is that you've confused the triassic and cretaceous periods despite being prompted several times.

Nope I was never confused over the Triassic or Cretaceous. Are we wasting time again?

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
If there's any specific thing in James post you wish to highlight then please do so now.
All of it. We've presented the evidence, so the onus is on you to challenge it. Stop dodging.

No sorry it is not evidence, nor does it present evidence.

As a work of fiction it's wonderful. Example:

Quote
The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines.

There are many fiction writer forums on the internet. This is not one of them.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 24, 2009, 02:29:27 AM
First of all, like I said several pages ago, you need to make your mind up. You seem to be setting 'limits' according to what you consider valid evidence or not; in other words, whatever agrees with CD theory is ok, but anything else is somehow unacceptable.

No my mind was always made up.

EQ is evidence to indicate a dinosaurs intelligence.

It indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as some birds and animals of today.

This does not suggest dinosaurs were a seafaring nation who spread glorious civilisations across the world in gigantic fleets of ships.

I have always made this opinion clear. Please don't try an muddy the waters.


So speculation is acceptable. Glad we cleared that up.


No Crustinator, unlike you I am willing to concede a point when I have made an error. You are right, in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces, meaning I've had to repeat myself to stop you warping my posts.

Not true. However if you genuinely feel slighted I'll be happy to discuss this off topic issue in another thread under "Suggestions and Concerns".


Why? There's no rule against poor debating tactics. People do it here all the time, so there's no need to highlight your case in particular. You're free to use such tactics as much as you want, but I'll call you out on it.


Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task.

No. The conditional in that sentence was "without an extended period of trial-and-error learning." That is, what is remarkable was that the crow was able to bend the wire on first attempt, as opposed to presumed efforts in other animals who go through a period of trial and error.

It's still a bold claim to say the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hittingthings that apes have devised, since  But it's outrageous to suggest that leading scientists think the same.


So crows have created a specific tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning. Scientists consider this impressive. It was the specificity and improvised nature of the tool that impressed them. In this way, it was more impressive than the tools created by apes.


When you insist that there are no other theories and so yours by default is the only plausible option.


When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"? ???


Quite likely they did.

Here's a piece from the Cretaceous. http://geology.about.com/library/bl/images/blfossilwood.htm

I'm not sure how this helps you but I hope you like it.


Well, it would have helped if it supported your claim that conditions during the period in question were especially suited to the petrification of wood. The above link just shows a piece of pertrified wood from the cretaceous period, and in no way supports your earlier claims.


Nope I was never confused over the Triassic or Cretaceous. Are we wasting time again?


We were discussing the cretaceous period. You made the claim that conditions during this period were especially good for the petrification of wood, and then when I pressed you for sources to back up this claim, you said you had already posted links saying as much. However, these links referred to the triassic period, which is not the period in question. Now, you were obviously confused about something.



No sorry it is not evidence, nor does it present evidence.

As a work of fiction it's wonderful. Example:

Quote
The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines.

There are many fiction writer forums on the internet. This is not one of them.


It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 24, 2009, 05:22:35 AM
When you insist that there are no other theories and so yours by default is the only plausible option.

When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"? ???

I would assume that he is referring to this:


The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on November 24, 2009, 05:37:57 AM
It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.
You still seem confused about what a dinosaur is. We have found many species of dinosaurs in almost every continent, not just "bird-like" dinosaurs.

Even if your speculations happened to have anything right, the fossil record shows dinosaurs similar to the Allosaurus, Stegosaurus, four legged dinosaurs, two legged dinosaurs, carnivores and herbivores, flying and non-flying, reptilians and proto-mammalians, to name just a few, were found in every continent except Antarctica (yet). James' speculation could account for one dominant, intelligent species and a couple of its "farm animals" but it cannot account for such an intricate and complex mesh of species. That is, of course, when signs of a civilization capable of ship building appears in the Cretaceous layers.

You make a "theory" based on a wild speculation that some nests could have been used as boats (ignoring everything we know about Engineering) and that is a wild speculation. But you do not follow your line of thought to the logical conclusion of the idea: how does your speculation explain all of the fossil record found.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 24, 2009, 08:31:36 AM

It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.

And a conclusion supported by gems like this:

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.

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.
and

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.

"My theory is true, therefore anything I concoct to support it must also be true by definition!"
 And my personal favorite:
Even if dinosaurs had been paraplegic, they could still have constructed formidable navies.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 24, 2009, 08:38:11 AM
So speculation is acceptable. Glad we cleared that up.

Baseless speculation is unacceptable. Again this has always been made clear. You're in Tom Bishop mode now it seems.

There's no rule against poor debating tactics.

And it's a poor debating tactic to baw that someone has misquoted you when they haven't at all.

So crows have created a specific tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning. Scientists consider this impressive. It was the specificity and improvised nature of the tool that impressed them.

No it wasn't, it was the rapidity with which they produced the tool. Reread the quote. Misrepresenting your sources when everyone can read your sources makes you look bad.

But once again, a wire bending crow, even one that can do it in one turn, does not a seafaring dinotopia make.

When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"? ???

Why here...

dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record

and here...

The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.

Memory loss?

Well, it would have helped if it supported your claim that conditions during the period in question were especially suited to the petrification of wood. The above link just shows a piece of pertrified wood from the cretaceous period, and in no way supports your earlier claims.

I've no idea what you're talking about now. How does petrified wood from the Cretaceous wood not support my claims?

Wood falls to ground.
Decomposition and destructive elements removed.
Silicates added.

Lots of silicates = quick petrification. Few silicates = slow petrification.

Start a new thread called "petrified wood" as I feel you're having difficulty with this concept.

It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.

No. Claiming it's fiction challenges the "evidence" by indicating that it has no basis in fact.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 24, 2009, 09:21:07 AM
Using unsubstantiated presupposition of a flat earth:

Quote
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.
Unsubstantiated:
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.
From one side of the mouth:
They do not face evolutionary pressures which necessitate the evolution of sentience. By the same token, humans have evolved recently - how are they super smart? If humanity can evolve to a planet-dominating level of intelligence in such a geologically short space of time, why can't dinosaurs have done so (fossil evidence suggests that they did, in fact evolve to a planet-dominating level).
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.

Then the other:
Quote
But I'm not disputing that time of existence and development of sentience lack strong positive correlation. Over incredibly large timescales, evolution of sentience becomes statistically more probable, but is never ensured for any particular species and has more to do with selection pressure than just number of millenia of survival.

From simple tools:
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.
Now advanced tools without presedence are possible
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.
Advanced tools of stone and wood would probably be sufficient to build a small fleet of crafts capable of intercontinental travel.
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.

1) Insinuates a higher order of intelligence and reasoning beyond simple tool construction originally cited.
2) Is a simple counter to the claim that the species were exclusive to NA and Asia and that there just hasn't been a fossilized specimin dixcovered yet.

We actually have a modern example of this - the Galapagos Islands. Over a relatively short amount of time, areas of isolation in which species do not colonise or migrate exhibit radically different patterns of evolution. Fossil evidence supports the maritime dinosaur hypothesis.
Which could actually support a theory of continental drift, as since it is claimed, relatively short periods of isolation can result in radically different patterns of evolution.

Additionally nothing has been proven which supports how these dinosaurs could have taken water and food stores for a several month long journey on the open ocean to support themselves, their "livestock" and their plant life.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 24, 2009, 09:40:04 AM
Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water?  As for large stocks of food, they possibly needed to carry very little with them and simply used up their fat reserves. If they were cold-blooded, they wouldn't have needed these reserves to generate heat.


Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 24, 2009, 09:48:15 AM
Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water?  As for large stocks of food, they possibly needed to carry very little with them and simply used up their fat reserves. If they were cold-blooded, they wouldn't have needed these reserves to generate heat.

Possibly, probably, if, maybe is not the foundation for a sound theory. 

What would suggest that they had no need for fresh water?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 24, 2009, 11:20:33 AM
Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water?

All animals need fresh water. Dinosaurs are no different, whether on land or sea.

As for large stocks of food, they possibly needed to carry very little with them and simply used up their fat reserves. If they were cold-blooded, they wouldn't have needed these reserves to generate heat.

Wilmore wants them to be warm blooded.

Picking the best of both worlds?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 24, 2009, 11:42:46 AM
I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys.  They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 24, 2009, 11:44:33 AM
I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys.  They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.

If they were ocean dwellers perhaps. But the dinosaurs James is punting are land dwellers (hence the boats). So unlikely.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 24, 2009, 11:51:20 AM
I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys.  They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.

Could, maybe, perhaps.  What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: dude55 on November 24, 2009, 11:52:41 AM
I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys.  They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.

Could, maybe, perhaps.  What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?
There isnt hes trying to salvage whats left of his arguement desperately.  :-X
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 24, 2009, 11:57:57 AM

Could, maybe, perhaps.  What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?

I don't think it happened suddenly; adaptation usually involves considerable time.  Why would you think it happened suddenly?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 24, 2009, 12:41:59 PM

Could, maybe, perhaps.  What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?

I don't think it happened suddenly; adaptation usually involves considerable time.  Why would you think it happened suddenly?

Because the claim is that some sudden environmental incident forced the dinosaurs to take to the sea in purpose built crafts upon which the occupant of the craft would need to obtain water from a source which it previously would have had no need to in order to hydrate itself, its livestock and its produce.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 24, 2009, 12:50:40 PM
You're way ahead of me in the theory.  I never thought of the colonization voyages being the result of a catastrophic event.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on November 24, 2009, 01:00:39 PM

Could, maybe, perhaps.  What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?

I don't think it happened suddenly; adaptation usually involves considerable time.  Why would you think it happened suddenly?
There are insurmountable problems either way, so take your pick: no animal we have found has ever suddenly adapted to salt water, no animal has ever suddenly adapted back to living on land. Gradually, the few species that have done the transition have changed in many ways over hundreds of thousands, or even several millions of years, and the adaptation has involved several organs and bone structures. In this case, where are the fossils of the dinosaurs with these adaptations?

You cannot find any animals that suddenly changed from land based to sea based and back with no additional changes, you cannot find animals that made the evolution into good sea-faring animals (with fins and all) and then the evolution back to land-based, with no telltale signs.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 24, 2009, 01:02:35 PM
Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water? 

Because if they were able to thrive in salt water, they would not have needed to build boats to migrate across the oceans.  They simply would have been able to swim across.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 24, 2009, 01:36:36 PM

Because if they were able to thrive in salt water, they would not have needed to build boats to migrate across the oceans.  They simply would have been able to swim across.

I think I agree with your scenario, Markjo.  So we've decided that they built large vessels with adequate cargo capacity?  Yes, it fits better.   ;D 
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 24, 2009, 02:00:27 PM

Because if they were able to thrive in salt water, they would not have needed to build boats to migrate across the oceans.  They simply would have been able to swim across.

I think I agree with your scenario, Markjo.  So we've decided that they built large vessels with adequate cargo capacity?  Yes, it fits better.   ;D 


Good work contributing to the debate with your no content post.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 24, 2009, 03:26:14 PM

Because if they were able to thrive in salt water, they would not have needed to build boats to migrate across the oceans.  They simply would have been able to swim across.

I think I agree with your scenario, Markjo.  So we've decided that they built large vessels with adequate cargo capacity?  Yes, it fits better.   ;D 

Now you just need to prove that dinosaurs were both intellectually and physically capable of building such large vessels.  Of course that means that you're suggesting a level of technology where metal tools (and possibly fasteners) would probably be necessary.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 24, 2009, 03:31:52 PM
I disagree there.  I don't think advanced metallurgy need be included.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 24, 2009, 04:30:22 PM
I disagree there.  I don't think advanced metallurgy need be included.

I'm not necessarily suggesting advanced metallurgy.  Bronze age metallurgy should be more than sufficient to build sufficiently large wooden vessels.  However, I'm not sure if they could be built with stone age or copper age tools (and no opposable thumbs).
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: suzerain on November 24, 2009, 06:45:57 PM
in all fairness, reed vessels, (ie, kon-tiki) could be built without metal tools...

though this does raise one important question...

which species of dinosaur was intelligent enough to build boats capable of crossing oceans?
All of them? all the species were in fact intelligent, built boats and houses and little donsaurhenges, and were rather annoyed because the T-Rexes from over the other side of the river went and ate uncle Bob last week?

or just one species?  which one?

Velociraptors? ok, so small, fast chicken-sized hunter-killers might've been able to float on a raft.... but they're only found in mongolia.

The dinosaurs which have been found on multiple continents are, strangely enough, late Jurassic period when, if you follow a round earth theory of continental drift, north america and europe were connected...
and they're things like Allosaurs. or Stegosaurs.... 2-5 tons of hulking great big reptiles... all these species were jumping on to boats for pleasure cruises? perhaps the allosaurs were herding stegosaurs as cattle for food?
sounds a little absurd, I'd have said.

what is notable is that once the continents split apart, in the cretacious period, the north american dinosaurs become... well, north american. and not found elsewhere. almost like the dinosaurs were... well, unable to cross oceans.

I wonder why? did they all forget to make boats then?

but, what I can say with certainty is that a viking era knarr can transport about 5 tonnes of cargo, and maybe half a dozen people. the scant archaeological remains in canada's l'anse aux meadows archaeological site are the oldest known transoceanic crossing, so the knarr is a good baseline of what's needed... its clinker-built construction is impossible without metal tools; incredibly difficult without iron tools, from augurs to bore holes, adzes to shape timbers, and two-man ripsaws and wedges to split and open logs to form planks, and axes to fell timber in the first place. its construction requires the abilty to create ropes, used both for rigging, and, soaked in pitch (and that's before you factor in the distillation and procesing of pine bark to form turpentine which in turn needs the pitch with resin to waterproof such a vessel, and the weaving and similar work required to produce sails...), to seal the keel to the clinker hull. such a ship takes hundreds of man-hours to construct... and, for something the size of a sauropod known to have been found on different continents, is akin to a duck-pond rowing boat.

the sheer logistical scale of a vessel needed to traverse an ocean by creatures of such size is spectacular.  and yet, in the last two centuries of paleontology, not one single object has been found that suggests an advanced tool-using technology... no shells, drilled for beads, no flakes of stone napped to an edge, no bones with the marks of having been skinned by tool-users. nothing. and yet this is an intelligent, tool-using culture which must've created bloomerys for the production of metal tools, created axe-heads, bored holes in stones to make weights for looms to weave cord that became rope.....

and yet not one such artefact of even the simplest tribal intelligence has been found

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on November 24, 2009, 07:35:42 PM
I disagree there.  I don't think advanced metallurgy need be included.

I'm not necessarily suggesting advanced metallurgy.  Bronze age metallurgy should be more than sufficient to build sufficiently large wooden vessels.  However, I'm not sure if they could be built with stone age or copper age tools (and no opposable thumbs).
I was just reminded of one additional aspect that James' speculation overlooks: There are fossils of sea animals everywhere in the continents. James does not only have to explain why the land animals of the Cretaceous found their way to every continent, except maybe Antarctica, but also why there are countless fossils of marine life hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away from current seas. In my personal experience, there is a place at least 200 kilometers away from the sea where these fossils are so abundant that the local children collect them and sell them to the tourists. I have one of those in my very own living room.

So, what would be the explanation of this: the sea shells of the Cretaceous just got mad with so many dinosaurs invading the seas, that they decided to walk 200 kilometers into the Andes and more than 6000 feet uphill, to die in peace?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 25, 2009, 04:44:09 AM
So speculation is acceptable. Glad we cleared that up.

Baseless speculation is unacceptable. Again this has always been made clear. You're in Tom Bishop mode now it seems.[.quote]


As we have shown, EQ is a lousy measure of intelligence. Yet comparisons based around EQ are somehow not baseless, even though we know nothing about the actual makeup of dinosaur brains (which could put the EQ in a different light)... hmmmm...


There's no rule against poor debating tactics.

And it's a poor debating tactic to baw that someone has misquoted you when they haven't at all.


I have apologised for the incident where I was wrong. Furthermore, I never said you misquoted me. I said you misrepresented my position by taking my quotes out of context. There are loads and loads of examples of this throughout the thread. This is in fact a perfect example of you misrepresenting my position!


So crows have created a specific tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning. Scientists consider this impressive. It was the specificity and improvised nature of the tool that impressed them.

No it wasn't, it was the rapidity with which they produced the tool. Reread the quote. Misrepresenting your sources when everyone can read your sources makes you look bad.


How have I misrepresented my sources? I quoted the source almost verbatim! Here is the actual quote:


Quote
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.


and here's how I described it:


So crows have created a specific tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.


I then proceded to say that it was the specificty and improvised nature of the tool that impressed them. The quote implies that these were both important factors, because if they had made a general tool without a trial and error period (e.g. apes using a stone to break nut casings) it would not have been as impressive. The improvised nature of the tool is important, but the specificity of the tool is also important.



But once again, a wire bending crow, even one that can do it in one turn, does not a seafaring dinotopia make.


Once again, the potential for boat construction has been demonstrated.



When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"? ???

Why here...

dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record

and here...

The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.

Memory loss?


Uh, those quotes show that I think our theory is the correct theory, not that it is the only theory in existence. I believe that CD theory contains discrepancies, and that our thoery explains them. I am in no way "suppressing" CD theory or denying its existence just because I disagree with it. I am in no way "insist[ing] that there are no other theories".



I've no idea what you're talking about now. How does petrified wood from the Cretaceous wood not support my claims?

Wood falls to ground.
Decomposition and destructive elements removed.
Silicates added.

Lots of silicates = quick petrification. Few silicates = slow petrification.

Start a new thread called "petrified wood" as I feel you're having difficulty with this concept.


You claimed that:


Wood is preserved by denying bacteria, oxygen and disturbance. It is then petrified by silicates. If the silicates are in abundance as was the case millions of years ago, then the process can be quick. If not, then it'll take longer.

Strangely, the same conditions that would be preserving wood at the time of the dinosaurs would also be preserving boats. Hmm.


By this you imply that conditions during the period in question would have been especially good for the petrification of wood (i.e. dinosaur boats). You have yet to back this up. The period in question is the Cretaceous period. Hence, to support your claim, you need to provide evidence which shows that such conditions existed in the cretaceous period more than at other times in history.


It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.

No. Claiming it's fiction challenges the "evidence" by indicating that it has no basis in fact.


Indicating your opinion, but in no way proving it. You may as well say "it's wrong" and then claimed to have proven that it is wrong by claiming as much.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 06:51:56 AM
I disagree there.  I don't think advanced metallurgy need be included.
Ever try to build a raft? It is tricky enough to build one capable of supporting a human for a modest distance, built just out of rope and lumber, much less going over an ocean.  Also, anyone ever think about their caloric requirements? They would have to make their craft substantially bigger than what is being proposed just to haul their food.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 25, 2009, 07:19:40 AM
No, I've never built a raft.  Have you?  What materials did you use?

I could be mistaken but I don't think Mr. McIntyre has decided if the colonizing dinosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded.  If they were cold-blooded, the caloric requirement would be reduced.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 07:32:42 AM
No, I've never built a raft.  Have you?  What materials did you use?

I could be mistaken but I don't think Mr. McIntyre has decided if the colonizing dinosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded.  If they were cold-blooded, the caloric requirement would be reduced.
Yes I have built a raft a few times.  Its one of the fieldcraft skills you need to have when you want to get your demolition gear across a stream to an objective, and still have it useful on the other side. If you are going to scale things up to the size of dinosaurs, then what you are really talking about is boat building, not raft building. That requires a bit more tooling than simple raft building does, and seems unlikely since evidence of tools would have likely been preserved at least some of the time.
As for the food issue, that had occurred to me to, but it still takes a lot of energy to paddle a boat, and reptiles have fairly inefficient metabolisms either way.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 25, 2009, 07:44:01 AM
There's always sails.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 25, 2009, 07:49:20 AM
As for the food issue, that had occurred to me to, but it still takes a lot of energy to paddle a boat, and reptiles have fairly inefficient metabolisms either way.

In most cases, if not all, water would be the limiting factor.  It took the kon-tiki 101 days to sail 4300 miles.  I'm not sure by what factor this would increase by simply drifting.  There would have to be a minimum of 100xy days worth of water stored for the trip with x being the time factor for drifting and y being the number of "passengers".
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 25, 2009, 09:49:56 AM
As we have shown, EQ is a lousy measure of intelligence. Yet comparisons based around EQ are somehow not baseless, even though we know nothing about the actual makeup of dinosaur brains (which could put the EQ in a different light)... hmmmm...

I can't understand if you're arguing for or against EQ data. You want to say its lousy and then you want to say its not baseless. Best of both worlds?

I can't help you anymore on this issue. Even using EQ comparisons (which you seem to want to...) they do not suggest that a dinosaur would have the intelligence to built an armada given that their nearest living relative the birds are not capable of such a feat. (Nests are not boats)

I have apologised for the incident where I was wrong. Furthermore, I never said you misquoted me.

Orly?

... in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces...

(you are aware that I and everyone else can go back and reread posts?)

Time to drop the victim act Wilmore. It's tiresome.

How have I misrepresented my sources? I quoted the source almost verbatim!

What you originally said was:

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm

Quote
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.

Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task.

This was misrepresenting your source by suggesting "this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task". Incorrect. What the source was stressing was the lack of an extended trial and error period.

You then wanted your incorrect conclusion to mean that scientists thought crows were better at tool making than apes. Again incorrect.

I corrected you on this matter the first time you posted it. Go back and reread.

Once again, the potential for boat construction has been demonstrated.

Once again. No it hasn't. A wire bending crow does not a dinosaur armada make.

I am in no way "insist[ing] that there are no other theories".

Your posts indicate otherwise. In the future I suggest you reword your posts a little like this:

"Dinosaur boats and continental drift are the only thing that can account for the fossil record"

or

"The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration or tectonic plate movement"

to support your claim, you need to provide evidence which shows that such conditions existed in the cretaceous period more than at other times in history.

I think you need to learn more about the Cretaceous period before you start thumping the desk. The high amount of volcanic activity at this time is a fact understood by most 9 year olds. As is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event).

Indicating your opinion, but in no way proving it. You may as well say "it's wrong" and then claimed to have proven that it is wrong by claiming as much.

There's nothing to prove and my opinion isn't the issue here. James has presented no evidence, just (wonderful) speculation. This fact remains regardless of the observer.

Or in other words; prove that Barbara Cartland is correct.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 25, 2009, 11:45:56 AM
I have apologised for the incident where I was wrong. Furthermore, I never said you misquoted me.

Orly?

... in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces...
Like he said, he never said you misquoted him.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 25, 2009, 12:06:13 PM
I think people are overlooking the significance of Trig's comment about marine fossils being found inland.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 25, 2009, 12:43:32 PM
There's always sails.

I would love to see a proposal as to how dinosaurs could make sails without opposable thumbs.  Even if they were to use animal hides instead of woven fabric, there would still be a fair amount of sewing involved to make and rig sails large enough to propel boats of the size required.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: BenedictArnoldftw on November 25, 2009, 12:50:07 PM
There's always sails.

I would love to see a proposal as to how dinosaurs could make sails without opposable thumbs.  Even if they were to use animal hides instead of woven fabric, there would still be a fair amount of sewing involved to make and rig sails large enough to propel boats of the size required.

A friend of mine which go by TCOM is writing a dissertation on this very idea.. I believe he found evidence in the Dead sea scrolls which states that there were many genetic mutations performed by the Fallen Angels that are talked about in the Book of Enoch.. It is possible that around 3,000-4,000 years ago when Dinosaurs were roaming the Earth that some may have actually been transformed into roaming Godless beings devouring man, and were the ones that possibly build the pyramids.. If you think about the weight of each stone it makes no sense that man at the time using a pulley system could have performed this in such preciseness. I believe some smaller species of Dinosaurs such as Felociraptors could have been genetically mutated or simply just had magic spell cast on them by the Fallen Angels which made them walk on Two legs, wear robes, and command the big dinosaurs which existed in Enochs time to build the pyramids, boats, and etc.. TCOM, and myself are going to the Great Pyramids, and inside the foot of the Spynx lies hidden knowledge unknown to man now.. A different alternative history which proves God created the Flat Earth 6,000-8,000 years ago.. The Sleeping Prophet Edgar Cayce spoke of these things during a reading, and it was recorded..
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 25, 2009, 12:53:31 PM
I think people are overlooking the significance of Trig's comment about marine fossils being found inland.

I was actually waiting for a flat earth rebuttal.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 25, 2009, 01:21:28 PM
Even if they were to use animal hides instead of woven fabric...

James thinks that they were quite adept at needlework.

A smaller claw would have been much more suitable for precision tasks like inscription, manipulation of cloth and fine materials and so on, and marks the transition from its role as a mechanism of hunting and combat to its role as an additional dexterous digit.

Deinonychus evolved an iconic five-inch claw... this would have served a purpose in hunting and combat, though it would later have been useful in the performance of complex motor skills such as puncturing fabrics, making written inscriptions and so on.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 25, 2009, 03:11:27 PM
There's always sails.

I would love to see a proposal as to how dinosaurs could make sails without opposable thumbs.  Even if they were to use animal hides instead of woven fabric, there would still be a fair amount of sewing involved to make and rig sails large enough to propel boats of the size required.

Are you equating opposable thumbs with sewing ability?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 25, 2009, 04:40:11 PM
Are you equating opposable thumbs with sewing ability?

Yes.  Among other things, such as thread making.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 25, 2009, 04:44:56 PM
The Bambiraptor is thought to have had opposable thumbs.  If one had them, others could have had them also.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 25, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
The Giraffe is thought to have had a long neck.  If one had them, others could have had them also.

???
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 06:07:19 PM
The Bambiraptor is thought to have had opposable thumbs.  If one had them, others could have had them also.
Thats like saying that because we have opposable thumbs that whales should have them.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 25, 2009, 06:28:55 PM
I disagree.  Whales have no thumbs.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 25, 2009, 07:06:53 PM
The Bambiraptor is thought to have had opposable thumbs.  If one had them, others could have had them also.

Bambiraptor wasn't around until well after Pangea broke up.  You need to find a dinosaur with an opposable thumb more than 150 million years old.

I disagree.  Whales have no thumbs.

Well, they do.  Sorta.
Quote from: http://www.whalesongs.org/cetacean/sperm_whales/sperm_internal.html
Flippers of the sperm whale are oval in shape with a rounded tip and may
reach a maximum length of 6 feet (1.8 m.) and a width of 3 feet (91 cm.)

The number of finger bones, or phalanges, in the whale's "hand" has
increased over evolutionary time as front limbs became transformed
into more efficient flippers.
(http://www.whalesongs.org/cetacean/sperm_whales/sperm_finger.gif)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 25, 2009, 07:23:08 PM
Well okay, if you want to call those thumbs, go right ahead.  You can go on one of those whale tourist boats and say, "Look at that whale's thumbs!"   :)

And we're discussing the static continent model, so I'll save your other statement for another day.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 07:54:52 PM
Can you point to a preponderance of evidence for multiple species of dinosaurs with opposable thumbs. Also, anyone ever find a trash pile associated with any dinos?  Structured societies leave quite a bit of trash behind usually.  Even ants and bees do.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 25, 2009, 08:59:32 PM
Well okay, if you want to call those thumbs, go right ahead.  You can go on one of those whale tourist boats and say, "Look at that whale's thumbs!"   :)

That's why I said "sorta".  Many mammals with flippers usually have some variation of 5 fingers (or 4 fingers + thumb).  They've just taken a different evolutionary path is all.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 25, 2009, 09:18:05 PM
Yes, I know.  I didn't introduce whale thumbs into the equation after all.  You should explain all this to your cohorts.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 11:39:51 PM
Yes, I know.  I didn't introduce whale thumbs into the equation after all.  You should explain all this to your cohorts.
Maybe not, but did you really have that much of a hard time understanding my analogy?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 26, 2009, 05:00:10 AM
As we have shown, EQ is a lousy measure of intelligence. Yet comparisons based around EQ are somehow not baseless, even though we know nothing about the actual makeup of dinosaur brains (which could put the EQ in a different light)... hmmmm...

I can't understand if you're arguing for or against EQ data. You want to say its lousy and then you want to say its not baseless. Best of both worlds?

I can't help you anymore on this issue. Even using EQ comparisons (which you seem to want to...) they do not suggest that a dinosaur would have the intelligence to built an armada given that their nearest living relative the birds are not capable of such a feat. (Nests are not boats)


I don't think EQ is a useful basis for comparison, as I have said several times. You're the one who wants to use it, but not use other baseless forms of speculation.


I have apologised for the incident where I was wrong. Furthermore, I never said you misquoted me.

Orly?

... in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces...

(you are aware that I and everyone else can go back and reread posts?)

Time to drop the victim act Wilmore. It's tiresome.


Actually Crustinator, I'm not even sure that you can read posts first time round, never mind re-read them. I mean, seriously, I made the distinction clear in my last post:


Furthermore, I never said you misquoted me. I said you misrepresented my position by taking my quotes out of context.


And here's the quote you're trying to use against me:


... in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces...


Nowhere do I say you have misquoted me. You are aware there is a massive disntinction between misquoting someone, and quoting them out of context, right? One is misrepresentation through selective quotation, the other is claiming someone has said something they have not. So to reiterate, I never said you misquoted me.


How have I misrepresented my sources? I quoted the source almost verbatim!

What you originally said was:

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm

Quote
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.

Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task.

This was misrepresenting your source by suggesting "this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task". Incorrect. What the source was stressing was the lack of an extended trial and error period.

You then wanted your incorrect conclusion to mean that scientists thought crows were better at tool making than apes. Again incorrect.

I corrected you on this matter the first time you posted it. Go back and reread.


I don't need to re-read it. Scientists considered this a first-time event. In other words, apes had never been seen to do this. Therefore, it was more impressive than anything apes had yet done. You can keep dodging by suggesting that I have somehow misrepresented a source that I quoted verbatim, but the fact is that those scientists regarded this as a first for any animal.



Once again, the potential for boat construction has been demonstrated.

Once again. No it hasn't. A wire bending crow does not a dinosaur armada make.


For someone so against redundancy, you sure do repeat yourself a lot. You could really spice up this whole debate by actually presenting an argument every now and again, instead of flat denials.


I am in no way "insist[ing] that there are no other theories".

Your posts indicate otherwise. In the future I suggest you reword your posts a little like this:

"Dinosaur boats and continental drift are the only thing that can account for the fossil record"

or

"The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration or tectonic plate movement"


Look, if you can't read, it's not my problem. I don't think continental drift can account for the fossil record. That doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of continental drift theory. Your 'rewordings' would indicate that I thought CD was a valid theory, which I do not. However, I'm "suppressing" that theory or denying its existence. I'm just disagreeing.


to support your claim, you need to provide evidence which shows that such conditions existed in the cretaceous period more than at other times in history.

I think you need to learn more about the Cretaceous period before you start thumping the desk. The high amount of volcanic activity at this time is a fact understood by most 9 year olds. As is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event).


Let's have a read:


Quote
Scientists theorize that the K?T extinctions were caused by one or more catastrophic events, such as massive asteroid impacts (like the Chicxulub impact), or increased volcanic activity.


First of all, the 'impact event' theory is by far and away the most popular. Secondly, the volcanic activity which some postulate was partially (and I stress, partially) responsible for dinosaur extinction took place in a very specific region. Thirdly, the extinction event took place at the very end of the cretaceous period. The period we're discussing is the early cretaceous.


So basically, that link in no way supports your claims.


Indicating your opinion, but in no way proving it. You may as well say "it's wrong" and then claimed to have proven that it is wrong by claiming as much.

There's nothing to prove and my opinion isn't the issue here. James has presented no evidence, just (wonderful) speculation. This fact remains regardless of the observer.


The distribution of the fossil record is evidence. It just happens to be evidence you are unable to contradict.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 26, 2009, 07:37:14 AM
I don't think EQ is a useful basis for comparison, as I have said several times. You're the one who wants to use it, but not use other baseless forms of speculation.

I'm happy for you. Perhaps you'll stop insisting that crows using twigs has any relevence to anything? *hopeful eyes*

Oh and I fixed your quote above, since this would more accurately represent my view. (Strange how you're not getting it. Oh well.)

Nowhere do I say you have misquoted me. You are aware there is a massive disntinction between misquoting someone, and quoting them out of context, right? One is misrepresentation through selective quotation, the other is claiming someone has said something they have not. So to reiterate, I never said you misquoted me.

The more you baww about being mistreated, the more I smile.

I don't need to re-read it. Scientists considered this a first-time event. In other words, apes had never been seen to do this. Therefore, it was more impressive than anything apes had yet done.

Says who?

For someone so against redundancy, you sure do repeat yourself a lot.

You're a special student.

You could really spice up this whole debate by actually presenting an argument every now and again, instead of flat denials.

Reread my posts.

I don't think continental drift can account for the fossil record. That doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of continental drift theory. Your 'rewordings' would indicate that I thought CD was a valid theory, which I do not. However, I'm "suppressing" that theory or denying its existence. I'm just disagreeing.

I'm not sure what side you're taking here. Either you claim that an armada of dinosaurs is the only explanation for the fossil evidence In which case you're suppressing evidence. Or you don't. In which case you recognise the plausibility of continental drift. Pick a case. Stick with it.

The period we're discussing is the early cretaceous.

Orly? Since when?! Please don't strain your back when you move those goalposts.

So basically, that link in no way supports your claims.

*sigh* yes it does. Cretaceous period = huge amount of volcanic activity + asteroid strike = large amounts of silicates in atmosphere = rapidity of petrification.

I understand now that this is hard for you to understand. I am well prepared to repeat these facts more slowly if it helps.

The distribution of the fossil record is evidence. It just happens to be evidence you are unable to contradict.

Fossil evidence is evidence of fossils.

James has the dinosaurs evolving sewing claws. There's nothing in the fossils to indicate this is the case. I love reading James' romantic tales, and I think they would make a fantastic novel, but they should not be taken literally.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 26, 2009, 10:51:10 AM
Going back to Trig's argument, the presence of marine fossils in inland areas proves that some areas which are now land were once sea. Therefore, the argument that the land and sea were always in their current configuration has been shown to be baloney. Therefore there is no need for the dinosaurs to have developed sea travel to explain the fossil record. Can Wilmore and Crusty please now stop going all Levee with their rebuttals to each other as it's all now irrelevant?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Globularist on November 26, 2009, 12:58:23 PM
I read someone imply that it would be more rational to conclude that there were no sea-faring dinosaur civilizations, but rather that the flat earth just has plate tectonics.

Well, look at what this forum is about. It's dedicated to the idea that the Earth is flat. I am willing to bet you could probably find way more people open minded to the idea of dinosaur civilizations (the "Dinotopia theory"?) than people who will consider the possibility that the Earth could be flat.

I mean, with smart dinosaurs, we're just talking evolution. That's way more easy to accept than the idea that the planet is a flat disc, with an ice wall, and the universe as we know it is one big lie, despite all the evidence out there.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 26, 2009, 02:00:03 PM
I don't think EQ is a useful basis for comparison, as I have said several times. You're the one who wants to use it, but not use other baseless forms of speculation.

I'm happy for you. Perhaps you'll stop insisting that crows using twigs has any relevence to anything? *hopeful eyes*

Oh and I fixed your quote above, since this would more accurately represent my view. (Strange how you're not getting it. Oh well.)


What do crows using tools have to do with EQ? ???


Also, EQ is a useless form of speculation.


Nowhere do I say you have misquoted me. You are aware there is a massive disntinction between misquoting someone, and quoting them out of context, right? One is misrepresentation through selective quotation, the other is claiming someone has said something they have not. So to reiterate, I never said you misquoted me.

The more you baww about being mistreated, the more I smile.


I'm not bawwing. You just keep misrepresenting me. Like you just did. I'm glad you're not denying it anymore.


I don't need to re-read it. Scientists considered this a first-time event. In other words, apes had never been seen to do this. Therefore, it was more impressive than anything apes had yet done.

Says who?


I don't know, the Guiness book of records? Mankind in general? First-time events are usually considered pretty impressive. If I designed a cylinder tomorrow and proclaimed 'Lo, I have here designed this weel for the transportation of bodies and substances', I'm not sure it would attract much attention.


For someone so against redundancy, you sure do repeat yourself a lot.

You're a special student.


Nice to see you're making your usual contributive comments.


You could really spice up this whole debate by actually presenting an argument every now and again, instead of flat denials.

Reread my posts.


One flat denial is enough. I'm not going to go back and read the rest of them.


I don't think continental drift can account for the fossil record. That doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of continental drift theory. Your 'rewordings' would indicate that I thought CD was a valid theory, which I do not. However, I'm "suppressing" that theory or denying its existence. I'm just disagreeing.

I'm not sure what side you're taking here. Either you claim that an armada of dinosaurs is the only explanation for the fossil evidence In which case you're suppressing evidence. Or you don't. In which case you recognise the plausibility of continental drift. Pick a case. Stick with it.


I don't claim it's the only explanation. I claim it's the only valid explanation. I am in no way suppressing evidence. You are using some profundly retarded interpretation of that word. Disagreeing with a theory is not the same as suppressing it.


The period we're discussing is the early cretaceous.

Orly? Since when?! Please don't strain your back when you move those goalposts.


That was when deinonychus existed. We've been talking about deinonychus all along; no goal posts have moved.


So basically, that link in no way supports your claims.

*sigh* yes it does. Cretaceous period = huge amount of volcanic activity + asteroid strike = large amounts of silicates in atmosphere = rapidity of petrification.

I understand now that this is hard for you to understand. I am well prepared to repeat these facts more slowly if it helps.


The Cretaceous period did not have huge amounts of volcanic activity. One area, in modern India, had huge amounts of volcanic activity. The asteroid struck nowhere near this place. A simple way to prove or disprove your claim would be to show that we have more petrified wood from this period than from other periods, but you have yet to show this. Conclusion: no support for your claims.


Of course, even if you could prove this, it still wouldn't apply to the early cretaceous.


The distribution of the fossil record is evidence. It just happens to be evidence you are unable to contradict.

Fossil evidence is evidence of fossils.


Fossil distribution is evidence of where dinosaurs lived and died. Said distribution supports our theory. Seeing as you aren't raising any meaningful points, I'm just going to assume you can't.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 26, 2009, 03:08:38 PM
Can you guys please stop this arguing? The static continent model has just been disproved and you didn't notice. Your argument has become irrelevant.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 26, 2009, 03:30:47 PM
What do crows using tools have to do with EQ? ???

It wasn't that long ago. Let me help you.

Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows...

Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.

EQ was also part of James' original argument that you inherited without understanding.

Any 'educated guess' we might make based on brain size falls squarely in favour of the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, because the EQ of the average Deinonychus comes out at roughly 5.8, far, far higher than any living non-human animal today. The ratios for its smaller descendants, Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, are probably even better.

James had of course misunderstood how EQ works by comparing the EQ of dinosaurs to other animals, so he abandoned the EQ "evidence".

However, the shear desperation to somehow prove you're right despite all evidence to the contrary lingers like a bad smell.


I'm not bawwing. You just keep misrepresenting me.

No I didn't. You even apologised for claiming I did when I didn't. ::)

If there's anywhere else you think you've been misrepresented I beg you to create a new thread in "Suggestions and Concerns". Of course such claims will be entirely unfounded but at least it will stop you derailing this thread.

I don't know, the Guiness book of records? Mankind in general? First-time events are usually considered pretty impressive.

So no one said "it was more impressive than anything apes had yet done.".

Misrepresenting sources again Wimore? Whenever will you learn?

Nice to see you're making your usual contributive comments.

This whole post is geared towards your education. Please show some respect and try to learn something.

One flat denial is enough. I'm not going to go back and read the rest of them.

*sigh* You've been linked to enough stuff.

You claimed that you'd shown evidence for dinosaurs building boats. After much squealing you revealed that your evidence was "fossil evidence" and some Hunter S. Thompson-esque posts from James.

I've linked various articles showing how intelligence can be measured, how bonobos have built quite complex tools and how petrified wood is made.

If you're telling me you can't be bothered to read the stuff then I'm happy for you.

Disagreeing with a theory is not the same as suppressing it.

Then you can remove the words "only" from each of these posts then.

dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record

The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.

Since that was when

...?

The Cretaceous period did not have huge amounts of volcanic activity.

*sigh* Please stop failing so hard.

Quote from: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/mesozoic/Cretaceous.html
At the end of the Cretaceous, there were severe climate changes, lowered sea levels, and high volcanic activity .

Quote from: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GC000867.shtml
Massive Early Cretaceous volcanic activity in the Nauru Basin related to emplacement of the Ontong Java Plateau

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
After the end of the Berriasian, however, temperatures increased again, and these conditions were almost constant until the end of the period.[8] This trend was due to intense volcanic activity which produced large quantities of carbon dioxide.

etc etc.

One area, in modern India, had huge amounts of volcanic activity. The asteroid struck nowhere near this place.

The asteroid strike was a global catastrophe. Please for the love of the baby Jesus learn some history.

A simple way to prove or disprove your claim would be to show that we have more petrified wood from this period than from other periods, but you have yet to show this.

I've already done this. Petrified wood comes largely from periods in time when there was large amounts of volcanic activity. I even drew it out simple for you to understand. You were given articles to read. Stop pretending you haven't been shown it.

Of course, even if you could prove this, it still wouldn't apply to the early cretaceous.

It probably would. But I don't think we were specifying early Cretaceous.

Anyway. here's some petrified wood from the early Cretaceous period.

http://www.safossils.com/petrifiedwoodfossils.html

Still no boats. :'(

Fossil distribution is evidence of where dinosaurs lived and died. Said distribution supports our theory.

No it doesn't. You theory is that dinosaurs built boats, sailed them across open seas with livestock (crocodiles) and took plants with them to colonise new worlds. Oh and they also shaved for some unknown reason.

This theory needs a whole lot more than just the fossilised bones.

Ie Irrelevant/unfounded/absurd conclusion.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: suzerain on November 26, 2009, 03:40:33 PM
some Hunter S. Thompson-esque posts from James

Must you sully the name of the father of gonzo journalism in such a fashion?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 27, 2009, 02:05:38 AM
What do crows using tools have to do with EQ? ???

It wasn't that long ago. Let me help you.

Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows...

Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.


What? Honestly Crustinator, your use of labguage is baffling. Would recognising EQ comparisons make it correct? I'm pretty sure you'd disagree with that too, so what exactly are you trying to say?


I'm not bawwing. You just keep misrepresenting me.

No I didn't. You even apologised for claiming I did when I didn't. ::)


You were bawwing about how I said you misquoted me just a couple of posts ago. Of course, I never claimed you misquoted me, as I have shown. Thus, you misrepresented my position. Again.


If there's anywhere else you think you've been misrepresented I beg you to create a new thread in "Suggestions and Concerns". Of course such claims will be entirely unfounded but at least it will stop you derailing this thread.


I've warned you about memberating before, so please stop. Poor debating tactics are not against the rules, and thus not an issue for S&C. This board is called 'Flat Earth Debate', and thus debating tactics such as the misrepresentation of another persons argument are entirely relevant.


I don't know, the Guiness book of records? Mankind in general? First-time events are usually considered pretty impressive.

So no one said "it was more impressive than anything apes had yet done.".

Misrepresenting sources again Wimore? Whenever will you learn?


I never claimed anyone said exactly that. However, to draw any other conclusion from the article would be ludicrous.


One flat denial is enough. I'm not going to go back and read the rest of them.

*sigh* You've been linked to enough stuff.

You claimed that you'd shown evidence for dinosaurs building boats. After much squealing you revealed that your evidence was "fossil evidence" and some Hunter S. Thompson-esque posts from James.

I've linked various articles showing how intelligence can be measured, how bonobos have built quite complex tools and how petrified wood is made.

If you're telling me you can't be bothered to read the stuff then I'm happy for you.


Sorry, but nothing you've provided is relevant. For example, you've shown how petrified wood is made, and then claimed this was more likely to happen in the early cretaceous period than at any other time. To back this up, you provided sources referring to the triassic period. Not very convincing.


Disagreeing with a theory is not the same as suppressing it.

Then you can remove the words "only" from each of these posts then.

dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record

The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.


All of the above quotes represent my opinion. None of them deny the existence of CD theory. The key word there is 'can': I do not believe other theories can explain the fossil record. Of course they try to, but in my opinion, they do not succeed. This is not "suppression", it's disagreement.


Since that was when

...?


My internet packed up on me last night; see the edit. Basically, Deinonychus lived in the early cretaceous.



The Cretaceous period did not have huge amounts of volcanic activity.

*sigh* Please stop failing so hard.

Quote from: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/mesozoic/Cretaceous.html
At the end of the Cretaceous, there were severe climate changes, lowered sea levels, and high volcanic activity .

Quote from: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GC000867.shtml
Massive Early Cretaceous volcanic activity in the Nauru Basin related to emplacement of the Ontong Java Plateau

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
After the end of the Berriasian, however, temperatures increased again, and these conditions were almost constant until the end of the period.[8] This trend was due to intense volcanic activity which produced large quantities of carbon dioxide.

etc etc.


Source 1 is so childish as to be laughable. Maybe this is the kind of site you frequent regularly, but it doesn't cut the mustard. Source 2 refers to a specific geographic location. Again. The third source refers to the Berriasian period, which occured some 15 million years before Deinoychus existed. So basically, all these sources are irrelevant.



One area, in modern India, had huge amounts of volcanic activity. The asteroid struck nowhere near this place.

The asteroid strike was a global catastrophe. Please for the love of the baby Jesus learn some history.


If the volcanic activity was geographically specific, then the asteroid would not have thrown volcanic dust into the atmosphere unless it struck such a region. This is not difficult to grasp.



I've already done this. Petrified wood comes largely from periods in time when there was large amounts of volcanic activity. I even drew it out simple for you to understand. You were given articles to read. Stop pretending you haven't been shown it.


Nothing you've shown refers to the period in question! All of your sources are out by tens (sometimes hundreds!) of millions of years! They are completely irrelevant! You have shown nothing, repeat nothing, to support your claims.



Of course, even if you could prove this, it still wouldn't apply to the early cretaceous.

It probably would. But I don't think we were specifying early Cretaceous.

Anyway. here's some petrified wood from the early Cretaceous period.

http://www.safossils.com/petrifiedwoodfossils.html

Still no boats. :'(


One example != proof of great conditions.



Fossil distribution is evidence of where dinosaurs lived and died. Said distribution supports our theory.

No it doesn't. You theory is that dinosaurs built boats, sailed them across open seas with livestock (crocodiles) and took plants with them to colonise new worlds. Oh and they also shaved for some unknown reason.

This theory needs a whole lot more than just the fossilised bones.

Ie Irrelevant/unfounded/absurd conclusion.


They could not have developed the way they did without the kind of geographic separation seen in our theory..
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 27, 2009, 04:41:10 AM
tl:dr
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: SupahLovah on November 27, 2009, 07:14:46 AM
blah blah garbage in the forums.

I think that the dinosaurs not only made boats, but made blimps, too! They filled them with dino farts and flew around the flat disc world!
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 27, 2009, 07:56:48 AM
Can you guys please stop this arguing? The static continent model has just been disproved and you didn't notice. Your argument has become irrelevant.

I'm guessing that's going to be a no.  It's easier to nitpick points than to realize that there is no point in arguing, though I'm sure Willie will come up with some dino farming/mining to explain the point made.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Crustinator on November 27, 2009, 08:09:53 AM
What? Honestly Crustinator, your use of labguage is baffling. Would recognising EQ comparisons make it correct? I'm pretty sure you'd disagree with that too, so what exactly are you trying to say?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some time earlier:

Even using EQ comparisons (which you seem to want to...) they do not suggest that a dinosaur would have the intelligence to built an armada given that their nearest living relative the birds are not capable of such a feat. (Nests are not boats)

You were bawwing about how I said you misquoted me just a couple of posts ago. Of course, I never claimed you misquoted me, as I have shown. Thus, you misrepresented my position. Again.

Another pity party invite? Take this pathetic fail somewhere else please.

I've warned you about memberating before, so please stop. Poor debating tactics are not against the rules, and thus not an issue for S&C. This board is called 'Flat Earth Debate', and thus debating tactics such as the misrepresentation of another persons argument are entirely relevant.

And I'm not interested in answering your bleating about being misrepresented when it's not the case. It's off topic. Create another thread for it.

I never claimed anyone said exactly that. However, to draw any other conclusion from the article would be ludicrous.

It would be wouldn't it? That's why I was so surprised to see you reach this conclusion:

Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.
No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.

Are you now acknowledging that this is not the case? Or do you want to continue insisting I'm quoting you out of context? Either is fine by me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm

Quote
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.

Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task. Clearly that is more impressive than making general tools for general tasks, which is why the study was considered so impressive.

Stop crowbarring your own opinion into the mouths of other people.

Sorry, but nothing you've provided is relevant. For example, you've shown how petrified wood is made, and then claimed this was more likely to happen in the early cretaceous period than at any other time. To back this up, you provided sources referring to the triassic period. Not very convincing.

Yes you bawwwed so I gave you some more links to the cretaceous because apparently that was the period under scrutiny. And then you bawwed some more because you suddenly wanted references to early cretaceous. So I gave you them. And yet still you baww.


All of the above quotes represent my opinion. None of them deny the existence of CD theory. The key word there is 'can': I do not believe other theories can explain the fossil record. Of course they try to, but in my opinion, they do not succeed. This is not "suppression", it's disagreement.

No it's denial. Let me apply the same blundering logic:

"UFOs are the only thing that can account for crop circles."

"The evidence presented by www.answerbag.com shows that the increase in homosexuality in the USA can only be explained by the rise in consumption of mountain dew."

It doesn't work. You're not convincing me or anyone that reads this. Saying one thing and then back-pedalling and trying to pretend it says something else is pathetic.

My internet packed up on me last night; see the edit. Basically, Deinonychus lived in the early cretaceous.

I see. As did much of the petrified wood we find. Yet no boats. :'(


Source 1 is so childish as to be laughable. Maybe this is the kind of site you frequent regularly, but it doesn't cut the mustard.

Because something explains something simply it is to be struck out? I see we're heading towards "blanket denial" again.

Source 2 refers to a specific geographic location.

Volcanic debris spreads world wide. Learn volcanos.

The third source refers to the Berriasian period, which occured some 15 million years before Deinoychus existed.

Too pre-cretaceous for you was it? Watch you don't put your back out again with those goal posts. I see you've been moving them a lot lately.

And I gave you three sources. Trying to boot the other one without a reason? LOL

Here have some more:

Quote from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437800147.html
Cretaceous was a time of elevated global temperatures and there were essentially no polar or high-altitude glaciers . This contributed to elevated sea levels as did the vast development of volcanic activity along Earth's mid-ocean ridges . Such volcanic activity and accompanying swelling of these undersea ridges displaced a considerable volume of seawater (strongly exacerbating sea-level rise).

Quote from: http://www.efficientenergysaving.co.uk/uppercretaceousperiod.html
The high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were due to volcanic activity and the break up of the huge Pangean land mass into different continents during the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous Period. New oceans were being created and all these oceans had volcanically active ocean ridges.

Evidence of this massive volcanic activity can be seen in the oceans of our world today.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UaD1WeZcDrwC&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=volcanic+activity+during+the+cretaceous&source=bl&ots=6nxYkQXLUx&sig=YlHGfP40FKYAVImX7gcnpnKbTEM&hl=en&ei=UfYPS6H-J8a14Qa6j9iNBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwADgK

etc etc etc. yawn.


If the volcanic activity was geographically specific, then the asteroid would not have thrown volcanic dust into the atmosphere unless it struck such a region. This is not difficult to grasp.

Does not compute.

Nothing you've shown refers to the period in question! All of your sources are out by tens (sometimes hundreds!) of millions of years! They are completely irrelevant! You have shown nothing, repeat nothing, to support your claims.

And off we go again with blanket denial. How dull.

You wanted evidence of petrified wood. I gave it to you.

You wanted evidence of Cretaceous petrified wood I gave it to you.

You wanted evidence of early Cretaceous period petrified wood I gave it to you.

One example != proof of great conditions.

*sigh* Don't put your back out as you jack up that burden of proof.

There are many, many more examples.

Here's another: http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/SOAngiosperms.htm
And another: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kwanten/evolution2.htm

(Protip: Everything we know about plants during the Cretaceous period comes from the fact that they were petrified)

They could not have developed the way they did without the kind of geographic separation seen in our theory..

Yes they could. Continental Drift. You recognise that dinotopia is not the only possible explanation, remember.

We've been round and around so many times I'm getting dizzy.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 27, 2009, 10:11:47 AM
Both you and Wilmore are only reading each others posts, Crusty. I suggest you look at some of the others in this thread.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on November 28, 2009, 05:44:56 AM
What? Honestly Crustinator, your use of labguage is baffling. Would recognising EQ comparisons make it correct? I'm pretty sure you'd disagree with that too, so what exactly are you trying to say?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some time earlier:

Even using EQ comparisons (which you seem to want to...) they do not suggest that a dinosaur would have the intelligence to built an armada given that their nearest living relative the birds are not capable of such a feat. (Nests are not boats)


But I don't care about EQ, as I've said, over and over. You're not making any sense, just one unrelated point after another.


You were bawwing about how I said you misquoted me just a couple of posts ago. Of course, I never claimed you misquoted me, as I have shown. Thus, you misrepresented my position. Again.

Another pity party invite? Take this pathetic fail somewhere else please.

I've warned you about memberating before, so please stop. Poor debating tactics are not against the rules, and thus not an issue for S&C. This board is called 'Flat Earth Debate', and thus debating tactics such as the misrepresentation of another persons argument are entirely relevant.

And I'm not interested in answering your bleating about being misrepresented when it's not the case. It's off topic. Create another thread for it.


How can your posts in this topic be off-topic? Anyway, this is the third time I've had to call you on memberating in this thread, so I'm not going to issue another warning, but a suspension. I've warned you about this in other threads as well, so whilst I've tried to be lenient in order to avoid any more of your 'he banned me because I won the argument' accusations, at this point you're really not leaving me any choice. See you in a bit.


I never claimed anyone said exactly that. However, to draw any other conclusion from the article would be ludicrous.

It would be wouldn't it? That's why I was so surprised to see you reach this conclusion:

Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.
That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.
No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.

Are you now acknowledging that this is not the case? Or do you want to continue insisting I'm quoting you out of context? Either is fine by me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm

Quote
This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.

Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task. Clearly that is more impressive than making general tools for general tasks, which is why the study was considered so impressive.

Stop crowbarring your own opinion into the mouths of other people.


I never claimed that they "said" it was more impressive (you attributed this to me). I simply claim they agree, which is obvious from the content of the articles. None of these quotes show me claiming that these scientists 'say' it's more impressive, and in fact at all times I make that distinction very clear.


Sorry, but nothing you've provided is relevant. For example, you've shown how petrified wood is made, and then claimed this was more likely to happen in the early cretaceous period than at any other time. To back this up, you provided sources referring to the triassic period. Not very convincing.

Yes you bawwwed so I gave you some more links to the cretaceous because apparently that was the period under scrutiny. And then you bawwed some more because you suddenly wanted references to early cretaceous. So I gave you them. And yet still you baww.


I didn't "suddenly" want anything. I hate to break it to you, but we were always talking about Deinonychus, and it always existed in the early cretaceous. The fact that you haven't read up on our theory properly is not my fault.



All of the above quotes represent my opinion. None of them deny the existence of CD theory. The key word there is 'can': I do not believe other theories can explain the fossil record. Of course they try to, but in my opinion, they do not succeed. This is not "suppression", it's disagreement.

No it's denial. Let me apply the same blundering logic:

"UFOs are the only thing that can account for crop circles."

"The evidence presented by www.answerbag.com shows that the increase in homosexuality in the USA can only be explained by the rise in consumption of mountain dew."

It doesn't work. You're not convincing me or anyone that reads this. Saying one thing and then back-pedalling and trying to pretend it says something else is pathetic.


My inability to convince you is not equal to "suppression".



My internet packed up on me last night; see the edit. Basically, Deinonychus lived in the early cretaceous.

I see. As did much of the petrified wood we find. Yet no boats. :'(


Yet still no evidence. That's all I'm asking for: evidence that backs up your claims.


Source 1 is so childish as to be laughable. Maybe this is the kind of site you frequent regularly, but it doesn't cut the mustard.

Because something explains something simply it is to be struck out? I see we're heading towards "blanket denial" again.


It's a totally babyish source without any scientific value. It has cute drawings of dinosaurs and uses childish language. It's aimed at children, and as far as I can see just makes lots of claims without backing them up.



Source 2 refers to a specific geographic location.

Volcanic debris spreads world wide. Learn volcanos.


We have volcanoes now. According to you, the debris would spread world wide. So we should have good conditions for petrified wood now, right? Or maybe you're just trying to get a square peg to go into a round hole.



The third source refers to the Berriasian period, which occured some 15 million years before Deinoychus existed.

Too pre-cretaceous for you was it? Watch you don't put your back out again with those goal posts. I see you've been moving them a lot lately.


Sorry, but Deinoychus never existed in the Berriasian period. This is just a simple fact; Ihaven't been moving any goal posts. We've always been talking about Deinoychus, so why you keep bringing up evidence that's totally unrelated to the period in which Deinoychus lived is beyond me.


And I gave you three sources. Trying to boot the other one without a reason? LOL


I just went through them one by one. What are you talking about?


Here have some more:

Quote from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437800147.html
Cretaceous was a time of elevated global temperatures and there were essentially no polar or high-altitude glaciers . This contributed to elevated sea levels as did the vast development of volcanic activity along Earth's mid-ocean ridges . Such volcanic activity and accompanying swelling of these undersea ridges displaced a considerable volume of seawater (strongly exacerbating sea-level rise).

Quote from: http://www.efficientenergysaving.co.uk/uppercretaceousperiod.html
The high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were due to volcanic activity and the break up of the huge Pangean land mass into different continents during the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous Period. New oceans were being created and all these oceans had volcanically active ocean ridges.

Evidence of this massive volcanic activity can be seen in the oceans of our world today.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UaD1WeZcDrwC&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=volcanic+activity+during+the+cretaceous&source=bl&ots=6nxYkQXLUx&sig=YlHGfP40FKYAVImX7gcnpnKbTEM&hl=en&ei=UfYPS6H-J8a14Qa6j9iNBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwADgK

etc etc etc. yawn.


Closer examination of all these sources would reveal to you that none of them relate to the time Deinoychus existed. Thus, none of them support your claim that conditions were especially suited to the petrification of wood when Deinoychus was building boats.


Nothing you've shown refers to the period in question! All of your sources are out by tens (sometimes hundreds!) of millions of years! They are completely irrelevant! You have shown nothing, repeat nothing, to support your claims.

And off we go again with blanket denial. How dull.

You wanted evidence of petrified wood. I gave it to you.

You wanted evidence of Cretaceous petrified wood I gave it to you.

You wanted evidence of early Cretaceous period petrified wood I gave it to you.

One example != proof of great conditions.

*sigh* Don't put your back out as you jack up that burden of proof.

There are many, many more examples.

Here's another: http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/SOAngiosperms.htm
And another: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kwanten/evolution2.htm

(Protip: Everything we know about plants during the Cretaceous period comes from the fact that they were petrified)


None of your examples are relevant. It's not my fault that you can't be bothered to read about our theory. I shouldn't have to hold your hand and point out that you've been providing evidence which simply doesn't apply to the period in question. The cretaceous period is a massive period. It should be obvious that when talking about a particular species, you need to find evidence relating to when that species existed.



They could not have developed the way they did without the kind of geographic separation seen in our theory..

Yes they could. Continental Drift. You recognise that dinotopia is not the only possible explanation, remember.

We've been round and around so many times I'm getting dizzy.


CD has gaps and flaws, and the evolutionary pattern of dinosaurs outlined in the fossil record reveals this.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Eddy Baby on November 28, 2009, 09:24:57 AM
Both you and Wilmore are only reading each others posts, Crusty. I suggest you look at some of the others in this thread.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 28, 2009, 11:14:16 AM
CD has gaps and flaws, and the evolutionary pattern of dinosaurs outlined in the fossil record reveals this.

Interesting.  I would think that the fossil record, when studied along side the geological record, would lend far more support to CD than to the notion that dinosaurs could build ocean going vessels.  Focusing on just the fossil record seems a bit myopic to me.  You really do need to look at the bigger picture and consider all of the evidence, not just the evidence that suits your theory.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: James on November 28, 2009, 06:27:16 PM
Additionally nothing has been proven which supports how these dinosaurs could have taken water and food stores for a several month long journey on the open ocean to support themselves, their "livestock" and their plant life.

Dear me, someone has failed to survey the relevant literature in a rather serious way. Here is an assessment of maritime food sources, ration transportation, etc., for our most studied test case, the late Cretacious North American/Asian dromaeosaur migrant:

Dogplatter, just out of curiosity, how big and sophisticated of boat are you suggesting would be required to carry several Deinonychus, plus their livestock, plus supplies?  I'm guessing that a simple raft wouldn't quite be sufficient, especially if they were to run into rough weather.

We can reasonably assume that an adult Deinonychus would require approximately the same capacity as an adult human based on the weight comparison I've cited (the largest Deinonychus specimens would have weighed around 73kg).

The Mayflower, a human ship known to have made intercontinental voyages and built of wood, is estimated to have been just over 25 metres long, and had a cargo tonnage of 180 and a crew of around 25.

Now, let us assume Saurolophus as a test case for transportation (Deinonychus would likely have had other prey/farm animals as well, but Saurolophus would have been one of the largest), and we also assume that the transported Saurolophus would have been juveniles. A yearling might have weighed somewhere close to a ton (a fully grown bull weighs 1.9).

We've established that adult Deinonychus weighed at most 73kg.

There are 907 Kg in a short ton.

so, a livestock craft of this size could have carried the WEIGHT of around 180 juvenile Saurolophus (with a crew of 25 Deinonychus). However, each adult would have been 9.8 metres long, so nowhere near 180 individuals could fit on. If we consider that a yearling might have been half that length, (say 5M) and that the Mayflower was around 7.6 metres wide, the livestock could be "stacked" width-ways with bills and tails facing starboard and port. With each Saurolophus given 2 metres of the ship's length to accomodate their body width, 11 or 12 animals could be kept on a boat the size of the Mayflower, assuming a deck system existed for the crew to be accomodated. If we don't want to concede that the boat might have had a deck (which I am fine with doing, by the way), then removing 3 animals from that number would allow room for a crew on a single-deck raft. So, to summarise, a Mayflower-sized boat could carry between 9-12 Saurolophus.

A boat the size of the Mayflower [pictured below in a painting by William Halsall (1882)] could have held up to 12 young Saurolophus.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/MayflowerHarbor.jpg)

As for passenger crafts, with each Deinonychus at 73kg, and a ship of that size having a maximum capacity of 907kg * 180 (i.e., 163260kg), a ship without livestock could hypothetically carry the WEIGHT of 2000 Deinonychus - of course a ship 25m long would not fit that many individuals, especially if they had food and supplies with them. Thanks to the handy equivalence of human and Deinonychus weight, with adults of both species weighing almost exactly the same, we can get a much better real-world analysis based on the Mayflower itself. The Mayflower crossed the Atlantic with 102 Passengers and their supplies. However, the North Pacific is much less wide than the Atlantic, so far less supplies would be needed for the trip, which means that well over 100 Deinonychus could travel on a single passenger ship of that size.

A fleet of five of these ships, one for passengers, three for livestock and one for general supplies such as tools, clothing, etc., each with a crew of 25 would be more than enough to start a large, successful colony. I'm going for a conservative estimate of 100 passengers per passenger ship and 10 Saurolophus yearlings per livestock ship.

For crew, 25 * 5 = 125, plus 100 passengers = 225 able-bodied adult Deinonychus, 3 * 10 = 30 yearling Saurolophus, and 180 tonnes of additional supplies (salted meats for the journey, saurolophus feed, tools, clothes, etc) setting out on the voyage. That's far more resources than many of the first human Anglo-American colonies started with.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Plesiosaurus_3DB.jpg)
Above: Cretaceous oceans were filled with plesiosaurs, a possible source of food and materials for Deinonychus sailors

Though salted land-animal meat in a supply ship would probably be enough to sustain the crews and passengers of other ships, hunger on the journey would also have been potentially assuaged by fishing and "whaling". The oceans of the Cretaceous were teeming with sharks, rays, as well as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs. Some of the larger plesiosaurs would have been up to 20M in length, an incredible catch and having enough meat to sustain a large number of Deinonychus for weeks at sea. It is indicated by the Fossil record that Deinonychus would have known about the existence of plesiosaurs. Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Trinacromerum_BW.jpg)
Above: A specimen of Trinacromerum, a smaller plesiosaur, has been found in the inland United States, probably kept as a pet or traded for blubber.

I am greatly pleased that a body of zetetic scientists of healthy size has been so vociferously advocating the archaeological truth in this thread. I'm sorry I haven't contributed earlier, as I recognise that I am a prominent contributor to the ongoing debate drawn out by the stubborn globularist tectonicists, a number of my own proven theses having been advanced in the course of this contraversial battle between science and globularist fundamentalism.


I should clarify that the discussion regarding EQ ratings has been characterised by misunderstanding - broadly speaking, my overall argument in this regard is a species of proof by cases. If I recall correctly, it ran somewhat along the following lines:

|If the EQ system is a reliable means for assessing the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, it is likely that dromaeosaurs were very intelligent
|If the EQ system is a flawed means for assessing the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, it is likely that dromaeosaurs were very intelligent (by virtue of the other evidence I provided)
_____
|Therefore, it is likely that dromaeosaurs were very intelligent.


If there are any other burning issues, posters of any geomorphic conviction may feel free to formulate them succintly and direct them straight to me, from now on I shall endeavour to keep an eye on any developments in this thread.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 29, 2009, 08:21:50 AM
So now they can build ocean going ships with sails and steering systems, places for food, livestock, cargo, livestock, food and water for the licestock and a crew to maintain it.  What happened to the raft we started with?

We've now added the ability to know how to design and fabricate sails, create a system to steer the craft, to be able to accurately calculate the size and quantity of ships needed to hold the cargo.  They also have figured out how to calculate rations, fabricate sterile water containers, salt meat for preservation and create tools to fish with on the open sea and then haul a 60 foot long catch on board.

We started at birds can make simple hook shaped tools, then added dinosaurs were likely smarter and arrived at the above story with zero corroborating evidence for any of these abilities.

You also forgot to address:
I was just reminded of one additional aspect that James' speculation overlooks: There are fossils of sea animals everywhere in the continents. James does not only have to explain why the land animals of the Cretaceous found their way to every continent, except maybe Antarctica, but also why there are countless fossils of marine life hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away from current seas. In my personal experience, there is a place at least 200 kilometers away from the sea where these fossils are so abundant that the local children collect them and sell them to the tourists. I have one of those in my very own living room.

So, what would be the explanation of this: the sea shells of the Cretaceous just got mad with so many dinosaurs invading the seas, that they decided to walk 200 kilometers into the Andes and more than 6000 feet uphill, to die in peace?

I'm sure we all look forward to the wonderous explanation in chapter 8 of Dino-sailors of the early Cretaceous.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: James on November 29, 2009, 10:32:22 AM
So now they can build ocean going ships with sails and steering systems, places for food, livestock, cargo, livestock, food and water for the licestock and a crew to maintain it.  What happened to the raft we started with?

We've now added the ability to know how to design and fabricate sails, create a system to steer the craft, to be able to accurately calculate the size and quantity of ships needed to hold the cargo.  They also have figured out how to calculate rations, fabricate sterile water containers, salt meat for preservation and create tools to fish with on the open sea and then haul a 60 foot long catch on board.

We started at birds can make simple hook shaped tools, then added dinosaurs were likely smarter and arrived at the above story with zero corroborating evidence for any of these abilities.

There's no "now" or "added", the theory that dinosaurs built high-quality seafaring vessels has been advanced for almost four years now. It is not extrapolated from the capabilities of birds, it is derived from consideration of the fossil record, though considering the capability of birds to build things is useful in suggesting that avians/dinosaurs are capable of anything. It is a corollary, it is not the main explanatory force of the argument.

You also forgot to address:
I was just reminded of one additional aspect that James' speculation overlooks: There are fossils of sea animals everywhere in the continents. James does not only have to explain why the land animals of the Cretaceous found their way to every continent, except maybe Antarctica, but also why there are countless fossils of marine life hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away from current seas. In my personal experience, there is a place at least 200 kilometers away from the sea where these fossils are so abundant that the local children collect them and sell them to the tourists. I have one of those in my very own living room.

So, what would be the explanation of this: the sea shells of the Cretaceous just got mad with so many dinosaurs invading the seas, that they decided to walk 200 kilometers into the Andes and more than 6000 feet uphill, to die in peace?

I'm sure we all look forward to the wonderous explanation in chapter 8 of Dino-sailors of the early Cretaceous.

Instead of looking FORWARD, perhaps you ought to be looking BACK ". . . to the wonderous explanation in . . ." LITERALLY MY LATEST POST, the one immediately preceding yours:


.  .  .

Though salted land-animal meat in a supply ship would probably be enough to sustain the crews and passengers of other ships, hunger on the journey would also have been potentially assuaged by fishing and "whaling". The oceans of the Cretaceous were teeming with sharks, rays, as well as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs. Some of the larger plesiosaurs would have been up to 20M in length, an incredible catch and having enough meat to sustain a large number of Deinonychus for weeks at sea. It is indicated by the Fossil record that Deinonychus would have known about the existence of plesiosaurs. Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Trinacromerum_BW.jpg)
Above: A specimen of Trinacromerum, a smaller plesiosaur, has been found in the inland United States, probably kept as a pet or traded for blubber.

Furthermore, shellfish specifically have been dealt with in the forum thread "What About the Dinosuars" (2009) pp. 19-21. Here's the link:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.380
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on November 29, 2009, 10:48:02 AM
There's no "now" or "added", the theory that dinosaurs built high-quality seafaring vessels has been advanced for almost four years now. It is not extrapolated from the capabilities of birds, it is derived from consideration of the fossil record, though considering the capability of birds to build things is useful in suggesting that avians/dinosaurs are capable of anything. It is a corollary, it is not the main explanatory force of the argument.

Wow James, I didn't realize that the fossil record included fossilized boats from the period.  Do you have any links with more information?  By the way, how does the geologic record that supports continental drift fit into your theory?

Quote from: http://science.jrank.org/pages/1749/Continental-Drift-Evidence-theory.html
Technological improvements after World War II supported many of Wegener's ideas about continental drift. New methods of dating and drilling for rock samples, especially from deep-sea drilling ships like the Glomar Challenger, have allowed more precise matching of Pangaea's rocks and fossils. Data from magnetometers (instruments that measure the magnetism of the iron in sea floor rocks) proved that the sea floors have spread since Pangaea's breakup.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Globularist on November 29, 2009, 11:20:10 AM
Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.

sorry if this has already been asked, but do you have a source for this claim (that the plesiosaur skeletons have been found far from the ocean)?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: suzerain on November 29, 2009, 11:35:04 AM
Specimens of plesiosaur skeletons have been found on the North American continent quite far from the ocean, no doubt brought in by Deinonychus (and later Dromaeosaurus) whalers from the West Coast and traded for blubber, bone and perhaps as zoological attractions.

sorry if this has already been asked, but do you have a source for this claim (that the plesiosaur skeletons have been found far from the ocean)?

or more accurately, what type of rock were the fossils found in?


as for the rest of this... I honestly cant find words to describe it.

should I put on my experimental archaeologoy hat, and write a long essay outlining exactly what is required in terms of infrastructure to build a ship the size of the Mayflower?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Globularist on November 29, 2009, 11:46:18 AM
James, I looked up Trinacromerum, the small plesiosaur you say would have been a pet or a source of blubber. On the surface, you would appear to be right, as it lived in Kansas and that is where its fossils were found.

However, during the Cretaceous period, there was a "Western Interior Sea" going through the whole Midwest area of North America.

(http://www.oceansofkansas.com/images2/wis-map3.jpg)

The Western Interior Sea, sometimes called the Inland Sea, was probably less than 600 feet deep in most areas, and had a relatively flat and soft, mud bottom. It is considered to be an 'epi-continental sea'; that is, one which lies on top of a continental landmass, and not between continents.   Near the middle of the sea where Kansas is now located, sediments were deposited at a rate which would ultimately produce about one inch of compacted chalk for every 700 years. The chalk also has more than a hundred thin layers of bentonite clay, most of which are rusty red in color, that are the result of the fall of ash from repeated eruptions of volcanoes to the west of Kansas in what is now Nevada and Utah. These ash deposits can be traced for miles across the chalk beds and have been used as marker units in describing the stratigraphy of the formation (See Hattin, 1982). In addition, several species of vertebrate and invertebrate marine life that lived and/or became extinct at certain times during the deposition of the chalk are useful in determining the age and biostratigraphy of widely separated exposures (See Stewart, 1990). Near the end of the Cretaceous, the Western Interior Sea began to close, becoming shallower and narrower as the Rocky Mountains were pushed up from the west, uplifting the sea bottom as they rose.  Eventually, the center of North America rose above sea level and the sediments (limestones, sandstones, shales and chalk) deposited on the basement rocks of Kansas for nearly half a billion years began to erode away.

(from the "Oceans of Kansas" website)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Skeleton on November 29, 2009, 05:35:04 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/Trinacromerum_BW.jpg)
Above: A specimen of Trinacromerum, a smaller plesiosaur, has been found in the inland United States, probably kept as a pet or traded for blubber.

I feel bad for this thing. It has a kindly face but it may have been stupid and not understood. Poor creature.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 29, 2009, 05:49:07 PM
Instead of looking FORWARD, perhaps you ought to be looking BACK ". . . to the wonderous explanation in . . ." LITERALLY MY LATEST POST, the one immediately preceding yours:

Your bolded wonder had failed to address the sea shells, but thank you for pointing to your pretty pictures.

Your fantasy is based on no evidence and only serves to provide an explanation for a distribution of fossils.  The same distribution could just as easily be explained by a race of plane flying dinosaurs, as they had clear evidence flight was possible, and could also be explained by teleportations from devices they built or by technology delivered by aliens.  Each would have just as much supporting evidence.  It's a wonderful philosophical arguement for a maybe-what-if story, but that is just about it.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on November 30, 2009, 07:24:08 AM
Instead of looking FORWARD, perhaps you ought to be looking BACK ". . . to the wonderous explanation in . . ." LITERALLY MY LATEST POST, the one immediately preceding yours:

Your bolded wonder had failed to address the sea shells, but thank you for pointing to your pretty pictures.

Your fantasy is based on no evidence and only serves to provide an explanation for a distribution of fossils.  The same distribution could just as easily be explained by a race of plane flying dinosaurs, as they had clear evidence flight was possible, and could also be explained by teleportations from devices they built or by technology delivered by aliens.  Each would have just as much supporting evidence.  It's a wonderful philosophical arguement for a maybe-what-if story, but that is just about it.
You are being too kind with James when you say this speculation provides an explanation for a distribution of fossils.

This speculation requires a lot of things that would appear on the fossil record, but do not:
On the other hand, continental drift is happening right now, it has been measured and an enormously rich geological record has been documented. Just multiplying the speed of the continental drift by the known age of Earth gives you overwhelming evidence that the continents were completely different during the early stages of the planet. No invisible cities, no sudden urges to build ships, no improbable geniuses are needed to explain the fossil and geological record.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: James on November 30, 2009, 02:03:56 PM
  • A civilization capable of making such sophisticated ships would have thousands of other technological achievements, and some of them should appear in the fossil record.

The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.

  • The seafaring species could have taken a few different animals (if we accept the proposal for a second), but the fossil record is filled with species of every kind you can imagine, and some you can't. The fossil record is far too complex to admit this possibility.

Which ones can't you imagine? The two types of life form I can conceive of being transported are animals and plants, both of which form integral parts of the infrastructure of agrarian societies.

  • Not only land animals would have to have been moved, also an enormous amount of sea animals appear hundreds of kilometers inland, from small shells to huge Ictiosaurus, just to mention a few. The fossil record does not support the distribution of fossils this "theory" would produce.
You seem to have missed the part where I suggested that cretaceous dromaeosaurs were capable whalers and fisher-saurs(?). The fossil record suggests a mercantile society with seafaring capabilities.

  • The fossil record and the geological strata support the creation and destruction of mountains in too many ways to show here, but this speculation implies no big movements of the land.

I dispute neither the creation nor destruction of mountains, nor have I ever done so.

  • The human brain is a very expensive tool in terms of the amount of energy it uses, and the possibility of gradually making bigger and bigger machines until a seafaring ship can be constructed means a large population of individuals had to be maintained while they worked on their inventions. This means a whole structure of production and distribution of goods had to be in place, so lots of telltale signs of this should appear, like the ruins of cities and infrastructure, for example.

Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?

E: Fixed Formatting
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: John Davis on November 30, 2009, 02:19:09 PM
  • A civilization capable of making such sophisticated ships would have thousands of other technological achievements, and some of them should appear in the fossil record.

The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.

  • The seafaring species could have taken a few different animals (if we accept the proposal for a second), but the fossil record is filled with species of every kind you can imagine, and some you can't. The fossil record is far too complex to admit this possibility.

Which ones can't you imagine? The two types of life form I can conceive of being transported are animals and plants, both of which form integral parts of the infrastructure of agrarian societies.

  • Not only land animals would have to have been moved, also an enormous amount of sea animals appear hundreds of kilometers inland, from small shells to huge Ictiosaurus, just to mention a few. The fossil record does not support the distribution of fossils this "theory" would produce.

You seem to have missed the part where I suggested that cretaceous dromaeosaurs were capable whalers and fisher-saurs(?). The fossil record suggests a mercantile society with seafaring capabilities.

  • The fossil record and the geological strata support the creation and destruction of mountains in too many ways to show here, but this speculation implies no big movements of the land.

I dispute neither the creation nor destruction of mountains, nor have I ever done so.

  • The human brain is a very expensive tool in terms of the amount of energy it uses, and the possibility of gradually making bigger and bigger machines until a seafaring ship can be constructed means a large population of individuals had to be maintained while they worked on their inventions. This means a whole structure of production and distribution of goods had to be in place, so lots of telltale signs of this should appear, like the ruins of cities and infrastructure, for example.

Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
All very good points.  Look at isolated finds we have like the Antikythera mechanism.  It has no real explanation, is the only device of its kind, and we found it barely out of luck.  There are several other finds like this in our own culture.  Add a few million years to the mix and...
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on November 30, 2009, 02:56:25 PM

All very good points.  Look at isolated finds we have like the Antikythera mechanism.  It has no real explanation, is the only device of its kind, and we found it barely out of luck.  There are several other finds like this in our own culture.  Add a few million years to the mix and...
....we can speculate on what could be proven by the evidence that doesn't exist.

We still have:
distribution of fossils = seafaring dino traders that know how to construct sailing ships, preserve meat, calculate loading limits of ships and are able to transport livestock and plants.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: whatthe? on December 01, 2009, 04:54:43 AM
this thread makes me lol

The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.

that doesn't mean you can pretend that such boats existed.

Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?

wood or stone structures.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: SupahLovah on December 01, 2009, 10:26:53 AM
The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.
Were the boats from 65000000 wooden? Because if you've been reading links, you'd know that's when A LOT of wood is thought to have been petrified. So I'd imagine we'd find quite a bit.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on December 01, 2009, 11:21:19 AM
The wood Crustinator was referring to did not come from the period in question. Moreover, the petrified wood we have now almost all comes in big geographic lumps where an entire forest was petrified.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 01, 2009, 11:31:47 AM
The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.
Australian aborigines did not create transoceanic boats capable of transporting hundreds or thousands of huge dinosaurs like the Diplodocus, for example. Your debating strategy is as simple as it is thinly veiled: all or nothing; if a small piece of our civilization does not leave marks in the fossil and geological record, then it is possible that a whole civilization existed and left no sign of it existence at all.

Humanity created cities of more than a million people before being able to construct transoceanic boats. Where are the cities of your intelligent dinosaurs?
Which ones can't you imagine? The two types of life form I can conceive of being transported are animals and plants, both of which form integral parts of the infrastructure of agrarian societies.
Even the Spanish explorers, when they carried some farm animals and crop seeds, chose to take a few well selected individuals because they did not have space to carry thousands of species. If your dinosaurs carried livestock (and we are being very credulous here) they certainly did not carry thousands of couples of each kind of animal, as if they were old Noah emulators.
You seem to have missed the part where I suggested that cretaceous dromaeosaurs were capable whalers and fisher-saurs(?). The fossil record suggests a mercantile society with seafaring capabilities.
How can I forget that hilarious remark? Was it for real?

So you are even considering the possibility that your intelligent dinosaurs carried all those sea animals to places that are now far inland and deposited them on the floor without eating them, just so we can find them many millions of years afterwards? Exactly how does the fossil record suggest intelligent dinosaurs that make museums of sea life on land just so we can study them now?
I dispute neither the creation nor destruction of mountains, nor have I ever done so.
Then you do not dispute the fact that geological strata give us information on how those mountains were created and destructed. You want to fish for a few pieces of geological investigation that serve your speculation and throw the rest.
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
And how many of those young societies have created seafaring boats? Humanity has had a history of at least three million years, leaving telltale signs of its existence, until finally a few of its individuals ventured into the Atlantic Ocean. When someone looks for traces of our existence in another 80 million years or so they will most certainly not find Erik the Red's boat or Columbus' boats, but they will certainly find ruins of some of the cities we have constructed.

It is one thing to say that most of the marks left by the dinosaurs have been destroyed forever. It is a very different thing to say every single trace of every kind of tool, housing, infrastructure, in short, everything that every single intelligent dinosaur created ever has been destroyed. After all, you only leave some 20 kilograms of bone when you die, but leave behind at least ten tons of rock, asphalt, tools, pieces of your house (both wooden and stone and metal), and much more.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: whatthe? on December 01, 2009, 01:32:39 PM
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?

if they left no evidence how do we know they existed?

(also: fisher-saur I choose you!)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 01, 2009, 03:09:34 PM
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?

if they left no evidence how do we know they existed?

(also: fisher-saur I choose you!)
The quote you show is not mine, it is from James, the apparent creator of this speculation.

When you know at least a bit about archeology and geology you can see that you do not have to find every single bit of information to get an idea of how things were in some point of the past. Paleontology is not only about finding bones, it is about finding the story told by ancient remains. A society like the one proposed by James would have left some traces, even if they worked mostly with wood, including tools much harder than wood (maybe stone, maybe brass) and signs of huge settlements, which include the massive alteration of large spaces to construct their cities. There is no such thing as a society of millions of individuals that leave absolutely no evidence of their existence and there is no reason whatsoever to think that a society would do such a great effort to cross an ocean with an incredibly complicated cargo in their ships and do no other technological feat of any kind.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: James on December 01, 2009, 03:46:19 PM
The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.
Australian aborigines did not create transoceanic boats capable of transporting hundreds or thousands of huge dinosaurs like the Diplodocus, for example. Your debating strategy is as simple as it is thinly veiled: all or nothing; if a small piece of our civilization does not leave marks in the fossil and geological record, then it is possible that a whole civilization existed and left no sign of it existence at all.

Our test case was the Cretaceous North American Deinonychus, a 70kg dromaeosaur; and its most ubiquitous livestock, the Saurolophus, which we suggested would have been transported as yearlings to conserve space (the weight problem not being an issue with a well-engineered ship the size of the Mayflower, as we have discussed). Diplodocus was extinct by the end of the Late Jurassic, so I am not suggesting that any would have been transported by dromaeosaurs as food. In fact, I do not think I have suggested anywhere that a Diplodocus might have ever set foot on a boat. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I am not aware of any Diplodocus remains outside of the continental United States, suggesting they lived there, although Diplodocus was large enough that it would not surprise me if isolated samples had swum to outlying islands around the USA, such as the Aleutians or the Bahamas (I'm just covering my back here, I don't know of Diplodocus fossils ever having been found there).

Humanity created cities of more than a million people before being able to construct transoceanic boats. Where are the cities of your intelligent dinosaurs?

Straightforwardly false I'm afraid. Not even disputed by mainstream globularist science.

Which ones can't you imagine? The two types of life form I can conceive of being transported are animals and plants, both of which form integral parts of the infrastructure of agrarian societies.
Even the Spanish explorers, when they carried some farm animals and crop seeds, chose to take a few well selected individuals because they did not have space to carry thousands of species. If your dinosaurs carried livestock (and we are being very credulous here) they certainly did not carry thousands of couples of each kind of animal, as if they were old Noah emulators.

If you could direct me to the place where I claimed anything of the sort, I will glady and immediately recant (hint: I have never suggested anything remotely along those lines).

You seem to have missed the part where I suggested that cretaceous dromaeosaurs were capable whalers and fisher-saurs(?). The fossil record suggests a mercantile society with seafaring capabilities.
How can I forget that hilarious remark? Was it for real?

So you are even considering the possibility that your intelligent dinosaurs carried all those sea animals to places that are now far inland and deposited them on the floor without eating them, just so we can find them many millions of years afterwards? Exactly how does the fossil record suggest intelligent dinosaurs that make museums of sea life on land just so we can study them now?

I don't wish to patronise you here, but what we've found inland are the bones and shells of the aforementioned sea creatures. Which part of this discovery suggests that their flesh wasn't eaten, exactly?

I dispute neither the creation nor destruction of mountains, nor have I ever done so.
Then you do not dispute the fact that geological strata give us information on how those mountains were created and destructed. You want to fish for a few pieces of geological investigation that serve your speculation and throw the rest.

Let me be quite clear on exactly what it is that I do or do not dispute, so that there may be no doubt as to the propositional content of my claims. I specifically dispute that the continents were once a single giant landmass, or that they have to any large degree changed their position relative to one another in the course of natural history (sea-level changes notwithstanding). I do not dispute the creation or destruction of mountains. I do not dispute that geological investigation enlightens us as to the past creation or destruction of these mountains, in fact, it is my sole basis for believing that they were created or destroyed.

Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
And how many of those young societies have created seafaring boats? Humanity has had a history of at least three million years, leaving telltale signs of its existence, until finally a few of its individuals ventured into the Atlantic Ocean. When someone looks for traces of our existence in another 80 million years or so they will most certainly not find Erik the Red's boat or Columbus' boats, but they will certainly find ruins of some of the cities we have constructed.

Again, I'm afraid this is false. The most accessible counterexample is Australian pre-Aboriginal society, which necessarily constructed seaworthy boats and had the infrastructures necessary to build those boats. This deductive fact, which is (rightly) upheld by the mainstream anthropological community, is presented as the conclusion of an argument which is structurally similar to my own, with regard to cretaceous dromaeosaurs, and certain other prehistoric species.

It is one thing to say that most of the marks left by the dinosaurs have been destroyed forever. It is a very different thing to say every single trace of every kind of tool, housing, infrastructure, in short, everything that every single intelligent dinosaur created ever has been destroyed. After all, you only leave some 20 kilograms of bone when you die, but leave behind at least ten tons of rock, asphalt, tools, pieces of your house (both wooden and stone and metal), and much more.

I have not expounded the view that any dinosaur ever smelted metal, in fact, I believe I have argued the opposite on a number of occasions. The fact that the ancestors of Australian aborigines possessed a society of sufficient complexity to build intercontinental watercraft, yet left no trace of their civilization (a pair of plain facts which I would be surprised if you were to dispute) discredits the charge you have made here.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: James on December 01, 2009, 03:57:45 PM
When you know at least a bit about archeology and geology you can see that you do not have to find every single bit of information to get an idea of how things were in some point of the past. Paleontology is not only about finding bones, it is about finding the story told by ancient remains.

I am glad you understand what it is to conduct paleontological investigation, but I am dismayed at your disapproval when I or my colleagues are the persons conducting it.

A society like the one proposed by James would have left some traces, even if they worked mostly with wood, including tools much harder than wood (maybe stone, maybe brass)

I believe, by the way, that the likelyhood of discovering and correctly identifying the stone tools of dromaeosaurs is roughly commensurate with the likelyhood of discovering those of the proto-Aboriginal societies which first colonised Australia, once we have adjusted for an additional 64960000 years of decay. For reference, the current number of proto-Aboriginal artifacts we have discovered and positively identified as such is 0.

and signs of huge settlements, which include the massive alteration of large spaces to construct their cities. There is no such thing as a society of millions of individuals that leave absolutely no evidence of their existence and there is no reason whatsoever to think that a society would do such a great effort to cross an ocean with an incredibly complicated cargo in their ships and do no other technological feat of any kind.

Nor is there any reason to suspect that dromaeosaurs ever lived in cities millions strong. That is why I have not suggested it.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 01, 2009, 10:29:54 PM
Our test case was the Cretaceous North American Deinonychus, a 70kg dromaeosaur; and its most ubiquitous livestock, the Saurolophus, which we suggested would have been transported as yearlings to conserve space (the weight problem not being an issue with a well-engineered ship the size of the Mayflower, as we have discussed). Diplodocus was extinct by the end of the Late Jurassic, so I am not suggesting that any would have been transported by dromaeosaurs as food. In fact, I do not think I have suggested anywhere that a Diplodocus might have ever set foot on a boat. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I am not aware of any Diplodocus remains outside of the continental United States, suggesting they lived there, although Diplodocus was large enough that it would not surprise me if isolated samples had swum to outlying islands around the USA, such as the Aleutians or the Bahamas (I'm just covering my back here, I don't know of Diplodocus fossils ever having been found there).
The fossil record shows dinosaurs on every continent, including Diplodocus and many other enormous species. You can "explain" a minuscule part of the fossil record but if you do not have a way to explain most of the record you are just playing with words. By the way, if you want to propose your intelligent dinosaurs as an alternative to Continental Drift you are in the wrong geological era. Your "theory" cannot explain why there is a continuous presence of dinosaurs on all continents starting in the Triassic, continuing into the Jurassic and finally in the Cretaceous. Did your intelligent dinosaurs populate the whole world with dinosaurs, or did they just carry an insignificant population of herd animals to the other continents?

Straightforwardly false I'm afraid. Not even disputed by mainstream globularist science.
Please remind me, when did the Romans grow the first great city to a million inhabitants? Was it by chance around the first century CE? And how many cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants were there before Columbus' voyages?
Again, I'm afraid this is false. The most accessible counterexample is Australian pre-Aboriginal society, which necessarily constructed seaworthy boats and had the infrastructures necessary to build those boats. This deductive fact, which is (rightly) upheld by the mainstream anthropological community, is presented as the conclusion of an argument which is structurally similar to my own, with regard to cretaceous dromaeosaurs, and certain other prehistoric species.
This is such a carefully written remark that you can just miss the shift in objectives. "Seaworthy" is not the same as "transatlantic". And "seaworthy" does not mean their navigators were able to direct them through thousands of miles with no island in between, or with enough capacity to take livestock with them. You are trying to inflate the accomplishments of your Australian aboriginals with every new sentence, but the fact remains, they were hardly as technologically advanced as the Europeans when they finally were able and interested in transatlantic voyages.
I have not expounded the view that any dinosaur ever smelted metal, in fact, I believe I have argued the opposite on a number of occasions. The fact that the ancestors of Australian aborigines possessed a society of sufficient complexity to build intercontinental watercraft, yet left no trace of their civilization (a pair of plain facts which I would be surprised if you were to dispute) discredits the charge you have made here.
Now, as soon as you think others will not see it, your aborigenes are again building intercontinental boats. Can you show us, by chance, a photograph of one of these intercontinental boats? Would you be surprised if they are not much more than big rafts? Remember, you are supposed to be proposing the worldwide distribution of the dinosaurs we know, not the island skipping done by the Australian aborigines. There is a big difference between a raft for two day voyages with a few rowing aborigines (which van be done completely in wood) and transoceanic vessels like the ones in your pictures, which require metals both as tools to carve the wood and as nails to give the boat some strength.

So, please either stop talking about aborigines and their rafts or stop talking about sixteenth century transoceanic boats. They are not similar and require vastly different technologies to build and use.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 02, 2009, 04:30:13 AM
Our test case was the Cretaceous North American Deinonychus, a 70kg dromaeosaur; and its most ubiquitous livestock, the Saurolophus, which we suggested would have been transported as yearlings to conserve space (the weight problem not being an issue with a well-engineered ship the size of the Mayflower, as we have discussed).

Which the class is still waiting for any actual evidence to be brought forth for, other than a story which has as much supporting evidence as "aliens did it".
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 02, 2009, 09:33:18 AM
Our test case was the Cretaceous North American Deinonychus, a 70kg dromaeosaur; and its most ubiquitous livestock, the Saurolophus, which we suggested would have been transported as yearlings to conserve space (the weight problem not being an issue with a well-engineered ship the size of the Mayflower, as we have discussed).

Which the class is still waiting for any actual evidence to be brought forth for, other than a story which has as much supporting evidence as "aliens did it".
Now that you say it, the "aliens did it" baseless speculation is less bad than the "intelligent dinosaurs did it" baseless speculation. At least you can say the aliens beamed all sorts and sizes of dinosaurs, other animals and plants from one continent to another, on an ongoing basis during all the triassic, jurassic and cretaceous in just the right times and places to make all of the fossil record possible.

James' speculation does not even explain why there are dinosaur fossils from all the Mesozoic era (triassic, jurassic and cretaceous) on all the continents, except maybe Antarctica.

I am really offended by the claims of James that the fossil record supports his speculation. As if you and others had not given enough examples of brain-dead speculations that are better than James', here goes my own: "I did it!" I found a time machine in my basement and decided to test it with my neighbor's parrots, and sent some to each continent. They arrived at the beginning of the triassic, horribly mutated, and evolved into what we call dinosaurs. And the best part is, the fossil record supports my theory, better than James'!
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: FET is unrealistic on December 03, 2009, 09:36:13 AM
So you have no proof for a flat earth and no proof for intelligent dinosaurs, are you gonna make another ignorant theory that has no supporting evidence, cause im all ears.

( but please make sure it is a little less absurd then the last to theories. )
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on December 03, 2009, 01:27:05 PM
Again, I'm afraid this is false. The most accessible counterexample is Australian pre-Aboriginal society, which necessarily constructed seaworthy boats and had the infrastructures necessary to build those boats. This deductive fact, which is (rightly) upheld by the mainstream anthropological community, is presented as the conclusion of an argument which is structurally similar to my own, with regard to cretaceous dromaeosaurs, and certain other prehistoric species.
This is such a carefully written remark that you can just miss the shift in objectives. "Seaworthy" is not the same as "transatlantic". And "seaworthy" does not mean their navigators were able to direct them through thousands of miles with no island in between, or with enough capacity to take livestock with them. You are trying to inflate the accomplishments of your Australian aboriginals with every new sentence, but the fact remains, they were hardly as technologically advanced as the Europeans when they finally were able and interested in transatlantic voyages.


Just picking up on this specific point: how do you explain the settlement of Hawaii?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 03, 2009, 05:10:00 PM
So you have no proof for a flat earth and no proof for intelligent dinosaurs, are you gonna make another ignorant theory that has no supporting evidence, cause im all ears.

( but please make sure it is a little less absurd then the last to theories. )
The point is, anyone can create a crackpot theory that fits a small part of our scientific evidence on a subject. Whether we are talking dinosaur nests surviving a transoceanic voyage, or dinosaurs making transoceanic trips and navigating their ships, or flying dinosaurs hopping between continents, or aliens moving dinosaurs to other continents, or time travelling parrots, or whatever you want invent, you can find a tiny part of the fossil record or the geological record that support it.

That is why scientist urge you to look at the preponderance of evidence, not at a single piece of it.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 03, 2009, 05:13:56 PM
Again, I'm afraid this is false. The most accessible counterexample is Australian pre-Aboriginal society, which necessarily constructed seaworthy boats and had the infrastructures necessary to build those boats. This deductive fact, which is (rightly) upheld by the mainstream anthropological community, is presented as the conclusion of an argument which is structurally similar to my own, with regard to cretaceous dromaeosaurs, and certain other prehistoric species.
This is such a carefully written remark that you can just miss the shift in objectives. "Seaworthy" is not the same as "transatlantic". And "seaworthy" does not mean their navigators were able to direct them through thousands of miles with no island in between, or with enough capacity to take livestock with them. You are trying to inflate the accomplishments of your Australian aboriginals with every new sentence, but the fact remains, they were hardly as technologically advanced as the Europeans when they finally were able and interested in transatlantic voyages.


Just picking up on this specific point: how do you explain the settlement of Hawaii?
I am not an expert in Hawaii. I am pretty sure there are reasonable hypothesis for every species that has arrived at those islands, and you would do us all a favor if you illustrated us with the findings of modern science about them.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on December 03, 2009, 05:44:16 PM
There's no need for any detailed research. From wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Pre-European_contact_.E2.80.94_Ancient_Hawaii_.28800-1778.29

Quote
The earliest habitation supported by archaeological evidence dates to as early as 300 BCE, probably by Polynesian settlers from the Marquesas, followed by a second wave of migration from Raiatea and Bora Bora in the 11th century. The first recorded European contact with the islands was in 1778 by British explorer James Cook.

Polynesians from the Marquesas and possibly the Society Islands may have first populated the Hawaiian Islands between 300 and 500 CE. There is a great deal of debate regarding these dates.[21]


So as you can see, given the geographic isolation of Hawaii, there is no reason to suppose that you need the kind of ocean-going boats Europeans used to acheive trans-oceanic voyages. Even in 1778 when Cook arrived, the boats used by Hawaiians were very simplistic.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 03, 2009, 06:16:14 PM
There's no need for any detailed research. From wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Pre-European_contact_.E2.80.94_Ancient_Hawaii_.28800-1778.29

Quote
The earliest habitation supported by archaeological evidence dates to as early as 300 BCE, probably by Polynesian settlers from the Marquesas, followed by a second wave of migration from Raiatea and Bora Bora in the 11th century. The first recorded European contact with the islands was in 1778 by British explorer James Cook.

Polynesians from the Marquesas and possibly the Society Islands may have first populated the Hawaiian Islands between 300 and 500 CE. There is a great deal of debate regarding these dates.[21]


So as you can see, given the geographic isolation of Hawaii, there is no reason to suppose that you need the kind of ocean-going boats Europeans used to acheive trans-oceanic voyages. Even in 1778 when Cook arrived, the boats used by Hawaiians were very simplistic.
In that zone you have countless islands created by the busiest volcanic activity in the world, so the fishermen did not have to have enormous boats or great technological advancements to spread through those islands. Also, they were not carrying large animals to use as livestock, or large supplies of food and water.

What James is proposing is totally different: sailboats with capacity for tens of intelligent dinosaurs, with livestock, food, capacity to fish enormous sea animals, and good navigational skills to cross the oceans of the world.

Remember, James has to explain the propagation of hundreds or thousands of species of animals and plants during the Triassic, that is when the "other theory" explains this propagation with the existence of Pangea. And that is a little bit difficult when his intelligent dinosaurs existed during the Cretaceous, some 150 million years later after the Triassic. His boats have to carry food, water, tools, and, oh, yes, a time machine.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on December 03, 2009, 06:31:28 PM
In that zone you have countless islands created by the busiest volcanic activity in the world, so the fishermen did not have to have enormous boats or great technological advancements to spread through those islands.


Do you know how far away the Marquesas islands (origin point of the Polynesian settlers) are from Hawaii? Spreading through the Hawaiian island chain itself may have been relatively easy, but the Marquesas are about 2,000 miles away, with no land in between. We're not talking about leapfrog here, but genuine oceanic travel.


Also, they were not carrying large animals to use as livestock, or large supplies of food and water.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hawaii#Settlement

Quote
The colonists brought along with them clothing, plants and livestock and established settlements along the coasts and larger valleys. Upon their arrival, the settlers grew kalo (taro), maiʻa (banana), niu (coconut), ulu (breadfruit), and raised pua'a (pork), moa (chicken), and 'ilio (dog), although these meats were eaten less often than fruits, vegetables, and seafood. Popular condiments included pa'akai (salt), ground kukui nut, limu (seaweed), and ko (sugarcane) which was used as both a sweet and a medicine.[3] In addition to the foods they brought, the settlers also acquired 'uala (sweet potato), which has yet to be adequately explained, as the plant originates in South America. A few researchers have argued that the presence of the sweet potato in the ancient Hawaiian diet is evidence of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact with the Americas.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 04, 2009, 04:29:54 AM
So as you can see, given the geographic isolation of Hawaii, there is no reason to suppose that you need the kind of ocean-going boats Europeans used to acheive trans-oceanic voyages. Even in 1778 when Cook arrived, the boats used by Hawaiians were very simplistic.


For the dinosaurs, yes there is a necessary reason:

So now they can build ocean going ships with sails and steering systems, places for food, livestock, cargo, livestock, food and water for the licestock and a crew to maintain it.  What happened to the raft we started with?

We've now added the ability to know how to design and fabricate sails, create a system to steer the craft, to be able to accurately calculate the size and quantity of ships needed to hold the cargo.  They also have figured out how to calculate rations, fabricate sterile water containers, salt meat for preservation and create tools to fish with on the open sea and then haul a 60 foot long catch on board.

We started at birds can make simple hook shaped tools, then added dinosaurs were likely smarter and arrived at the above story with zero corroborating evidence for any of these abilities.

There's no "now" or "added", the theory that dinosaurs built high-quality seafaring vessels has been advanced for almost four years now. It is not extrapolated from the capabilities of birds, it is derived from consideration of the fossil record, though considering the capability of birds to build things is useful in suggesting that avians/dinosaurs are capable of anything. It is a corollary, it is not the main explanatory force of the argument.


Quote
The Mayflower, a human ship known to have made intercontinental voyages and built of wood, is estimated to have been just over 25 metres long, and had a cargo tonnage of 180 and a crew of around 25.

Now, let us assume Saurolophus as a test case for transportation (Deinonychus would likely have had other prey/farm animals as well, but Saurolophus would have been one of the largest), and we also assume that the transported Saurolophus would have been juveniles. A yearling might have weighed somewhere close to a ton (a fully grown bull weighs 1.9).

We've established that adult Deinonychus weighed at most 73kg.

There are 907 Kg in a short ton.

so, a livestock craft of this size could have carried the WEIGHT of around 180 juvenile Saurolophus (with a crew of 25 Deinonychus). However, each adult would have been 9.8 metres long, so nowhere near 180 individuals could fit on. If we consider that a yearling might have been half that length, (say 5M) and that the Mayflower was around 7.6 metres wide, the livestock could be "stacked" width-ways with bills and tails facing starboard and port. With each Saurolophus given 2 metres of the ship's length to accomodate their body width, 11 or 12 animals could be kept on a boat the size of the Mayflower, assuming a deck system existed for the crew to be accomodated. If we don't want to concede that the boat might have had a deck (which I am fine with doing, by the way), then removing 3 animals from that number would allow room for a crew on a single-deck raft. So, to summarise, a Mayflower-sized boat could carry between 9-12 Saurolophus.

A boat the size of the Mayflower [pictured below in a painting by William Halsall (1882)] could have held up to 12 young Saurolophus.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/MayflowerHarbor.jpg)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 04, 2009, 12:59:47 PM

Do you know how far away the Marquesas islands (origin point of the Polynesian settlers) are from Hawaii? Spreading through the Hawaiian island chain itself may have been relatively easy, but the Marquesas are about 2,000 miles away, with no land in between. We're not talking about leapfrog here, but genuine oceanic travel.

Just to mention a few, there are: Jarvis Islands, Kiribati, the Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef and the Johnston Atoll. But apart from the big islands with known names, the whole area is near a huge fault that created (and continues to create) a great string of underwater mountains, some of which rise above sea level and constitute the aforementioned islands. Hawaii is also the result of the volcanic activity of the area and is surrounded by big and tiny islands.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hawaii#Settlement

And the biggest livestock they carried was pigs. You do not need a great infrastructure to go from island to island, creating colonies in every intermediate step, and in that way requiring relatively simple boats and minimal supplies to cover large final distances. It is completely different than traveling long distances with no intermediate steps. In fact, the distance from Marquesas Islands to Hawaii is similar to the distance from Hawaii to mainland USA. but no Polynesians ever made that trip. Wonder why?

But the final point is that this speculation about intelligent dinosaurs doing transoceanic voyages has no evidence whatsoever that cannot be explained by the modern theories of Paleontology and has tons of evidence against it. The mere fact that James's intelligent dinosaurs, if they existed, lived about 70 millions of years ago and that the propagation of dinosaurs to all the continents occurred about 200 million years ago is enough evidence to throw away this speculation for good.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 04, 2009, 02:08:30 PM
I do not see the problem with accepting migration of dinosaurs. We have evidence of their fossils on all continents. This is not disputed. I suppose the dispute relates to how they migrated. Ultimately all organisms and matter take the path of least resistance. It is reasonable to expect a condition present that pressured dinosaurs to move, be it predatory, lack of food, etc. It is common knowledge and widely accepted that dinosaurs were intellectually superior to other species. They also had many advantages that we do not. For example, some of the species could fly, possibly scouting potential migratory locations. I do not limit their capability to just building a floating device. I suspect they could swim like the elephant does for miles, as they do now. As for storing food for the trip, we see squirrels storing food for the winter yet this fact is not denied. Did they communicate? Of course they did as do most species today. A simple look at the behavior of ants during a flood demonstrates the ability of animals to create crafts that float, even out of their own bodies. This "clumping" together of bodies would also explain the high ratio of dinosaur fossils discovered in oceanic regions.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 04, 2009, 06:41:02 PM
I do not see the problem with accepting migration of dinosaurs. We have evidence of their fossils on all continents. This is not disputed. I suppose the dispute relates to how they migrated. Ultimately all organisms and matter take the path of least resistance. It is reasonable to expect a condition present that pressured dinosaurs to move, be it predatory, lack of food, etc. It is common knowledge and widely accepted that dinosaurs were intellectually superior to other species. They also had many advantages that we do not. For example, some of the species could fly, possibly scouting potential migratory locations. I do not limit their capability to just building a floating device. I suspect they could swim like the elephant does for miles, as they do now. As for storing food for the trip, we see squirrels storing food for the winter yet this fact is not denied. Did they communicate? Of course they did as do most species today. A simple look at the behavior of ants during a flood demonstrates the ability of animals to create crafts that float, even out of their own bodies. This "clumping" together of bodies would also explain the high ratio of dinosaur fossils discovered in oceanic regions.
Now that you have a lot of "could have" propositions, it is time to do a little scientific investigation. We are not talking about extraterrestrials in Antares, we are talking about animals that left a fossil record immersed inside a geological record that lasted some 150 million years and is visible in every continent, except maybe Antarctica. Your speculations have to integrate acceptably with the available information, but do not.

Having separate pieces of a puzzle (flying animals, intellectually superior animals, animals that build things, animals that swim, animals that store food) is useless if the pieces are not fitted together. For example, how many birds have you seen talking to land animals?

You also require some evidence, not just speculation. What part of the available evidence is explained better by your speculations than by modern science's theories?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Globularist on December 05, 2009, 08:44:31 AM
I'm baffled as to how the oceanic voyages of Polynesians or Australian aborigines proves anything about dinosaurs. Native Hawaiians are human, so it is not surprising that their ancestors built adequate boats.

There is not really any evidence from the "fossil record" to support the idea of sea-faring dinosaur civilizations. There's the jaguar, which is part of the Panthera genus (along with the lion and the tiger) yet the jaguar is only found in the Americas and is the only member of that genus in the Americas. Did some tiger or leopard cross the oceans with magnificent boats? Of course not. The ancestor of the jaguar crossed  the Bering land bridge.

James is assuming a lot about how Earth was geographically. I already proved him to be wrong on the small plesiosaur (Trinacromerum) he tried to pass off as a "pet" or traded as a source of blubber, by showing that the areas where Trinacromerum lived were covered by water at the time, by a huge inland sea.

So what are the chances, assuming Deinonychus is found in both hemispheres, or however the "evidence" goes, that there was a land bridge. I say very likely.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 05, 2009, 08:51:58 AM

"Now that you have a lot of "could have" propositions, it is time to do a little scientific investigation."

I think it is widely accepted that squirrels store food for the winter, elephants swim for miles and ants use their bodies for flotation devices.

"For example, how many birds have you seen talking to land animals?"

Have you ever seen a mocking bird communicating to other land animals near its nest? I have witnessed this as have many others. I dare say it is you that lacks the evidence.

"You also require some evidence, not just speculation."

I am sure that I could provide you with some evidence of squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices if you so require. This is not speculation.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 05, 2009, 11:20:12 AM
I am sure that I could provide you with some evidence of squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices if you so require. This is not speculation.

That would be totally cool but totally irrelevant. Even if you produce a squirrel/elephant/ant hybrid (Squelephant?) with thumbs and brains that builds boats, sails them across the oceans with livestock and other materials it won't make dinosaurs start doing the same.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 05, 2009, 07:43:09 PM

That would be totally cool but totally irrelevant. Even if you produce a squirrel/elephant/ant hybrid (Squelephant?) with thumbs and brains that builds boats, sails them across the oceans with livestock and other materials it won't make dinosaurs start doing the same.
[/quote]

If a less evolved organism (an elephant, and, bird, squirrel, etc.) can perform these tasks, it is only logical that their physical and mental superior (the dinosaur) do the same. I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on December 06, 2009, 06:23:02 AM

Do you know how far away the Marquesas islands (origin point of the Polynesian settlers) are from Hawaii? Spreading through the Hawaiian island chain itself may have been relatively easy, but the Marquesas are about 2,000 miles away, with no land in between. We're not talking about leapfrog here, but genuine oceanic travel.

Just to mention a few, there are: Jarvis Islands, Kiribati, the Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef and the Johnston Atoll. But apart from the big islands with known names, the whole area is near a huge fault that created (and continues to create) a great string of underwater mountains, some of which rise above sea level and constitute the aforementioned islands. Hawaii is also the result of the volcanic activity of the area and is surrounded by big and tiny islands.


Sorry, I was trying to respond to this yesterday when my internet went kaput. Anyway, all of the islands you mention do not lie between Hawaii and the Marquesas. The colonists would have had to take a longer, more circuitous route through islands that were already inhabited, which seems very unlikely. Everything I've read on the subject suggests that it was a direct, point to point migration. There are no other islands between Hawaii and the Marquesas.


Besides, even if we assume they did island-hop (contrary to what experts believe), Hawaii is still a considerable distance from any point in the Kiribati island cluster, so I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Get out a map and look at the distance between the Marquesas and Hawaii. The colonists covered that distance in simple, rudimentary boats.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hawaii#Settlement

And the biggest livestock they carried was pigs. You do not need a great infrastructure to go from island to island, creating colonies in every intermediate step, and in that way requiring relatively simple boats and minimal supplies to cover large final distances. It is completely different than traveling long distances with no intermediate steps.


Look, you need to stop trying to pass this off as island hopping. The Polynesians were able navigators, and the fact that they made trans-oceanic voyages is an accepted fact. From the opening paragraph of the article on Polynesian navigation:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation
Quote
Polynesian navigation was a system of navigation used by Polynesians to make long voyages across thousands of miles of open ocean.


In fact, the distance from Marquesas Islands to Hawaii is similar to the distance from Hawaii to mainland USA. but no Polynesians ever made that trip. Wonder why?


Here's some reading for you:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation#Pre-Columbian_contact_with_the_Americas


I'm not saying its a proven theory, just that it is generally considered a legitimate contention that demonstrates how capable the Polynesians were at trans-oceanic travel.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 06, 2009, 08:53:17 AM
Whatever the Polynesians did or didn't do, nor where they did or didn't go in no way makes dinosaurs sail the seas.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 06, 2009, 09:06:18 AM
Besides, even if we assume they did island-hop (contrary to what experts believe),...
Wait a minute, do you know what experts believe? Then how is it that your only source is Wikipedia? And don't you think that your only expert, cited in Wikipedia, Thor Heyerdahl, did not even try to explain how the Polynesians calculated the route between their islands and America because they did not have the means for such a feat?

The travels you suggest require lots of things, not just capacity to carry food, water, livestock and maybe means to fish additional food. It requires the capacity to navigate with enough precision to find other landmasses. Otherwise you are just inviting almost certain death. Exactly what means did the Polynesians have to make a 2000 mile trip from one island to another island, and not get off course by a few degrees, getting lost forever in the sea? And what means did your intelligent dinosaurs have?

Anyhow, even if you ever get to convince anyone that Polynesians were able to do any transoceanic travel, you still have not even tried to explain how your intelligent dinosaurs from the Cretaceous managed to propagate hundreds or thousands of species of dinosaurs, other animals and plants to all the other continents on an ongoing basis, starting in the Triassic. Were they so intelligent that they created time machines?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 06, 2009, 03:36:48 PM
If a less evolved organism (an elephant, and, bird, squirrel, etc.) can perform these tasks, it is only logical that their physical and mental superior (the dinosaur) do the same. I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Umm. Elephants, birds and squirrels are all more evolved than dinosaurs.

lrn2evolution.

Whatever the Polynesians did or didn't do, nor where they did or didn't go in no way makes dinosaurs sail the seas.

QFT. But Wilmore will never get it.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on December 07, 2009, 06:10:53 AM
Besides, even if we assume they did island-hop (contrary to what experts believe),...
Wait a minute, do you know what experts believe? Then how is it that your only source is Wikipedia? And don't you think that your only expert, cited in Wikipedia, Thor Heyerdahl, did not even try to explain how the Polynesians calculated the route between their islands and America because they did not have the means for such a feat?


Do you know how to use Wikipedia? Their are loads of other sources linked at the bottom of the page. Just look at the notes section:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation#Notes


Wikipedia minus other sources = a poor source. A wiki article that can direct you to numerous other, credible sources is another matter.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 07, 2009, 06:20:25 AM
Do you know how to use Wikipedia? Their are loads of other sources linked at the bottom of the page. Just look at the notes section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation#Notes

Wikipedia minus other sources = a poor source. A wiki article that can direct you to numerous other, credible sources is another matter.

Like This? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 06:57:14 AM
If a less evolved organism (an elephant, and, bird, squirrel, etc.) can perform these tasks, it is only logical that their physical and mental superior (the dinosaur) do the same. I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Umm. Elephants, birds and squirrels are all more evolved than dinosaurs.



Forgive my ignorance, perhaps it is a translation issue. I did not know we were playing a semantics game. Let us say elephants, birds and squirrels are less capable than dinosaurs, as evidenced by their mental capacity and fossil record.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 07, 2009, 07:19:16 AM
Let us say elephants, birds and squirrels are less capable than dinosaurs, as evidenced by their mental capacity and fossil record.

But you have no evidence for judging the mental capacity of dinosaurs. You have no fossil evidence of dinosaur boats.

You cherry pick parts from a few mammals that might support your conclusion and then try and paste them all onto a dinosaur. It fails in so many ways I can't count them.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 08:15:24 AM
Let us say elephants, birds and squirrels are less capable than dinosaurs, as evidenced by their mental capacity and fossil record.

But you have no evidence for judging the mental capacity of dinosaurs. You have no fossil evidence of dinosaur boats.

You cherry pick parts from a few mammals that might support your conclusion and then try and paste them all onto a dinosaur. It fails in so many ways I can't count them.



Your logic is so befuddling. We cannot observe the action so it did not happen. Yet you accept "gravity" as a law even though there is no explanation or observation a magical attraction between objects.  Unlike fairy tale land we have observed these actions in species. I think it is only logical to assign them to a superior species. The fossil record illustrates the migratory pattern of dinosaurs. How do you propose they migrated?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 07, 2009, 09:06:26 AM
Your logic is so befuddling. We cannot observe the action so it did not happen.

It would be better put as "We cannot observe the action so we cannot say it happened."

Yet you accept "gravity" as a law even though there is no explanation or observation a magical attraction between objects.

The effect of gravity is observed. Gravity has nothing to do with dinosaurs. Don't derail the thread.

Unlike fairy tale land we have observed these actions in species.

You may have observed squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices but you have not observed, either directly or indirectly, dinosaurs sailing the oceans in galleons.

I think it is only logical to assign them to a superior species.

Dinosaurs are not superior species. The concept makes no sense.

The fossil record illustrates the migratory pattern of dinosaurs. How do you propose they migrated?

Continental drift. It's been posted here about a gazillion times I'm surprised its new to you.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 09:25:00 AM
Your logic is so befuddling. We cannot observe the action so it did not happen.

It would be better put as "We cannot observe the action so we cannot say it happened."

Yet you accept "gravity" as a law even though there is no explanation or observation a magical attraction between objects.

The effect of gravity is observed. Gravity has nothing to do with dinosaurs. Don't derail the thread.

Unlike fairy tale land we have observed these actions in species.

You may have observed squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices but you have not observed, either directly or indirectly, dinosaurs sailing the oceans in galleons.

I think it is only logical to assign them to a superior species.

Dinosaurs are not superior species. The concept makes no sense.

The fossil record illustrates the migratory pattern of dinosaurs. How do you propose they migrated?

Continental drift. It's been posted here about a gazillion times I'm surprised its new to you.


Many conclusions in science have been reached based on logical assumptions based on historical or fossil records. For example, evolution - no one has found an intermediary species. Gravity - just because something falls you assume a magical force pulls it down.

What you say is the observed effect of gravity can be explained without some magical attraction between inanimate objects.

While I have not personally observed dinosaurs crossing the oceans in flotation devices I have seen the fossil record. The record shows us the same species are all over the earth. Since continental drift is a myth the only other explanation is that the dinosaurs crossed the oceans. I doubt dinosaurs were capable of creating something as extravagant as a galleon. I suspect the craft was made of nesting materials or other dinosaur bodies, much like modern day ants create. Look at the evidence.

Further, dinosaurs were the superior species at the time. Their status as the dominant class of their day along with their ability to use logic and tools proves their intellectual superiority over other species. I thought this part of the debate had concluded.

Continental drift is a nice theory but it has never been observed. Certainly it is obvious that the Earth shifts from time to time but this amounts to no more than settling, similar to the concrete foundation of a home settling. While my home settles it will never gradually move to my neighbors yard, that would be ridiculous. I find it amusing that you subscribe to this logic since you have not observed it, as is your argument against dinosaur migration.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 02:01:08 PM
To "Lice Farm"

I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:

In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.

I find this to work quite well for me and my family.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 02:04:23 PM
To "Lice Farm"

I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:

In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.

I find this to work quite well for me and my family.

This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere  ::)

Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 02:16:55 PM
To "Lice Farm"

I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:

In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.

I find this to work quite well for me and my family.

This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere  ::)

Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?

Perhaps it did not contribute much to you in your extravagance but it may have changed "Lice Farm"'s life. To "Lice Farm" - I wish you success.

I am familiar with the theory of continental drift so your "evidence" is not necessary unless it is something other than the "we measured the drift" discussion. What you are measuring is a small point in time of the Earth shifting back and forth instead of millions of years of this activity. Perhaps you only measured the "forth" time frame. Had you a larger time frame then it would be valid and we could arrive at the truth together. However, I think your continental drift theories detract from the thread regarding the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 03:01:14 PM
To "Lice Farm"

I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:

In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.

I find this to work quite well for me and my family.

This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere  ::)

Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?

Perhaps it did not contribute much to you in your extravagance but it may have changed "Lice Farm"'s life. To "Lice Farm" - I wish you success.

I am familiar with the theory of continental drift so your "evidence" is not necessary unless it is something other than the "we measured the drift" discussion. What you are measuring is a small point in time of the Earth shifting back and forth instead of millions of years of this activity. Perhaps you only measured the "forth" time frame. Had you a larger time frame then it would be valid and we could arrive at the truth together. However, I think your continental drift theories detract from the thread regarding the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.

How about that you get seams of rock that fit perfectly, like a jigsaw, with ones on the land across oceans? Like a band of one type of rock sandwiched between several other types, with exactly the same combination aligned the same way on the opposing shore? Also, explain how we can clearly witness sea floor being created and destroyed? Any you have metallic rock spreading out from a divergence zone that has aligned itself to the earth's magnetic field as it cools, and as the earths magnetic field inverts polarity so does whichever portion of the metallic rock is cooling at the time. So from the divergence zone you get patterns of:

|||----||||||------||--|||||-----|||| O ||||-----|||||--||------||||||----|||

Where |'s are where the earth's north magnetic pole is where the geological south pole is, and - is the opposite.

Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 03:06:50 PM
Fail.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html

NASA
Sorry, but none of them will listen because it has that damned phrase in it. But yes, there is plenty of proof that even FE'ers must be able to accept, which doesn't even involve NASA!
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 03:18:34 PM
Many conclusions in science have been reached based on logical assumptions based on historical or fossil records. For example, evolution - no one has found an intermediary species. Gravity - just because something falls you assume a magical force pulls it down.

Both incorrect statements.


Since continental drift is a myth...

There's your problem in a nutshell, you'd rather believe an anonymous internet nutter with some watercolour pictures of dino sailors than all decades of research and study for geophysics.

Their status as the dominant class of their day along with their ability to use logic and tools proves their intellectual superiority over other species. I thought this part of the debate had concluded.

I must have missed the posts where you posted evidence of "logic" and tool use.

Continental drift is a nice theory but it has never been observed.

Fail.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html

Oh, well since you say the statements are incorrect then it must be so. (Sarcasm again). It amuses me that you criticize me for presenting a lack of evidence even though this website is full of facts and evidence yet you provide none yourself.

I assure you that any conclusions I have reached are based on facts in evidence and not based on the musings of a few individuals. As I understand it, your response is "No it isn't". Well put Lice Farm, well put indeed.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 03:27:54 PM
Many conclusions in science have been reached based on logical assumptions based on historical or fossil records. For example, evolution - no one has found an intermediary species. Gravity - just because something falls you assume a magical force pulls it down.

Both incorrect statements.


Since continental drift is a myth...

There's your problem in a nutshell, you'd rather believe an anonymous internet nutter with some watercolour pictures of dino sailors than all decades of research and study for geophysics.

Their status as the dominant class of their day along with their ability to use logic and tools proves their intellectual superiority over other species. I thought this part of the debate had concluded.

I must have missed the posts where you posted evidence of "logic" and tool use.

Continental drift is a nice theory but it has never been observed.

Fail.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html

Oh, well since you say the statements are incorrect then it must be so. (Sarcasm again). It amuses me that you criticize me for presenting a lack of evidence even though this website is full of facts and evidence yet you provide none yourself.

I assure you that any conclusions I have reached are based on facts in evidence and not based on the musings of a few individuals. As I understand it, your response is "No it isn't". Well put Lice Farm, well put indeed.
Someone is in denial  ::)
You are defeating the point of a debate by simply ignoring the evidence and arguing over something that you have absolutely no hope in disproving, just to not admit defeat. Every post you make arguing against CD, you lose respect and whatever impression of intelligence remains.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 03:33:07 PM
To "Lice Farm"

I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:

In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.

I find this to work quite well for me and my family.

This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere  ::)

Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?

Perhaps it did not contribute much to you in your extravagance but it may have changed "Lice Farm"'s life. To "Lice Farm" - I wish you success.

I am familiar with the theory of continental drift so your "evidence" is not necessary unless it is something other than the "we measured the drift" discussion. What you are measuring is a small point in time of the Earth shifting back and forth instead of millions of years of this activity. Perhaps you only measured the "forth" time frame. Had you a larger time frame then it would be valid and we could arrive at the truth together. However, I think your continental drift theories detract from the thread regarding the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.

How about that you get seams of rock that fit perfectly, like a jigsaw, with ones on the land across oceans? Like a band of one type of rock sandwiched between several other types, with exactly the same combination aligned the same way on the opposing shore? Also, explain how we can clearly witness sea floor being created and destroyed? Any you have metallic rock spreading out from a divergence zone that has aligned itself to the earth's magnetic field as it cools, and as the earths magnetic field inverts polarity so does whichever portion of the metallic rock is cooling at the time. So from the divergence zone you get patterns of:

|||----||||||------||--|||||-----|||| O ||||-----|||||--||------||||||----|||

Where |'s are where the earth's north magnetic pole is where the geological south pole is, and - is the opposite.

Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.

You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs. However, I will address your "evidence".

Has anyone ever put the continents together to see if they matched? I do not see a perfect match. This is about as ridiculous as your "magic gravity" theory. Could you entertain me and provide the source of the polarity measurements. I suspect I know their origins and have an issue with the validity of that data. I will give you specifics when you provide the source.

Sea floor activity is the result of sub-oceanic volcanic activity. Your blind acceptance of plate tectonics and continental drift is amusing. You accuse me of not providing evidence yet you yourself state that "Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact" without providing any evidence. I have provided evidence to this effect and you have dismissed it. In your mind the spherical shape of the Earth is an established fact. Your preconceptions have blinded you from the truth.

If you are so convinced that the Earth is round then why are you here? You must consider me a "nut" and therefore incapable of providing you with facts and evidence. The ironic thing is that all of the evidence you require is on this site yet you blind yourself with theories you accept as fact. The "theory" of gravity, the "theory" of evolution. None of these have been proven.

Continue please...

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 03:40:03 PM

Quote
Someone is in denial  ::)
You are defeating the point of a debate by simply ignoring the evidence and arguing over something that you have absolutely no hope in disproving, just to not admit defeat. Every post you make arguing against CD, you lose respect and whatever impression of intelligence remains.

Forgive my translation, English is my fourth language and I still have problems communicating my point. I must retire for the evening but I am beginning to get wise to your tactics. Simply stating that I ignore evidence does not make it so. Why is the burden of proof laid upon my shoulders. I have repeatedly laid evidence at your feet yet you continue to do as you accuse me, ignore it. If you believe I am incorrect please show me evidence where I am wrong. My desire is the truth. I invite you to tell me where I am wrong. Goodnight.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 07, 2009, 03:46:55 PM

Has anyone ever put the continents together to see if they matched? I do not see a perfect match.


Yes, they have compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. Even just looking at the shape of them you can see they would tesselate together quite well, but studies of the rocks in these areas reveal them to be consistent with those parts of the world having been joined together at one time.

Quote
Your blind acceptance of plate tectonics and continental drift is amusing. You accuse me of not providing evidence yet you yourself state that "Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact" without providing any evidence.

Well actually the distance between continents on either side of the atlantic has been measured, and they're slowly getting further apart. I'd say that's evidence for continental drift. The fact that earthquakes and vulcanism happen along known fault lines is also good evidence of plate tectonics.

You clearly know next to nothing about geology.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 07, 2009, 04:11:45 PM
While I have not personally observed dinosaurs crossing the oceans in flotation devices I have seen the fossil record. The record shows us the same species are all over the earth.
You have chosen to declare that the fossil record supports your speculation many, many times and yet you cannot explain more than a tiny bit of it with your speculation.

The fossil record shows, almost as you say, very similar species of dinosaurs, other animals and plants all over the Earth. But the record does not show a rather localized (in time and space) migration of a few species, as the one that your intelligent dinosaurs supposedly carried out. It shows several species migrating in very different times, from some time in the Paleozoic until the Cretaceous (some 600 million years or so).

Even if we were to accept your speculation, it would only explain a handful of migrating species during a period of at most some thousands of years.

So, what part of your speculation will change to accommodate the full 650 million years of fossil record? Or are you going to denounce most of it as part of the conspiracy?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: xXxFlAt_3aRtH4LyPhExXx on December 07, 2009, 04:26:35 PM
Yeah, the fossil record does show that. He's right you know.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 07, 2009, 04:34:40 PM
Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.

You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.

Tectonic plates and continental drift is precisely what we are discussing here, since the reason for the migrating patterns seen in the fossil record is the availability of migration routes at several different times between all the continents.

The whole reason for James to come up with intelligent dinosaurs was, specifically, to have an alternative to continental drift, and you also said the same.

So, go and find a reason for the migrations of all the flora and fauna seen in the fossil record, during all the 650 million years since the Paleozoic began, and I will listen to you. If you can only argue about a few species carried by some intelligent dinosaurs some 65 or 70 million years ago, your speculation is just not ready for discussion.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 06:16:04 PM

Has anyone ever put the continents together to see if they matched? I do not see a perfect match.


Yes, they have compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. Even just looking at the shape of them you can see they would tesselate together quite well, but studies of the rocks in these areas reveal them to be consistent with those parts of the world having been joined together at one time.

Quote
Your blind acceptance of plate tectonics and continental drift is amusing. You accuse me of not providing evidence yet you yourself state that "Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact" without providing any evidence.

Well actually the distance between continents on either side of the atlantic has been measured, and they're slowly getting further apart. I'd say that's evidence for continental drift. The fact that earthquakes and vulcanism happen along known fault lines is also good evidence of plate tectonics.

You clearly know next to nothing about geology.
"
I see your newest tactic is to resort to denigration. On your next post could you insult my personal hygiene? I have tried to be patient with you. My assistant says I should be friendly in my response. 

So... they compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. For all of your cries for evidence, this is your response? "They" compared the west coast of Africa and the East coast of South America? Wow! Groundbreaking. I am losing my patience with your ignorant ramblings about some guy that found two continents that might tesselate together. Then you baffle me with the news that rocks are consistent. Really? There are consistencies between rocks? There are documented cases of the similarities in rocks in Iceland and Australia. I think this bursts your false hopes of Neverland, or Pangea as you know it.

So there is measured evidence that continents are moving further apart? I have already addressed this. But redundancy seems to be necessary for you to comprehend. Have you ever asked yourself 1) who performs those measurements? 2) what time period the measurements encompass? I have also previously addressed this. If the measurements are accurate then you are seeing a small representation of movement and applying it to eternity. You witness 80 years of data and apply it to the beginning of time. I suspect your knowledge of geology is a bit biased. Wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 06:25:33 PM
Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.

You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.

Tectonic plates and continental drift is precisely what we are discussing here, since the reason for the migrating patterns seen in the fossil record is the availability of migration routes at several different times between all the continents.

The whole reason for James to come up with intelligent dinosaurs was, specifically, to have an alternative to continental drift, and you also said the same.

So, go and find a reason for the migrations of all the flora and fauna seen in the fossil record, during all the 650 million years since the Paleozoic began, and I will listen to you. If you can only argue about a few species carried by some intelligent dinosaurs some 65 or 70 million years ago, your speculation is just not ready for discussion.

Do you not think that your hypothesis is a bit ridiculous? You are intimating that dinosaurs spread across "Pangea". I suppose they never came to a large river or crevasse? How did they cross this obstacles? Did they leap across the Grand Canyon? Did they fight the mighty current of vast rivers? I think not. It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try.

Also, do not think your attempt to get me off topic went unnoticed. Now we are discussing flaura and fauna? Nice try. I see your new game is bait and switch.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 04:58:14 AM
Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.

You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.

Tectonic plates and continental drift is precisely what we are discussing here, since the reason for the migrating patterns seen in the fossil record is the availability of migration routes at several different times between all the continents.

The whole reason for James to come up with intelligent dinosaurs was, specifically, to have an alternative to continental drift, and you also said the same.

So, go and find a reason for the migrations of all the flora and fauna seen in the fossil record, during all the 650 million years since the Paleozoic began, and I will listen to you. If you can only argue about a few species carried by some intelligent dinosaurs some 65 or 70 million years ago, your speculation is just not ready for discussion.

Do you not think that your hypothesis is a bit ridiculous? You are intimating that dinosaurs spread across "Pangea". I suppose they never came to a large river or crevasse? How did they cross this obstacles? Did they leap across the Grand Canyon? Did they fight the mighty current of vast rivers? I think not. It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try.

Also, do not think your attempt to get me off topic went unnoticed. Now we are discussing flaura and fauna? Nice try. I see your new game is bait and switch.
Actually the point of discussion was not migratory patterns of dinosaurs, but rather the claim that they had the ability to master complex tools, create sailing crafts, calculate loading capacity of said crafts, preserve meat, store water, organize labor, and transport flora and fauna to their new found land.  This is the supposed alternate to continental drift, so I see no bait and switch.

 Wildabeest (http://www.ultimateafrica.com/travel/Wildebeest_migration.html) cross rivers on their migration route in Kenya, so for a dinosaur "of superior intellect" to do it shouldn't strike you as being out of the question.  Why would they have to leap across a canyon when they could go around it?  You cry for evidence, yet you provide none to declare why a nest or egg floating across an ocean is more likely in light of storms generating rough seas, the fact that a nest floating on the open sea would attract predators as a life-raft attracts sharks, and the thundering surf it would have to survive to get ashore.


As far as the "back and forth" movement of plates, where is your evidence that they are osculating?  With respect to your comment of looking at a small window, that may be the case, but there is evidence that the extrapolation of movement is valid, as evidenced in the elevation of the Himalayas and the fossil record and rock layering indicate.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html

The observed similarity between African and South American coastlines was only the trigger for exploration into the theory Thermal Detonator is referring to the lithological between the east coast of SA and the west coast of Africa.
 South America-Africa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XNB-4HK0S59-2&_user=8245491&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1127204056&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000073889&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8245491&md5=6667c2e6701a4b0bf2c980e41caec3ee)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 09:39:24 AM
Quote
Actually the point of discussion was not migratory patterns of dinosaurs, but rather the claim that they had the ability to master complex tools, create sailing crafts, calculate loading capacity of said crafts, preserve meat, store water, organize labor, and transport flora and fauna to their new found land.  This is the supposed alternate to continental drift, so I see no bait and switch.

 Wildabeest (http://www.ultimateafrica.com/travel/Wildebeest_migration.html) cross rivers on their migration route in Kenya, so for a dinosaur "of superior intellect" to do it shouldn't strike you as being out of the question.  Why would they have to leap across a canyon when they could go around it?  You cry for evidence, yet you provide none to declare why a nest or egg floating across an ocean is more likely in light of storms generating rough seas, the fact that a nest floating on the open sea would attract predators as a life-raft attracts sharks, and the thundering surf it would have to survive to get ashore.


As far as the "back and forth" movement of plates, where is your evidence that they are osculating?  With respect to your comment of looking at a small window, that may be the case, but there is evidence that the extrapolation of movement is valid, as evidenced in the elevation of the Himalayas and the fossil record and rock layering indicate.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html

The observed similarity between African and South American coastlines was only the trigger for exploration into the theory Thermal Detonator is referring to the lithological between the east coast of SA and the west coast of Africa.
 South America-Africa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XNB-4HK0S59-2&_user=8245491&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1127204056&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000073889&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8245491&md5=6667c2e6701a4b0bf2c980e41caec3ee)

Thank you for the ultimate Africa video of wildebeests crossing a creek. I was thinking more of raging rivers, mountains, canyons. It seems a little easier for a dinosaur to cross an ocean than these obstacles, wouldn't you agree?

The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel. They would not have to bring food as they would devour their fallen comrades during the voyage. I think this is more logical and supported than your theories of canyon leaping dinosaurs. Nice logic. How would you respond if I stated they would just "go around" the ocean?

"The extrapolation of movement is valid." So if a plane were to disembark, you would look at the first few ascending minutes of the flight and conclude it would be in space in a matter of hours? Your logic is fundamentally flawed. You demand I provide evidence but I think your theory is the one that requires evidence. My theory is a little more plausible than your illusions of moving land masses.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 09:40:34 AM

I see your newest tactic is to resort to denigration. On your next post could you insult my personal hygiene? I have tried to be patient with you. My assistant says I should be friendly in my response. 

So... they compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. For all of your cries for evidence, this is your response? "They" compared the west coast of Africa and the East coast of South America? Wow! Groundbreaking. I am losing my patience with your ignorant ramblings about some guy that found two continents that might tesselate together. Then you baffle me with the news that rocks are consistent. Really? There are consistencies between rocks? There are documented cases of the similarities in rocks in Iceland and Australia. I think this bursts your false hopes of Neverland, or Pangea as you know it.

So there is measured evidence that continents are moving further apart? I have already addressed this. But redundancy seems to be necessary for you to comprehend. Have you ever asked yourself 1) who performs those measurements? 2) what time period the measurements encompass? I have also previously addressed this. If the measurements are accurate then you are seeing a small representation of movement and applying it to eternity. You witness 80 years of data and apply it to the beginning of time. I suspect your knowledge of geology is a bit biased. Wouldn't you agree?

1. The only denigration that could be construed from my post is "you know next to nothing about geology". That is not an insult, merely a statement of truth. If you wish to dispute it, please present a summary of all you know about geology.
2. How can you be "losing patience with my ignorant ramblings" when this is my only response to you in this thread?
3. You want to know who performs these tests and measurements? Geologists. Again, proof you know next to nothing about geology, which is the study of the earth's substance and rocks, and is performed by geologists.
4. Look at this picture:
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/Bugdozer/world_map_.jpg)
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 09:55:22 AM
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: markjo on December 08, 2009, 10:13:34 AM
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.

Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 10:32:29 AM
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.

Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.
"But did YOU measure it? No? Well that's proof that it isn't growing at all!"
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 10:35:45 AM


Thank you for the ultimate Africa video of wildebeests crossing a creek. I was thinking more of raging rivers, mountains, canyons. It seems a little easier for a dinosaur to cross an ocean than these obstacles, wouldn't you agree?
I would not agree that it would be easier for a terrestial animal to cross thousands of miles of open water, than for terrestrial endeavors like crossing a river, following a canyon for a narrowing or a mountain range for reduction in height or finding an available mountain pass.
The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel. They would not have to bring food as they would devour their fallen comrades during the voyage. (Objection! Speculation!) I think this is more logical and supported than your theories of canyon leaping dinosaurs. Nice logic. How would you respond if I stated they would just "go around" the ocean? Since a canyon and a river have narrow/shallow points I would point out how you are drawing a false corollary between my example and yours whereby you provide a term, which by it's bounds does not provide a path around.
Had you been paying attention the claim is that the dinosaurs in question, did in fact bring both food and water, as well as "livestock" (herbiverous livestock), which would need it's own unique food source.



"The extrapolation of movement is valid." So if a plane were to disembark, you would look at the first few ascending minutes of the flight and conclude it would be in space in a matter of hours? Your logic is fundamentally flawed. You demand I provide evidence but I think your theory is the one that requires evidence. My theory is a little more plausible than your illusions of moving land masses.

1)Usually when one does not copy a complete quote and takes it out of context one is to start and/or end said quote with (...) indicating to the reader that the quote is in fact lacking its entirety.
2)The full quote was
Quote
As far as the "back and forth" movement of plates, where is your evidence that they are osculating?  With respect to your comment of looking at a small window, that may be the case, but there is evidence that the extrapolation of movement is valid, as evidenced in the elevation of the Himalayas and the fossil record and rock layering indicate.

3)Since we have a good deal of knowledge on the path of flights and the predefined components thereof (take-off, ascent, cruise, descent, landing) there would be no such reason to make any such prediction, again you are drawing a false corollary.  However, if you were to ask if, for a life raft adrift at sea, if it would make sense to chart its course over time based on initial readings of trajectory, and knowledge of the currents directing it, then yes it would be valid.

4)It is not your theory, you are merely parroting the words prior in this post and dreamt by James, while failing to contribute anything substantial to the argument and have in no way provided any supporting data to further the credibility of the author of the idea that is being discussed.  For your distaste for blindly accepting what has been said, you sure are blindly parroting what has been said.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 11:04:11 AM
The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel.

You just fucked up big time. The reason why there is a "disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory" can easily explained by something even you will find hard to deny - it is much, much easier for an organism to fossilize on the sea floor than on land.

Sediment from higher up in the water falls down on the striped carcass, eventually forming a tight pack around the skeleton. As more pressure is applied over thousands of years, the organic material that is left is replaced by inorganic rock. This is what we know of as a fossil.

Out of water, the carcass is open to be completely disintegrated by scavengers and erosion. Also, sediments don't fall from above to encase it.

Of course fossils can also occur in tar pits and frozen in glaciers, but not very many at all due to how perfect the conditions must be.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 11:29:11 AM

I see your newest tactic is to resort to denigration. On your next post could you insult my personal hygiene? I have tried to be patient with you. My assistant says I should be friendly in my response. 

So... they compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. For all of your cries for evidence, this is your response? "They" compared the west coast of Africa and the East coast of South America? Wow! Groundbreaking. I am losing my patience with your ignorant ramblings about some guy that found two continents that might tesselate together. Then you baffle me with the news that rocks are consistent. Really? There are consistencies between rocks? There are documented cases of the similarities in rocks in Iceland and Australia. I think this bursts your false hopes of Neverland, or Pangea as you know it.

So there is measured evidence that continents are moving further apart? I have already addressed this. But redundancy seems to be necessary for you to comprehend. Have you ever asked yourself 1) who performs those measurements? 2) what time period the measurements encompass? I have also previously addressed this. If the measurements are accurate then you are seeing a small representation of movement and applying it to eternity. You witness 80 years of data and apply it to the beginning of time. I suspect your knowledge of geology is a bit biased. Wouldn't you agree?

1. The only denigration that could be construed from my post is "you know next to nothing about geology". That is not an insult, merely a statement of truth. If you wish to dispute it, please present a summary of all you know about geology.
2. How can you be "losing patience with my ignorant ramblings" when this is my only response to you in this thread?
3. You want to know who performs these tests and measurements? Geologists. Again, proof you know next to nothing about geology, which is the study of the earth's substance and rocks, and is performed by geologists.
4. Look at this picture:
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/Bugdozer/world_map_.jpg)
Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

1. I will let my various publications, accolades and credentials in the professional community speak for my knowledge.
2. My staff tells me that this is an interpretation issue. Try this - I have tried to be patient with the participants in this thread. If my point is not coming across correctly please be patient with my English.
3. I am well aware of the "research" performed by persons in these fields. Some promises to be quite adequate. Instead of blindly following a "theory" I choose a scientific, critical approach. I choose to examine all evidence prior to concluding on something so critical as continental shifting.
4. your "proof" is a picture where South America is obviously tilted and twisted. If I turn it upside down and put large floppy ears on it, it is a bunny rabbit [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]. If you are allowed to perform continental gymnastics on one area of the world then you are the one living in "Pangea". Are you seriously presenting this obviously bastardized [interpreters note - does not translate well, perhaps manipulated to fit a specific purpose] picture as "proof" of continental drifting? And you question my intelligence? All I can say is WOW!

My point is that your proof consists of the following:
A) a picture that has obviously been manipulated and does not fit in whole, even in that case.
B) extrapolated measurements of a process that has occurred over a time period of less than 100 years and applying it to billions of years.

I ask you, is this scientific? If you think so then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 11:31:13 AM
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.

I will not even dignify with a response. Ridiculous.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 11:35:12 AM
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.

Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.
"But did YOU measure it? No? Well that's proof that it isn't growing at all!"

Thank you Robert, your post posits an interesting question. I fully rely on independently verifiable data from uninfluenced sources. I am aware that mountains "grow" although I see no correlation between the rising of a mountain and proof that continents dance to other sides of the world and, according to Thermal Detonator, twist and shout [interpreters note - he is referencing the song twist and shout while doing the dance].
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 11:39:10 AM
The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel.

You just fucked up big time. The reason why there is a "disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory" can easily explained by something even you will find hard to deny - it is much, much easier for an organism to fossilize on the sea floor than on land.

Sediment from higher up in the water falls down on the striped carcass, eventually forming a tight pack around the skeleton. As more pressure is applied over thousands of years, the organic material that is left is replaced by inorganic rock. This is what we know of as a fossil.

Out of water, the carcass is open to be completely disintegrated by scavengers and erosion. Also, sediments don't fall from above to encase it.

Of course fossils can also occur in tar pits and frozen in glaciers, but not very many at all due to how perfect the conditions must be.

Robert, I was beginning to have great respect for you until you resorted to the use of obscenities.

Your position on the preservation of fossils is highly speculative and many contradicting pieces of evidence exists.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 11:43:26 AM
2. My staff tells me that this is an interpretation issue. Try this - I have tried to be patient with the participants in this thread. If my point is not coming across correctly please be patient with my English.

No problem with your English at all.  Out of curiosity, what is your field and what country/area of the world?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 11:45:45 AM


I would not agree that it would be easier for a terrestial animal to cross thousands of miles of open water, than for terrestrial endeavors like crossing a river, following a canyon for a narrowing or a mountain range for reduction in height or finding an available mountain pass.

we may have to agree to disagree on this point then. I think the evidence and logic speak for itself. By the way, it's "terrestrial".

 (Objection! Speculation!)

Much unlike the speculation of your "land migration" theory or the theory of "continental drift"? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]

Since a canyon and a river have narrow/shallow points I would point out how you are drawing a false corollary between my example and yours whereby you provide a term, which by it's bounds does not provide a path around.
Had you been paying attention the claim is that the dinosaurs in question, did in fact bring both food and water, as well as "livestock" (herbiverous livestock), which would need it's own unique food source.


Redundant - see previous responses.

4)It is not your theory, you are merely parroting the words prior in this post and dreamt by James, while failing to contribute anything substantial to the argument and have in no way provided any supporting data to further the credibility of the author of the idea that is being discussed.  For your distaste for blindly accepting what has been said, you sure are blindly parroting what has been said.[/b]

I assure you that my conclusions are based on facts in evidence. Yours are based on speculative theory. I challenge you to find an area where I have "parroted" James. Yours is a science of consensus. Mine is a science of evaluation of data.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 11:50:06 AM
2. My staff tells me that this is an interpretation issue. Try this - I have tried to be patient with the participants in this thread. If my point is not coming across correctly please be patient with my English.

No problem with your English at all.  Out of curiosity, what is your field and what country/area of the world?


Thank you for the compliment. I have dedicated many years to the study of linguistics. I work in the field of evolutionary studies in an Argentinian city. My family is originally from Deutschland, or Germany as you may call it. We were forced to move here later in the World War II.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: lawton27 on December 08, 2009, 11:53:31 AM
The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.

Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.
"But did YOU measure it? No? Well that's proof that it isn't growing at all!"

Thank you Robert, your post posits an interesting question. I fully rely on independently verifiable data from uninfluenced sources. I am aware that mountains "grow" although I see no correlation between the rising of a mountain and proof that continents dance to other sides of the world and, according to Thermal Detonator, twist and shout [interpreters note - he is referencing the song twist and shout while doing the dance].

Ever heard of the word sarcasm, Robert was pointing out how that's what allot of flat earth believers respond to facts like that in a sarcastic manor.
It is well established that the Himalayas grow.

Now I shall enlighten you as to why moving continents are related to rising mountains.

By looking at where earthquakes appear most frequently on a map you can see they form distinct lines, these are the boundaries of tectonic plates and earthquakes are caused by the friction and movement between them, mountains at boundaries are where the rock crushes together and forces upwards due to the pressure. By studying the movement of continents with lasers ect we can work out at which boundaries continents are moving towards each other and which apart, this correlates with mountain patterns, where continents move together there is always large mountain chains formed.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 12:08:25 PM
Quote
Ever heard of the word sarcasm, Robert was pointing out how that's what allot of flat earth believers respond to facts like that in a sarcastic manor.
It is well established that the Himalayas grow.

Now I shall enlighten you as to why moving continents are related to rising mountains.

By looking at where earthquakes appear most frequently on a map you can see they form distinct lines, these are the boundaries of tectonic plates and earthquakes are caused by the friction and movement between them, mountains at boundaries are where the rock crushes together and forces upwards due to the pressure. By studying the movement of continents with lasers ect we can work out at which boundaries continents are moving towards each other and which apart, this correlates with mountain patterns, where continents move together there is always large mountain chains formed.

Now that I know you speak for Robert I will consider this in the future. It amuses me that you think you are enlightening me. I have already been through this discussion. It is your interpretation of the data that is at fault. Consensus does not equal fact. Just ask Albert Gore. I am aware of your perceived correlation between rising mountains and continental shifting. Just because the earth is flat does not defeat gases, magma, etc. from rising through areas of least resistance. I have already commented on the fallacy of measuring continental settling over a period of less than 100 years and extrapolating it to a time period exceeding 3 billion years. Please read my previous posts before regurgitating your arguments of consensus.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: lawton27 on December 08, 2009, 12:11:27 PM
The problem is that is is scientifically accepted fact that the moving continents cause mountain chains, ask any top scientist and they will agree and no they are not being paid off by the government to keep it a secret.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 12:20:48 PM


I would not agree that it would be easier for a terrestial animal to cross thousands of miles of open water, than for terrestrial endeavors like crossing a river, following a canyon for a narrowing or a mountain range for reduction in height or finding an available mountain pass.

we may have to agree to disagree on this point then. I think the evidence and logic speak for itself. By the way, it's "terrestrial".

 (Objection! Speculation!)

Much unlike the speculation of your "land migration" theory or the theory of "continental drift"? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]

Since a canyon and a river have narrow/shallow points I would point out how you are drawing a false corollary between my example and yours whereby you provide a term, which by it's bounds does not provide a path around.
Had you been paying attention the claim is that the dinosaurs in question, did in fact bring both food and water, as well as "livestock" (herbiverous livestock), which would need it's own unique food source.


Redundant - see previous responses.

4)It is not your theory, you are merely parroting the words prior in this post and dreamt by James, while failing to contribute anything substantial to the argument and have in no way provided any supporting data to further the credibility of the author of the idea that is being discussed.  For your distaste for blindly accepting what has been said, you sure are blindly parroting what has been said.[/b]

I assure you that my conclusions are based on facts in evidence. Yours are based on speculative theory. I challenge you to find an area where I have "parroted" James. Yours is a science of consensus. Mine is a science of evaluation of data.

Ooof, a little better on the quote dissection please.
Yes, I am aware that it is "terrestrial". It's called a typo

1) The objection, speculation was in reference to your baseless speculation on the dinosaurs "devouring their fallen comrades", whilst your attempt at the same is to discredit a theory which has supporting evidence.  I sincerely hope you are not trying to equate the two.

2) I don't understand your comment of "redundant-see previous responses".  What exactly is redundant about my objection?  There is clearly no evidence to prove a mercantile, ship-building, high seas sailing, farmer society of dinosaurs.


...It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try...  

is a combination of James, Wilmore and John Davis.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 12:21:05 PM
The problem is that is is scientifically accepted fact that the moving continents cause mountain chains, ask any top scientist and they will agree and no they are not being paid off by the government to keep it a secret.

I find it amusing that you insistently state these "top scientists" are not being paid off by the government. Check all of my posts, I have never made such an assertion. Is there something you need to tell us? Why would you suggest this?

In the 1400's it was a scientifically accepted fact that the Earth was flat. Top scientists of the day agreed.

By your logic consensus = conclusive evidence.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: lawton27 on December 08, 2009, 12:28:32 PM
The top scientists of 1400 agreed, fair enough today's top scientists proved them wrong, fair enough but the evidence of today is far more reliable using modern technology, future scientists may prove today's wrong but they wont say the earth is flat as that's already been proven wrong, and they wont disagree with tectonic plates as we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates, take the example of the boxing day tsunami they went underwater and found where the plates had jolted.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 12:42:31 PM
future scientists may prove today's wrong

I think we finally agree on something.

I also think it arrogant to state we have dis-proven top scientists of the 1400's. Perhaps it is they who have found the truth. Until there is unbiased, independently verifiable evidence it is a theory. You probably also believe in a "magical" force that causes us all to be pulled towards the core of the Earth. Now who is naive?

Quote
they wont disagree with tectonic plates as we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates

I find it very arrogant to think they would agree with your consensus.

Also, it is "physically".

Finally, you have physically seen the movements of tectonic plates? This is groundbreaking. Surely you recorded an event this important. This could change my outlook on the entire matter. I have never heard of any such discovery. Would you please post the video? I would be [interpreters note - very excited (does not translate well)] to see this video. Please post your video and Thank You very much. This is ground breaking. Thank you.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 12:50:41 PM
I apologise for introducing "Tim Priest" the forums, I'll try to educate him more about your theories before he posts again.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: lawton27 on December 08, 2009, 12:51:31 PM
http://media.photobucket.com/image/moved%20tectonic%20plates%20underwater%20boxing%20day/anandtech/sonar-photo-sea-bed.jpg

hope that's enough with a little light googleing much more evidence can be found.

Gravity is no magical force it has been explained very well, please don't try and say it hasn't I study Physics the FE's believe in Einsteins E=MC^2, energy and mass are interchangeable, energy travels in straight lines yet it poses wave quality's, this is as it distorts space around it in a wave like manor. Mass also poses this property it distorts space around it and other mass mass therefore is drawn towards it, think of it as two balls on a table cloth held up loosely at all 4 corners moving together, except space is in 3D.

Thus since all mass attracts other mass it clumps together in spherical shapes, the earth is simply a clump of mass.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 01:02:58 PM
http://media.photobucket.com/image/moved%20tectonic%20plates%20underwater%20boxing%20day/anandtech/sonar-photo-sea-bed.jpg

hope that's enough with a little light googleing much more evidence can be found.

Gravity is no magical force it has been explained very well, please don't try and say it hasn't I study Physics the FE's believe in Einsteins E=MC^2, energy and mass are interchangeable, energy travels in straight lines yet it poses wave quality's, this is as it distorts space around it in a wave like manor. Mass also poses this property it distorts space around it and other mass mass therefore is drawn towards it, think of it as two balls on a table cloth held up loosely at all 4 corners moving together, except space is in 3D.

Thus since all mass attracts other mass it clumps together in spherical shapes, the earth is simply a clump of mass.


[Interpreters note - He is very unhappy, upset. You should not have lied about the video.]

Forgive me, I understood that you had a video of tectonic plates moving. What you linked to was hardly that. If this is your level of "evidence" then I invite you to leave. I am aware of the theory of plate tectonics and all of its fallacies. You added one more to that list. I will no longer respond to you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

As for gravity, please do not deviate from the thread. Also, look at the evidence on this website which proves "gravity" is, once again, a misinterpretation of your "data". Goodbye to you.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: lawton27 on December 08, 2009, 01:09:06 PM
Unfortunately gravity is another one of those scientifically accepted facts, unless you are planning on calling Einstein, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century wrong, I believe you are the one that aught to be ashamed.

I don't have a video of plate moving but however it is obvious that's what caused the wave as freak waves don't come from nowhere, there has been activity in that area before and at the time of the disaster there was an earthquake there, coincidence and a magical wave from nowhere? I think not.
The area had been studied before the earthquake and there was no distortion in the ground, after there is several huge cliff faces where the plates moved.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 01:26:24 PM
"I don't have a video of plate moving" current post.

[interpreters note - he will not respond but has instructed me to provide the following]

From your previous post "we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates"

[interpreters note - he also said you misspelled physically. You have lost all credibility with him. You should not have lied about the video.]
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 01:34:33 PM
"I don't have a video of plate moving" current post.

[interpreters note - he will not respond but has instructed me to provide the following]

From your previous post "we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates"

[interpreters note - he also said you misspelled physically. You have lost all credibility with him. You should not have lied about the video.]
I understand that he may not have worded his argument perfectly, but he never said there was a video.

I also understand that we cannot prove to you that tectonic plates move unless we somehow strap you to a chair at a fault line with a couple of markers either side and some sort of way to show their distance, and leave you there for a year until you can see the difference (probably around 1-5 cm). I know you would probably never agree to this  ;D

So no, we can't prove it to you, with your irrationally high standards of evidence which seem to be "It does not happen if I don't see it directly before me".
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 02:20:23 PM

1. I will let my various publications, accolades and credentials in the professional community speak for my knowledge.

None of which you list here. Following your logic and those of the zetetics, if I can't see them, they don't exist. Next:

Quote
4. your "proof" is a picture where South America is obviously tilted and twisted. If I turn it upside down and put large floppy ears on it, it is a bunny rabbit [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]. If you are allowed to perform continental gymnastics on one area of the world then you are the one living in "Pangea". Are you seriously presenting this obviously bastardized [interpreters note - does not translate well, perhaps manipulated to fit a specific purpose] picture as "proof" of continental drifting? And you question my intelligence? All I can say is WOW!

Well yes, of course it's tilted and twisted - that's continental drift - it moves continents. They all shift about. How am I supposed to show you an approximation of what the continents would have looked like before drifting without manipulating the picture? I never questioned your intelligence before, merely your absence of geology knowledge, but if you can't see why I had to manipulate a picture to make that image, you are lacking in intelligence. I notice you don't refute the astonishingly close fit of the coastlines.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 02:21:24 PM

So no, we can't prove it to you, with your irrationally high standards of evidence which seem to be "It does not happen if I don't see it directly before me".

That is, after all, the true zetetic way  ;)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:25:20 PM
"I don't have a video of plate moving" current post.

[interpreters note - he will not respond but has instructed me to provide the following]

From your previous post "we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates"

[interpreters note - he also said you misspelled physically. You have lost all credibility with him. You should not have lied about the video.]
I understand that he may not have worded his argument perfectly, but he never said there was a video.

I also understand that we cannot prove to you that tectonic plates move unless we somehow strap you to a chair at a fault line with a couple of markers either side and some sort of way to show their distance, and leave you there for a year until you can see the difference (probably around 1-5 cm). I know you would probably never agree to this  ;D

So no, we can't prove it to you, with your irrationally high standards of evidence which seem to be "It does not happen if I don't see it directly before me".

I wish to clarify something. I do believe tectonic plates move. I just do not believe they walk across the Earth, twisting and turning. I believe the Earth "settles" much like the concrete foundation of a house.

Let me ask you this. You have data that measures movement of continental plates. This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years? Is it possible that you are only seeing one aspect of the Earth settling? You cannot know this with the data currently available. I think the standard of evidence I have set is quite reasonable. Perhaps your standard is too low.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:31:38 PM

1) The objection, speculation was in reference to your baseless speculation on the dinosaurs "devouring their fallen comrades", whilst your attempt at the same is to discredit a theory which has supporting evidence.  I sincerely hope you are not trying to equate the two.

We have discussed this before. Redundant.

2) I don't understand your comment of "redundant-see previous responses".  What exactly is redundant about my objection?  There is clearly no evidence to prove a mercantile, ship-building, high seas sailing, farmer society of dinosaurs.

See above comment. Some bird species build vessels that float yet you do not assign them a market place, tool using, sailing, agrarian society. Why do you propose this is true for dinosaurs?

...It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try...  

is a combination of James, Wilmore and John Davis.
[/quote]

So says you... My ideas are rooted in facts and evidence, not the opinions of others. I noticed you said they were a combination of ..... but you failed to quote any of them. You cannot argue with facts.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:33:39 PM
This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years?
That's a reasonable point, actually. But continental drift is our only rational way of explaining how certain parts of the evolutionary tree split at certain points in history, with some animals being isolated from their ancestors in Australia for example. Its also our only way to explain the extremely similar geology of coasts which would have been connected if our backward extrapolation of continental drift is correct.

I'm happy to believe in this theory until a better one arises. As far as I am concerned, continental drift is fact. Maybe my standards are too low, but then if most of the geological community has standards this low it doesn't affect me much.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:34:40 PM
Quote

Well yes, of course it's tilted and twisted - that's continental drift - it moves continents. They all shift about. How am I supposed to show you an approximation of what the continents would have looked like before drifting without manipulating the picture? I never questioned your intelligence before, merely your absence of geology knowledge, but if you can't see why I had to manipulate a picture to make that image, you are lacking in intelligence. I notice you don't refute the astonishingly close fit of the coastlines.

So it is acceptable for you to manipulate a picture and call it evidence. Interesting science. I will use this as an object lesson.

To all:

Be it known that RE'rs favor the manipulation of evidence to support their theory.

How can anyone take you seriously from this point forward. You have failed as a scientist.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:37:42 PM
This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years?
But continental drift is our only rational way of explaining how certain parts of the evolutionary tree split at certain points in history

To all:

It has been stated here that RE'rs have accepted the theory of "continental drift" because it supports their assumption of evolution.

This does not appear to be science, it appears to be a religion.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:38:53 PM
Quote

Well yes, of course it's tilted and twisted - that's continental drift - it moves continents. They all shift about. How am I supposed to show you an approximation of what the continents would have looked like before drifting without manipulating the picture? I never questioned your intelligence before, merely your absence of geology knowledge, but if you can't see why I had to manipulate a picture to make that image, you are lacking in intelligence. I notice you don't refute the astonishingly close fit of the coastlines.

So it is acceptable for you to manipulate a picture and call it evidence. Interesting science. I will use this as an object lesson.

To all:

Be it known that RE'rs favor the manipulation of evidence to support their theory.

How can anyone take you seriously from this point forward. You have failed as a scientist.

Now hold on, that is a little bit unreasonable. This should be a fair discussion, why are you putting words in his mouth and insulting him for trying to illustrate a point to you? All he was doing was showing that the coasts of south america and africa tessellate well, with just rotation and translation. He did not edit the coastline at all.

To me, (and probably to many who read your posts) it just looks like you are clutching at straws, nitpicking at whatever you can just to try and gain some ground in the debate. It isn't working.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:39:01 PM
This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years?
But continental drift is our only rational way of explaining how certain parts of the evolutionary tree split at certain points in history

To all:

It has been stated here that RE'rs have accepted the theory of "continental drift" because it supports their assumption of evolution.

This does not appear to be science, it appears to be a religion.

To Robert64 and Thermal Detonator: checkmate to your "theories" I will be visiting another thread now. I consider this matter closed.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:40:21 PM
This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years?
But continental drift is our only rational way of explaining how certain parts of the evolutionary tree split at certain points in history

To all:

It has been stated here that RE'rs have accepted the theory of "continental drift" because it supports their assumption of evolution.

This does not appear to be science, it appears to be a religion.

Are you not aware of what science is? Trying to create accurate models of the way the universe works based on evidence and experimentation. I'm not sure where "religion" came from. And shall we argue about evolution now?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:41:25 PM
This data covers a period of less than 100 years. Is it logical to extrapolate that movement to a period in excess of three billion years?
But continental drift is our only rational way of explaining how certain parts of the evolutionary tree split at certain points in history

To all:

It has been stated here that RE'rs have accepted the theory of "continental drift" because it supports their assumption of evolution.

This does not appear to be science, it appears to be a religion.

To Robert64 and Thermal Detonator: checkmate to your "theories" I will be visiting another thread now. I consider this matter closed.
Thank you for admitting that you have exhausted your arguments, and admit defeat. Unless you want to continue the discussion.. Then yes, the matter is closed.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 02:49:42 PM
Quote

Well yes, of course it's tilted and twisted - that's continental drift - it moves continents. They all shift about. How am I supposed to show you an approximation of what the continents would have looked like before drifting without manipulating the picture? I never questioned your intelligence before, merely your absence of geology knowledge, but if you can't see why I had to manipulate a picture to make that image, you are lacking in intelligence. I notice you don't refute the astonishingly close fit of the coastlines.

So it is acceptable for you to manipulate a picture and call it evidence. Interesting science. I will use this as an object lesson.

To all:

Be it known that RE'rs favor the manipulation of evidence to support their theory.

How can anyone take you seriously from this point forward. You have failed as a scientist.

I can't believe he's so stupid. Dummkopf.
Don't let his ignorance affect you, he is just trying to defend his "reputation". Although what really does bother me is no one realises that if they just admit they are wrong, they gain a darn sight more respect than they do from being childish and saying things like "I am done arguing with you incompetent fools etc etc".

Just rise above it.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:06:26 PM
Quote

Well yes, of course it's tilted and twisted - that's continental drift - it moves continents. They all shift about. How am I supposed to show you an approximation of what the continents would have looked like before drifting without manipulating the picture? I never questioned your intelligence before, merely your absence of geology knowledge, but if you can't see why I had to manipulate a picture to make that image, you are lacking in intelligence. I notice you don't refute the astonishingly close fit of the coastlines.

So it is acceptable for you to manipulate a picture and call it evidence. Interesting science. I will use this as an object lesson.

To all:

Be it known that RE'rs favor the manipulation of evidence to support their theory.

How can anyone take you seriously from this point forward. You have failed as a scientist.

I can't believe he's so stupid. Dummkopf.
Don't let his ignorance affect you, he is just trying to defend his "reputation". Although what really does bother me is no one realises that if they just admit they are wrong, they gain a darn sight more respect than they do from being childish and saying things like "I am done arguing with you incompetent fools etc etc".

Just rise above it.

Gentlemen or ladies,

You both admitted to manipulating evidence to support your theories and I am the bad person? Then you resort to name calling? I think any objective person reading this thread would see that I am the only FE'r here taking your abuse. Your attempts to "gang-up" on me and ridicule me is far from science.

I will remain but please refrain from your abuse and hatred. It does nothing to support your views.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:33:38 PM
Quote

You state that the world is flat as fact. It is not. You claim to be good at evaluating data. EVALUATE THIS, BITCH:

1. Go outside.
2. Look at the horizon.
3. On a clear day, the only thing your sight is limited by is the horizon.
4. There are two possible explanations;
      - The world stops at that point, thus meaning there is nothing beyond the horizon. You yourself said your family originates from Germany, that would not be possible if the world                          just "stopped" at the horizon.
      - The earth is round, and 100% of all sane people are correct. I'm not stating you are insane here (although it is highly likely) but merely that the amount of delinquents on this forum in comparison to the rest of the world is not worth noting.

Now this is scientific.

"Evaluate this BITCH" my interpreter tells me this is an obscenity. How very professional of you. He tells me it refers to a female dog. Really? How does my data evaluation techniques relate to a female dog. I will dismiss this as ignorance on your part.

In your own words - "100% of all sane people are correct." Really? Then why are there disagreements? Who decides who is insane? You? This is a ridiculous statement which only embarrasses you.

"There are two possible explanations"

I would like to invite you to consider a third explanation:
 - the world extends beyond your line of sight but it is flat.
   
"You yourself said your family originates from Germany, that would not be possible if the world just "stopped" at the horizon." - It would be possible if the world were flat and extended beyond your sight. Obviously you have never heard of preparing for a discussion. There are many resources on this web site to assist you in doing so.

"I'm not stating you are insane here (although it is highly likely) but merely that the amount of delinquents on this forum in comparison to the rest of the world is not worth noting."

I have presented my arguments based on facts rooted in evidence. Your response was simply - "You are stupid." Well put Tim Priest, well put indeed. If this is your method of rebuttal then I suggest you return to the ladies study area.

Now I see where Robert64's anger comes from. Birds of a feather flock together, is that how you say it Robert64?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 03:48:49 PM
Overall you have come across as rather obnoxious adolf, and your manner of speaking irritated me, I must admit. I realize it may have just been because english is not your first language, in which case I apologise (I praise your ability to speak so fluently - I am only fluent in english and english alone).

But the main thing that I take exception to is you calling us unscientific, by imagining that just by trying to illustrate a point we are manipulating evidence.

This is exactly analogous to your claim: I have two jigsaw puzzles separated from eachother on a surface. I make the supposition "These two pieces will fit together", so I pick one up, rotate it slightly and slot it cleanly onto the tooth of the other piece. At this point you cry, "Cheat! You rotated that jigsaw piece, just to make it fit! I could get any old piece, cut off the corners, add on bits of card and make it fit anywhere."

Do you see my problem?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:50:57 PM
You both admitted to manipulating evidence to support your theories and I am the bad person?

No one admitted such a thing. You just pretended it happened.

Now read this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift#Evidence_basis_for_continental_drift

Then you resort to name calling?

You resorted to name calling long ago. Don't think it went unnoticed.

You cannot provide one instance where I resorted to name-calling. This is absolutely false.

Their admission of manipulation of data is in their writing so I will let the readers decide who is correct.

I have read your articles and surprise [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic], they stated what your scientific community has always said. [interpreters note - he is becoming increasingly angered by repeating this] We can measure the movement of continents. I will repeat again, I never said the continents did not move. I refer you to my previous posts.

Also, see my remarks on the extrapolation of the measurement data.

Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 04:03:24 PM
Overall you have come across as rather obnoxious adolf, and your manner of speaking irritated me, I must admit. I realize it may have just been because english is not your first language, in which case I apologise (I praise your ability to speak so fluently - I am only fluent in english and english alone).

But the main thing that I take exception to is you calling us unscientific, by imagining that just by trying to illustrate a point we are manipulating evidence.

This is exactly analogous to your claim: I have two jigsaw puzzles separated from eachother on a surface. I make the supposition "These two pieces will fit together", so I pick one up, rotate it slightly and slot it cleanly onto the tooth of the other piece. At this point you cry, "Cheat! You rotated that jigsaw piece, just to make it fit! I could get any old piece, cut off the corners, add on bits of card and make it fit anywhere."

Do you see my problem?

Robert64, I have had a brief discussion with my interpreter and we are trying to come up with a better way to express our thoughts. In no way do I wish to convey a spirit of irritability. I will state that I believe it is not scientific to assume an action to support a theory. Your example of the jigsaw puzzle is relevant to a point. However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together. [interpreters note - Dr. Einholm is an arrogant, pompous ass. Please do not include this in your responses].
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 08, 2009, 04:09:18 PM
You cannot provide one instance where I resorted to name-calling. This is absolutely false.

Orly?

To "Lice Farm"...

I will repeat again, I never said the continents did not move.

So it's possible dinosaurs fossils got where they are by continental drift and not by dino galleons?

Cool.

/thread.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: JBJosh on December 08, 2009, 04:12:12 PM
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 04:35:28 PM

1) The objection, speculation was in reference to your baseless speculation on the dinosaurs "devouring their fallen comrades", whilst your attempt at the same is to discredit a theory which has supporting evidence.  I sincerely hope you are not trying to equate the two.

We have discussed this before. Redundant.

2) I don't understand your comment of "redundant-see previous responses".  What exactly is redundant about my objection?  There is clearly no evidence to prove a mercantile, ship-building, high seas sailing, farmer society of dinosaurs.

See above comment. Some bird species build vessels that float yet you do not assign them a market place, tool using, sailing, agrarian society. Why do you propose this is true for dinosaurs?

...It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try...  

is a combination of James, Wilmore and John Davis.

So says you... My ideas are rooted in facts and evidence, not the opinions of others. I noticed you said they were a combination of ..... but you failed to quote any of them. You cannot argue with facts.
[/quote]

1)You provide something without backing as support for your view and you deem my criticism redundant somehow?
2)Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the proposal under consideration, that you somehow missed.  
Secondly, how many of those birds use the nests for oceanic travel?
3)I refuse to search the senseless dribble.

You keep stating your ideas are rooted in fact, though you have yet to provide them, nor your various publications, accolades and credentials in the professional community.  Keep beefing up your stance like that and Tom Bishop may let you into his college.

Stop accusing TD of "manipulating data", he was illustrating the alignment of Africa and SA, which would be difficult to do without moving them from their current position.

On the plus side you have the zetetic method nailed perfectly.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 06:26:41 PM
Thankyou for your support, IAS. If Adolf is too dimwitted to understand that the only way to show how Africa and South America would fit together is to cut and paste them next to each other, that tells me all I need to know about him, however hard he tries to hide behind his language excuse. I don't give a ha'penny jizz what he thinks.

Also Adolf - why are you still here? I thought you were done with this thread. Shoo.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 09, 2009, 04:59:35 AM
I also think it arrogant to state we have dis-proven top scientists of the 1400's. Perhaps it is they who have found the truth. Until there is unbiased, independently verifiable evidence it is a theory.
This is either hilarious or incredibly sad: an evolutionary scientist who has published his works and has assistants does not know the Scientific Method that is taught to children like my 8 year old second grader.

For your information, the truth and proofs are the realm of philosophers and mathematicians, not scientists. The end product of modern science is the theory and that is why Einstein's models are called theories, not laws. The phrase "it is just a theory" only comes from non-scientists that never cared to learn what "theory" means in science.

Every scientific theory is only right within a given range of conditions and a given margin of error. We can find that theories and hypothesis are wrong, but in most cases we just find overwhelming evidence that another theory is better. But we can find hypothesis that are simply wrong, like the one that attributed cholera and typhus to bad smells, and fifteenth century scientists had a lot of hypothesis that were completely wrong.

If you really are a scientist, do yourself a favor and learn the scientific method.

And if you really are an Evolutionary scientist, you must have a lot of bibliography that supports your views, not just Wikipedia. For a man that does not even quote the bibliography mentioned in Wikipedia (just the Wikipedia articles), you sure make a lot of claims about your scientific credentials.

You probably also believe in a "magical" force that causes us all to be pulled towards the core of the Earth. Now who is naive?
As if you hadn't shown your illiteracy in science already, you give us another example of your poor understanding of the subject. Whether "magical" or not, every force of nature is a force exerted from a distance, towards or away from the center of something. Science is not concerned with your interpretation of "magical", it is concerned with models and theories. Do you have a theory supported by a model and the corresponding evidence, about dinosaurs, gravitation or any other subject, or are you just mad at scientists in general?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on December 09, 2009, 05:21:23 AM
Thankyou for your support, IAS. If Adolf is too dimwitted to understand that the only way to show how Africa and South America would fit together is to cut and paste them next to each other, that tells me all I need to know about him, however hard he tries to hide behind his language excuse. I don't give a ha'penny jizz what he thinks.

Also Adolf - why are you still here? I thought you were done with this thread. Shoo.


I've always thought east Asia and western Europe would slot together quite nicely, and that Australia would slot sideways into the west coast of America or upside down into the bottom of Africa without too much fuss. Greenland would probably fit into the west coast of America too.


Conclusion: playing jigsaw with the Earth proves nothing.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 05:40:29 AM
Thankyou for your support, IAS. If Adolf is too dimwitted to understand that the only way to show how Africa and South America would fit together is to cut and paste them next to each other, that tells me all I need to know about him, however hard he tries to hide behind his language excuse. I don't give a ha'penny jizz what he thinks.

Also Adolf - why are you still here? I thought you were done with this thread. Shoo.


I've always thought east Asia and western Europe would slot together quite nicely, and that Australia would slot sideways into the west coast of America or upside down into the bottom of Africa without too much fuss. Greenland would probably fit into the west coast of America too.


Conclusion: playing jigsaw with the Earth proves nothing.

Conclusion: portraying one piece of of a larger body of evidence as the entirety of the evidence by mistakenly trying to show its fallacy in instances where it would be the sole piece of evidence proves nothing.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 09, 2009, 06:34:52 AM
Thankyou for your support, IAS. If Adolf is too dimwitted to understand that the only way to show how Africa and South America would fit together is to cut and paste them next to each other, that tells me all I need to know about him, however hard he tries to hide behind his language excuse. I don't give a ha'penny jizz what he thinks.

Also Adolf - why are you still here? I thought you were done with this thread. Shoo.


I've always thought east Asia and western Europe would slot together quite nicely, and that Australia would slot sideways into the west coast of America or upside down into the bottom of Africa without too much fuss. Greenland would probably fit into the west coast of America too.


Conclusion: playing jigsaw with the Earth proves nothing.
One piece of evidence, by itself, does not mean much. But the added evidence from these 40 or so years since the idea of continental drift appeared has to be seen in concert, and the scientific consensus on the existence of continental drift and the displacement of continents through thousands of kilometers is overwhelming.

You can also interpret the appearance of one species of dinosaur on two continents as evidence of an intelligent migrating being and its livestock, whether that intelligent being is a dinosaur, Atlantian, extraterrestrial, time traveler or whatever your imagination can come up with.

But the accumulated evidence of fossils and geological strata, seen as a whole, supports the theory of continental drift and the evolution of dinosaurs and other animals in every continent as scientists claim.

A small and incomplete list of the evidence found follows:
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:14:12 AM
You cannot provide one instance where I resorted to name-calling. This is absolutely false.

Orly?

To "Lice Farm"...

I will repeat again, I never said the continents did not move.

So it's possible dinosaurs fossils got where they are by continental drift and not by dino galleons?

Cool.

/thread.

You failed to finish reading my post.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:15:48 AM
Thankyou for your support, IAS. If Adolf is too dimwitted to understand that the only way to show how Africa and South America would fit together is to cut and paste them next to each other, that tells me all I need to know about him, however hard he tries to hide behind his language excuse. I don't give a ha'penny jizz what he thinks.

Also Adolf - why are you still here? I thought you were done with this thread. Shoo.

Do you all find it amusing to gang up on the FE'rs? Does this further validate your "science"
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:18:29 AM
Quote
If you really are a scientist, do yourself a favor and learn the scientific method.

The scientific method is based on observation and repeatable results. Your "science" takes measurements of less than 100 years and extrapolates it to a period exceeding three billion years. Is this science?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:30:31 AM
Quote
A small and incomplete list of the evidence found follows:
    1)
    • The borders of the tectonic plates are where the CD theory predicts, and the seismic, volcanic and mountain creation places confirm it.
    2)
    • The geological strata found near the Atlantic Rift confirms that the continental drift has occurred for many millions of years.
    3)
    • The coincidences in rocks found in different continents is not just a coincidence of individual rocks, but of whole sections of geological strata. While a few rocks could be coincidentally created with the same composition in two far away locations, the whole strata cannot.
    4)
    • The fossil record shows how populations of many species are separated by new geographic barriers and evolve in different ways, eventually becoming separate species. This is an ongoing process that has been extensively documented and explains how similar, but almost always different species of dinosaurs are found in every continent.
    5)
    • Analysis of the size of the brains of different animals has been, in general, a very good predictor of the intelligence of different living animals, so it is very reasonable to use it for dinosaurs, and according to this there have been no dinosaurs of an intelligence comparable to ours. More important, there have been no dinosaurs that lived through all the Mesozoic and were intelligent enough to make boats and carry livestock. Maybe one species that has been found had the potential to eventually become the intelligent dinosaur of James' speculation, but it only lived at the very end of the Cretaceous, not all through the Mesozoic. And it had the potential, not the demonstrated ability, to someday become James' creature.
    6)
    • There has not been one single finding of any objects made by intelligent beings apart from human beings in the whole history of paleontology. Not even one stone carved to be used as a tool, or to be used as housing, or anything else. Even dinosaur excrement has been found but no intelligently made things. If you are going to attribute the migration of all the dinosaurs, flora and fauna to them, you could reasonably expect them to have done some tools, at least.
    7)
    • The only alternate "theory" is yours, and you yourself (the four or so in this forum) start from the idea that continental drift is a myth, so the scientific validity of your speculation is nipped at the bud already.
1) Activity along the plates does not confirm drifting.
2) Says who?
3) The evidence suggests otherwise. What about the strata in Iceland being almost identical to strata located in Australia?
4) I assume you observed this? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic] There are many other theories that use the same evidence you use but reach different conclusions.
5) It is not the size that matters, but how you use it.
6) Why would you expect this?
7) The myth of continental drift is widely discredited by objective scientists around the world. Just because you cannot see them does not mean they do not exist. If you think there are only four of us, you are sadly mistaken.

I am noticing a pattern here.
1) gang up on the FE'rs
2) present one or two pieces of "evidence"
3) evidence is either based on a false conclusion, preconception or manipulation (admittedly)
4) resort to name-calling
5) repeat beginning at step 2.

Perhaps calling me names will further your "science"
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:33:19 AM
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 08:48:13 AM
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:55:22 AM
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 09:02:42 AM
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 09:10:58 AM
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.


Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 09:17:51 AM
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.
Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 10:30:12 AM
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.


Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?

Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:47:03 AM
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.
Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.

You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:49:54 AM
However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.
I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.
A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.


Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?

Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Skeleton on December 09, 2009, 10:58:48 AM

I've always thought east Asia and western Europe would slot together quite nicely, and that Australia would slot sideways into the west coast of America or upside down into the bottom of Africa without too much fuss. Greenland would probably fit into the west coast of America too.


Conclusion: playing jigsaw with the Earth proves nothing.

Come on then Wilmore, lets see some pictures of this and see if they fit as well as South America and Africa?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 11:21:55 AM
Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 11:49:20 AM
Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.

I was simply illustrating the faulty logic used by JBJosh. 

If dinosaurs never traversed the ocean then their fossil record in said oceans would not exist. This is not the case. Much like ants form a boat made out of their own bodies, the fossil record suggests that dinosaurs did this as well. This negates the need for bringing livestock as they ate their fallen friends.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 09, 2009, 01:09:35 PM
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.

They won't frown on him, he's on the flat side.  :P
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 01:21:06 PM
Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.

I was simply illustrating the faulty logic used by JBJosh. 

If dinosaurs never traversed the ocean then their fossil record in said oceans would not exist. This is not the case. Much like ants form a boat made out of their own bodies, the fossil record suggests that dinosaurs did this as well. This negates the need for bringing livestock as they ate their fallen friends.

Lets see:
1)Dinosaurs aren't ants.
2) Which ants cross the ocean intentionally on these rafts and which cling together for survival?
3) Which ants eat the others as sustenance on their ocean journey?
4) The fossil record suggests a certain distribution of fossils. You are inferring a dino-tilla as the vehicle for this distribution-sans fact.
5) You never provided the species of bird that crossed the ocean in their nest puprose built for travel.
6) You must have not read up on James' theory that we have been debating prior to your arrival.
7) You are close to an ocean(allegedly), why don't you try lashing together 10 or so dead cows and set sail for the land down under and see how far that raft takes you before it gets eaten.
Hint:
(http://www.riverandreef.com/articlelive/content_images/1/newspics/sharkbitten.jpg)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 01:35:55 PM
Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".
I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.

I was simply illustrating the faulty logic used by JBJosh. 

If dinosaurs never traversed the ocean then their fossil record in said oceans would not exist. This is not the case. Much like ants form a boat made out of their own bodies, the fossil record suggests that dinosaurs did this as well. This negates the need for bringing livestock as they ate their fallen friends.

Lets see:
1)Dinosaurs aren't ants.
2) Which ants cross the ocean intentionally on these rafts and which cling together for survival?
3) Which ants eat the others as sustenance on their ocean journey?
4) The fossil record suggests a certain distribution of fossils. You are inferring a dino-tilla as the vehicle for this distribution-sans fact.
5) You never provided the species of bird that crossed the ocean in their nest puprose built for travel.
6) You must have not read up on James' theory that we have been debating prior to your arrival.
7) You are close to an ocean(allegedly), why don't you try lashing together 10 or so dead cows and set sail for the land down under and see how far that raft takes you before it gets eaten.
Hint:
(http://www.riverandreef.com/articlelive/content_images/1/newspics/sharkbitten.jpg)


1) Excellent observation.
2) Why don't you ask one.
3) See 2) above.
4) Is is common knowledge that dinosaur fossils are highly concentrated in sub-oceanic waters.
5) (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et)
6) I speak for myself. I am not a parrot.
7) Dinosaurs were not prey, their meat was not preferred.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 09, 2009, 01:37:56 PM
Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 01:39:25 PM
The image for 5) was not uploaded previously. I will try again.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 01:40:06 PM
Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 09, 2009, 01:40:47 PM
1) Activity along the plates does not confirm drifting.
2) Says who?
3) The evidence suggests otherwise. What about the strata in Iceland being almost identical to strata located in Australia?
4) I assume you observed this? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic] There are many other theories that use the same evidence you use but reach different conclusions.
5) It is not the size that matters, but how you use it.
6) Why would you expect this?
7) The myth of continental drift is widely discredited by objective scientists around the world. Just because you cannot see them does not mean they do not exist. If you think there are only four of us, you are sadly mistaken.

We are still waiting for you to show us some research that is not just a quick browse in Wikipedia. You are saying all the time that there are "many other theories", theories that are "widely discredited by objective scientists", "many other theories that use the same evidence", and so on. Where are those objective scientists? What are their names? What other theories are there that discredit continental drifting? (the kind we all know about, that is, with continents moving thousands of kilometers, that is).

While many details about the exact way continental drifting occurs are hotly debated, I know of just a handful of "scientists" that reject continental drifting altogether: James, Adolf and Wilmore. Where are the rest? You say there are many other theories. What are they?

Just so you start reading real science, try this article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383776/abstract (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383776/abstract). Like so many others, it explains how the geomagnetic reversals show how the continental drifting has occurred for millenia. If your speculation were true, you would not be able to find a continuous geological record of the creation of land close to the main geological hotspots ranging eons.

And, yes, you can see how (just as an example) several species of bipedal carnivores, all similar to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, appear in every continent, with the possible exception of Antarctica. By comparing the different anatomical differences and dating of strata where the fossils were found we can see how they all came from common ancestors. But of course, you know this since you work in Evolutionary studies and therefore have read extensively about the subject. Or... have you?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:16:51 PM
1) Activity along the plates does not confirm drifting.
2) Says who?
3) The evidence suggests otherwise. What about the strata in Iceland being almost identical to strata located in Australia?
4) I assume you observed this? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic] There are many other theories that use the same evidence you use but reach different conclusions.
5) It is not the size that matters, but how you use it.
6) Why would you expect this?
7) The myth of continental drift is widely discredited by objective scientists around the world. Just because you cannot see them does not mean they do not exist. If you think there are only four of us, you are sadly mistaken.

We are still waiting for you to show us some research that is not just a quick browse in Wikipedia. You are saying all the time that there are "many other theories", theories that are "widely discredited by objective scientists", "many other theories that use the same evidence", and so on. Where are those objective scientists? What are their names? What other theories are there that discredit continental drifting? (the kind we all know about, that is, with continents moving thousands of kilometers, that is).

While many details about the exact way continental drifting occurs are hotly debated, I know of just a handful of "scientists" that reject continental drifting altogether: James, Adolf and Wilmore. Where are the rest? You say there are many other theories. What are they?

Just so you start reading real science, try this article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383776/abstract (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383776/abstract). Like so many others, it explains how the geomagnetic reversals show how the continental drifting has occurred for millenia. If your speculation were true, you would not be able to find a continuous geological record of the creation of land close to the main geological hotspots ranging eons.

And, yes, you can see how (just as an example) several species of bipedal carnivores, all similar to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, appear in every continent, with the possible exception of Antarctica. By comparing the different anatomical differences and dating of strata where the fossils were found we can see how they all came from common ancestors. But of course, you know this since you work in Evolutionary studies and therefore have read extensively about the subject. Or... have you?


I assure you that none of my research is from "Wikipedia".

Opponents of continental drift include the reputable J. D. Dana, Scheidigger, V.V. Beloussov, Steven Dutch...how many do you require? The primary theories are that the continents have always been stationary or, the theory to which I ascribe, "settle" in the Earth.

I read you article, very amusing but full of errors and admitted unavailability of data. Then I recognized the author, William Lowrie. William Lowrie makes his living from EarthRef.org. Don't you think his "research" is a little biased?

Of course I am aware that several dinosaur species share common ancestors and are also located around the world. Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: lawton27 on December 09, 2009, 02:19:03 PM
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 02:27:51 PM
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:29:44 PM
I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:31:10 PM
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: lawton27 on December 09, 2009, 02:35:10 PM
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]

I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:45:18 PM
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]

I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: lawton27 on December 09, 2009, 02:47:00 PM
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]

I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]

The word 'saw' does not mean there is a video of it, if I had used the word 'filmed' then the meaning would be totally different.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:50:11 PM
Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]

I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]

The word 'saw' does not mean there is a video of it, if I had used the word 'filmed' then the meaning would be totally different.

[interpreters note - I will discuss this with him and tell him it may have been an interpretation issue.]
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 03:01:20 PM


Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.
[/quote]

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]
[/quote]

I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.



[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]
[/quote]

The word 'saw' does not mean there is a video of it, if I had used the word 'filmed' then the meaning would be totally different.
[/quote]

[interpreters note - I will discuss this with him and tell him it may have been an interpretation issue.]
[/quote]

[Interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will converse with you provided you not state that you possess video evidence of continental movement. He is about to leave for a speaking engagement now and will entertain your questions tomorrow. Just a note, he will not read anything you post prior to tomorrow morning. (This is the first time in three years I have witnessed the Doctor recant his position. I am so confused. This is not like him at all.)]
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 03:05:26 PM
You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

I'm not sure what you're argument is now.

If there's something moving the continents then when and where did this movement start?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 03:07:29 PM


[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]

[note to interpreter]  How do you interpret for him if he speaks German and you speak only Spanish and English?
Also, since the good doctor is so keen to point things out; your note, as it belongs to you, is possessive and requires an apostrophe.

Does Bishop have the patience for an alt like this?  Saddam maybe (haven't been around long enough to know one when I see one).
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 03:19:25 PM
You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

I'm not sure what you're argument is now.

If there's something moving the continents then when and where did this movement start?

I have already addressed this within the thread. See previous posts.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 03:25:56 PM


[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]

[note to interpreter]  How do you interpret for him if he speaks German and you speak only Spanish and English?
Also, since the good doctor is so keen to point things out; your note, as it belongs to you, is possessive and requires an apostrophe.

Does Bishop have the patience for an alt like this?  Saddam maybe (haven't been around long enough to know one when I see one).

[Interpreters note - The Doctor just left for a speaking engagement. He speaks limited English, which requires my assistance, Spanish, German and Hindi. The Doctor is very diligent in his linguistic studies. He finds it to be an educational exercise to analyze mistakes used. He says he uses them to learn. I suspect he is an ass in any language. I see you using the word "alt". I am not familiar with this and have not interpreted it to the Doctor. What does it mean? Also, please do not reply with my notes in your response. I would hate to be on the receiving end of the Doctors wrath. He is very respected in my city.]
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 03:30:34 PM
If there's something moving the continents then when and where did this movement start?

I have already addressed this within the thread. See previous posts.

No you haven't. All you've posted is a lot of refuting and a lot of interpreters notes.

And this:

I do believe tectonic plates move. I just do not believe they walk across the Earth, twisting and turning.

No scientist believes the plates "walk" or "dance" so lets ditch that descriptive.

But you've not explained the when, where or why. The reason I ask is that it would be very peculiar indeed if the earth started shifting as soon as we started measuring for shift, which is why you seem to be arguing.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 03:35:55 PM
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.

You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.
I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: James on December 09, 2009, 03:56:18 PM
"Vielen dank" to Dr Einholm for holding down the fort here, I'm glad the regulars are not the only academics who are prepared to challenge and refute the ridiculous Pangea hypothesis. Welcome to the fold, doctor.


And, yes, you can see how (just as an example) several species of bipedal carnivores, all similar to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, appear in every continent, with the possible exception of Antarctica. By comparing the different anatomical differences and dating of strata where the fossils were found we can see how they all came from common ancestors. But of course, you know this since you work in Evolutionary studies and therefore have read extensively about the subject. Or... have you?

The word you're looking for is "theropod", but you're excused - it is unreasonable to expect scientific laypersons to employ the correct nomenclature all of the time. Now, I know for a fact that most species of theropod were confined to very specific geographical areas, consistent with seperated continents and some sea-travel. Tyrannosauroidea, one clade of theropods (those most similar to the Tyrannosaurus - perhaps you specifically meant these?) were confined to North America and East Asia, much like the Dromaeosauridae (the family which we have already examined in this thread).

Your refusal to use proper terminology makes it difficult to ascertain exactly what you are trying to say, but it seems you think that either the Tyrannosauridae specifically were ubiquitous (they were not), or that some other family of theropod was (I cannot think of one with the worldwide coverage you're suggesting).

Now, if you'd like to point me to a specific species of theropod which has the ubiquity you claim it to have, I will gladly examine the evidence surrounding it. As it stands, you seem to be rather out of your depth. You ought to do some serious reading on the fossil distributions of theropods before you go making wild unsubstantiated claims about them.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 04:03:26 PM
"Vielen dank" to Dr Einholm for holding down the fort here, I'm glad the regulars are not the only academics who are prepared to challenge and refute the ridiculous Pangea hypothesis. Welcome to the fold, doctor.

Yes. It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!

Welcome "Dr Einholm".
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 09, 2009, 04:24:31 PM
Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.

I would imagine a shark would quite happily attack a baby icthyosaur or plesiosaur.

Are we really supposed to believe "Dr Einholm" and his interpreter who can't speak German are real people and not the same fifteen year old having a laugh? Well, James believes it so automatically I am suspicious.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 07:05:25 PM
Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.

I would imagine a shark would quite happily attack a baby icthyosaur or plesiosaur.

Are we really supposed to believe "Dr Einholm" and his interpreter who can't speak German are real people and not the same fifteen year old having a laugh? Well, James believes it so automatically I am suspicious.

Or, it is James.  I asked a mod if the IP address matched the location of Argentina given, but got stonewalled- as I expected though.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 07:15:59 PM

[Interpreters note - The Doctor just left for a speaking engagement. He speaks limited English, which requires my assistance, Spanish, German and Hindi. The Doctor is very diligent in his linguistic studies. He finds it to be an educational exercise to analyze mistakes used. He says he uses them to learn. I suspect he is an ass in any language. I see you using the word "alt". I am not familiar with this and have not interpreted it to the Doctor. What does it mean? Also, please do not reply with my notes in your response. I would hate to be on the receiving end of the Doctors wrath. He is very respected in my city.]

Why not just ask the good doctor in Spanish if he was just swearing in German?

Alt means alternate, adolf einholm = James

Does the doctor beat you when you are insubordinate?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 09, 2009, 08:05:48 PM
Opponents of continental drift include the reputable J. D. Dana, Scheidigger, V.V. Beloussov, Steven Dutch...how many do you require? The primary theories are that the continents have always been stationary or, the theory to which I ascribe, "settle" in the Earth.

Lets see every author you mention, one by one:


It is easy to make a list of geologists that did not embrace the theory of continental drift. You just find those who published their works before 1990. Where are your geologists that have reservations against the theory today?

Scientists have no trouble at all with accepting new theories as they become well developed and supported by evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble understanding the scientific method.

You can read the book "The rejection of continental drift: theory and method in American earth science" By Naomi Oreskes to understand just a little bit of how one scientific speculation became scientific theory.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 09, 2009, 08:36:17 PM

By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.
You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.

If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 09, 2009, 08:55:13 PM

The word you're looking for is "theropod", but you're excused
Yes, the term is Theropod, and they were quite ubiquitus, from North America to South America and India and South Africa. And they were quite successful during all of the Mesozoic, so your nice little speculation about some intelligent dinosaur from the Cretaceous cannot explain how the theropods spread through most of the world during the Triassic.

There is no single species of theropod, or of any other animal, for that matter, that is found in every part of the planet, as you pretend me to show. That is a total misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. You should study a little bit about evolution before coming up with intelligent dinosaurs making boats.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: James on December 10, 2009, 01:07:27 AM

The word you're looking for is "theropod", but you're excused
Yes, the term is Theropod, and they were quite ubiquitus, from North America to South America and India and South Africa. And they were quite successful during all of the Mesozoic, so your nice little speculation about some intelligent dinosaur from the Cretaceous cannot explain how the theropods spread through most of the world during the Triassic.

There is no single species of theropod, or of any other animal, for that matter, that is found in every part of the planet, as you pretend me to show. That is a total misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. You should study a little bit about evolution before coming up with intelligent dinosaurs making boats.

Well I've specifically explained the anthropology of dromaeosaurae at an earlier point in this thread. Would you like me to do the same for every other type of theropod? I'm unwilling to make sweeping generalisations, but I will gladly work through the evidence with you on a case-by-case basis.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 06:59:57 AM
If there's something moving the continents then when and where did this movement start?

I have already addressed this within the thread. See previous posts.

No you haven't. All you've posted is a lot of refuting and a lot of interpreters notes.

And this:

I do believe tectonic plates move. I just do not believe they walk across the Earth, twisting and turning.

No scientist believes the plates "walk" or "dance" so lets ditch that descriptive.

But you've not explained the when, where or why. The reason I ask is that it would be very peculiar indeed if the earth started shifting as soon as we started measuring for shift, which is why you seem to be arguing.

I have stated from the beginning that I believe, much like the concrete foundation of a home settles, the continents settle, moving back and forth. What your scientists are measuring is the back, or forth, movement over a short period of time and extrapolating it over a three billion year time frame. This is ridiculous. I have stated this before so your "No you haven't argument" is absurd. Would you like me to quote the matter from my previous posts?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:01:27 AM
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.

You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.
I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.

Do you honestly believe it is science to take continental movement from a period of less than one hundred years and extrapolate it to a period of over three billion years?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:03:52 AM
"Vielen dank" to Dr Einholm for holding down the fort here, I'm glad the regulars are not the only academics who are prepared to challenge and refute the ridiculous Pangea hypothesis. Welcome to the fold, doctor.



Danka James. I have learned a new word used here, "alt". I believe several of these "alts" have been ignoring the obvious and bombarding me with redundant emails. I now understand their strategy, if they repeat themselves then denigrate you, it furthers their "science". Good luck and I welcome the support.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:06:52 AM
"Vielen dank" to Dr Einholm for holding down the fort here, I'm glad the regulars are not the only academics who are prepared to challenge and refute the ridiculous Pangea hypothesis. Welcome to the fold, doctor.

Yes. It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!

Welcome "Dr Einholm".

I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries. I am afraid it is your obtuse mind that refuses to interpret evidence correctly. Perhaps if you denigrate me further it will validate your science.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:07:56 AM
Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.

I would imagine a shark would quite happily attack a baby icthyosaur or plesiosaur.

Are we really supposed to believe "Dr Einholm" and his interpreter who can't speak German are real people and not the same fifteen year old having a laugh? Well, James believes it so automatically I am suspicious.

Nice imagination.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:09:40 AM

[Interpreters note - The Doctor just left for a speaking engagement. He speaks limited English, which requires my assistance, Spanish, German and Hindi. The Doctor is very diligent in his linguistic studies. He finds it to be an educational exercise to analyze mistakes used. He says he uses them to learn. I suspect he is an ass in any language. I see you using the word "alt". I am not familiar with this and have not interpreted it to the Doctor. What does it mean? Also, please do not reply with my notes in your response. I would hate to be on the receiving end of the Doctors wrath. He is very respected in my city.]

Why not just ask the good doctor in Spanish if he was just swearing in German?

Alt means alternate, adolf einholm = James

Does the doctor beat you when you are insubordinate?

I could use your "alt" argument for the various characters you are presenting here. So your logic is 1) when defeated intellectually resort to personal attacks. Well done.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:11:35 AM
Opponents of continental drift include the reputable J. D. Dana, Scheidigger, V.V. Beloussov, Steven Dutch...how many do you require? The primary theories are that the continents have always been stationary or, the theory to which I ascribe, "settle" in the Earth.

Lets see every author you mention, one by one:

  • J. D. Dana: His main works were done in the mid to late 19th century, when continental drift was not even a theory
  • Scheidigger: His objections were made around 1974, when continental drift was slowly gaining momentum. I have not seen any objections published recently by him.
  • Beloussov: Same as Scheidigger. He published his reservations decades before the best evidence for continental drift was adecuately developed.
  • Steven Dutch: Same as before. In his own web page there is no mention at all of his reservations towards continental drift, so I can only suspect he has changed his mind.

It is easy to make a list of geologists that did not embrace the theory of continental drift. You just find those who published their works before 1990. Where are your geologists that have reservations against the theory today?

Scientists have no trouble at all with accepting new theories as they become well developed and supported by evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble understanding the scientific method.

You can read the book "The rejection of continental drift: theory and method in American earth science" By Naomi Oreskes to understand just a little bit of how one scientific speculation became scientific theory.

I wonder how Naomi Oreskes earns her money? Your reliance on biased data is strangling your theory.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:14:12 AM

By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.
You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.

If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.

There are consistent strata therefore continental drifting occurred. Or is it, continental drifting occurred therefore there are consistent strata? There are several examples of "matching" strata throughout the world that negate your use of this as evidence.

There is absolutely no measurement of continental drifting over tens of millions of years. This is absurd.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 10, 2009, 07:18:52 AM

Well I've specifically explained the anthropology of dromaeosaurae at an earlier point in this thread. Would you like me to do the same for every other type of theropod? I'm unwilling to make sweeping generalisations, but I will gladly work through the evidence with you on a case-by-case basis.
I really am interested in the anthropology of non-humans. I am even interested in the zoology of humans. Please send me a copy of your published data so I can ask Webster's to change their definition of "anthropology" to say "the study of humans and dromaeosaurae". But please send the copies before noon, I have to take my child to the vet.

Please work with me a few cases on a case-by-case basis, some from the Triassic, some from the Jurassic and none from the Cretaceous, since you have talked enough about the dromeosaurus.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 10, 2009, 07:42:29 AM
I wonder how Naomi Oreskes earns her money? Your reliance on biased data is strangling your theory.
Does Naomi Orestes force you to not find current studies that contradict Continental Drift? Or maybe William Lowrie and the evil EarthRef.org pay every geologist to keep The Conspiracy alive? But, please do not be afraid, risk your life and get us a paper or two that found their way around the Conspiracy. And they are out there, you just have to venture outside of Wikipedia.

You were doing so well, mentioning information that is not directly in Wikipedia for the first time, that you deserve a second chance. And write your findings in your will, so they are brought to the public as soon as the The Conspiracy kills you.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 10, 2009, 07:50:37 AM

By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.
You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.

If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.

There are consistent strata therefore continental drifting occurred. Or is it, continental drifting occurred therefore there are consistent strata? There are several examples of "matching" strata throughout the world that negate your use of this as evidence.

There is absolutely no measurement of continental drifting over tens of millions of years. This is absurd.
Please learn about radioactive dating. What you consider absurd or not does not change the science of Geology, but the continuous layering of solidified lava over millions of years in places close to the geological hotspots does give ample evidence for continental drift over millions of years.

"This is absurd" is not a valid scientific argument.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:57:33 AM
I wonder how Naomi Oreskes earns her money? Your reliance on biased data is strangling your theory.
Does Naomi Orestes force you to not find current studies that contradict Continental Drift? Or maybe William Lowrie and the evil EarthRef.org pay every geologist to keep The Conspiracy alive? But, please do not be afraid, risk your life and get us a paper or two that found their way around the Conspiracy. And they are out there, you just have to venture outside of Wikipedia.

You were doing so well, mentioning information that is not directly in Wikipedia for the first time, that you deserve a second chance. And write your findings in your will, so they are brought to the public as soon as the The Conspiracy kills you.

I am fully aware of the arguments and "evidence" for continental dancing (or drift as you call it). It is amusing when I hear "if you just move South America closer to Africa and twist it this way then move the bottom closer to Africa and tilt the continent a little more on the Northern side..." this is not science.

Also, taking the measurements from a period of less than one hundred years and applying it to a period exceeding three billion years is absurd. Any objective person would agree with this.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 08:01:29 AM

By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.
You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.

If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.

There are consistent strata therefore continental drifting occurred. Or is it, continental drifting occurred therefore there are consistent strata? There are several examples of "matching" strata throughout the world that negate your use of this as evidence.

There is absolutely no measurement of continental drifting over tens of millions of years. This is absurd.
Please learn about radioactive dating. What you consider absurd or not does not change the science of Geology, but the continuous layering of solidified lava over millions of years in places close to the geological hotspots does give ample evidence for continental drift over millions of years.

"This is absurd" is not a valid scientific argument.

Radioactive dating is absolutely invalid. The decay rates used as the basis for this testing uses the same logic of extrapolation as you use to validate your continental movement for three billion years.  It seems faulty extrapolation is the key to your continental drift theory.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 10, 2009, 08:02:59 AM
I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.

No, the world hasn't believed that dinosaurs built galleons and sailed the oceans. Ever.

Perhaps if you denigrate me further it will validate your science.

I'm not denigrating, merely pointing out the obviously ridiculous notion that a doctor hires an interpreter so that he can post rants in an obscure subforum of an obscure internet site. This is increased dramatically when it's noted how quickly he gets up to speed on the subject.

There are other reasons I could go into about why the "german doctor posting through a translator" is a charade (for those that hadn't guessed it already), but I'd risk posting personal information.

Lets leave it at "no one is convinced".
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 08:44:26 AM
I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.

No, the world hasn't believed that dinosaurs built galleons and sailed the oceans. Ever.

Perhaps if you denigrate me further it will validate your science.

I'm not denigrating, merely pointing out the obviously ridiculous notion that a doctor hires an interpreter so that he can post rants in an obscure subforum of an obscure internet site. This is increased dramatically when it's noted how quickly he gets up to speed on the subject.

There are other reasons I could go into about why the "german doctor posting through a translator" is a charade (for those that hadn't guessed it already), but I'd risk posting personal information.

Lets leave it at "no one is convinced".

I was speaking to the discussion of a flat earth. The entire world believed this for centuries. You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.

As a side note to your musings, my interpreter's primary responsibilities are to assist me in my research and communications with English speaking publications, Universities, etc. Believe what you like, it matters not.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 10, 2009, 08:53:30 AM
I was speaking to the discussion of a flat earth.

No you weren't.

It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!
I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.


As a side note to your musings, my interpreter's primary responsibilities are to assist me in my research and communications with English speaking publications, Universities, etc.

Sure. ::)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: JBJosh on December 10, 2009, 08:59:07 AM
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.

You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.
I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.

Do you honestly believe it is science to take continental movement from a period of less than one hundred years and extrapolate it to a period of over three billion years?
Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 09:07:43 AM
Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.

You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.
I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.

Do you honestly believe it is science to take continental movement from a period of less than one hundred years and extrapolate it to a period of over three billion years?
Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.

If it is science to believe in extrapolation then why is it not acceptable to believe that a dinosaur can make a floating nest or clump with other dinosaurs as lesser developed species do. If you accept extrapolation as science you must also accept this. You cannot have it both ways.

As for the land masses appearing to "fit". I hardly believe your one example of South America and Africa almost fitting with significant manipulation is concrete enough. You are playing with a jigsaw puzzle.

Using your same "evidence" I find the fossil record supports dinosaurs migrating to the different continents over the ocean.

You are simply stating that your theory is the only explanation for the evidence. I, and many others, disagree.

Your definition of science is flawed.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 09:12:44 AM
I was speaking to the discussion of a flat earth.

No you weren't.

It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!
I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.


As a side note to your musings, my interpreter's primary responsibilities are to assist me in my research and communications with English speaking publications, Universities, etc.

Sure. ::)

What you know as "James theory" here has been discussed for decades as the "Transoceanic Migration Theory". Just because the subject might not be included in your "wikipedia" does not mean it does not exist.

"No you weren't" - this is an excellent response. Keep up the good work LiceFarm [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic.]
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: JBJosh on December 10, 2009, 09:15:47 AM
Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.

If it is science to believe in extrapolation then why is it not acceptable to believe that a dinosaur can make a floating nest or clump with other dinosaurs as lesser developed species do. If you accept extrapolation as science you must also accept this. You cannot have it both ways.

As for the land masses appearing to "fit". I hardly believe your one example of South America and Africa almost fitting with significant manipulation is concrete enough. You are playing with a jigsaw puzzle.

Using your same "evidence" I find the fossil record supports dinosaurs migrating to the different continents over the ocean.

You are simply stating that your theory is the only explanation for the evidence. I, and many others, disagree.

Your definition of science is flawed.
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.

Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 10, 2009, 09:20:45 AM
1) Excellent observation.
2) Why don't you ask one.
3) See 2) above.
4) Is is common knowledge that dinosaur fossils are highly concentrated in sub-oceanic waters.
5) (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et)
6) I speak for myself. I am not a parrot.
7) Dinosaurs were not prey, their meat was not preferred.

1) 2) and 3) you can't support.
4) Still inferring sans fact.
5) Your image is of a coot.  The coot's nest is anchored to a foundation which touches the ground.
6) Ca-Caw
7) See 4 and below.

(http://www.billcurtsingerphoto.com/*Resources/*homeimages/Tiger%20Story/tigereatsbird.jpg)

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
See above picture.


Quote
You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.

So you are implying that someone who would proclaim that dinosaurs used any type of sophisticated ship and sailed the oceans is idiotic and has no perception of what could and couldn't happen?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 09:27:49 AM
Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.

If it is science to believe in extrapolation then why is it not acceptable to believe that a dinosaur can make a floating nest or clump with other dinosaurs as lesser developed species do. If you accept extrapolation as science you must also accept this. You cannot have it both ways.

As for the land masses appearing to "fit". I hardly believe your one example of South America and Africa almost fitting with significant manipulation is concrete enough. You are playing with a jigsaw puzzle.

Using your same "evidence" I find the fossil record supports dinosaurs migrating to the different continents over the ocean.

You are simply stating that your theory is the only explanation for the evidence. I, and many others, disagree.

Your definition of science is flawed.
I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.

Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.

And what data and I ignoring?

You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.

I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 10, 2009, 09:48:51 AM
No

Way to address none of the post there doc!

Have you ever attempted to hang a clock in the batroom, but slip on the toilet seat, fall, hit your head and wake up with this image stuck in your mind?

(http://www.timboucher.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/flux-capacitor-merkaba-hexagram0.jpg)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 09:54:15 AM
No

Way to address none of the post there doc!

Have you ever attempted to hang a clock in the batroom, but slip on the toilet seat, fall, hit your head and wake up with this image stuck in your mind?

(http://www.timboucher.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/flux-capacitor-merkaba-hexagram0.jpg)

I simply answered your question. What is a "batroom"? I do not understand the picture you provided. Would you please stay on topic?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 10, 2009, 10:04:39 AM
I simply answered your question. What is a "batroom"? I do not understand the picture you provided. Would you please stay on topic?

Sorry, doctor Spelling. I meant bathroom.  Maybe one day you will see the potential of the item in the picture.

For S's and G's we'll go around again then.


1) Excellent observation.
2) Why don't you ask one.
3) See 2) above.
4) Is is common knowledge that dinosaur fossils are highly concentrated in sub-oceanic waters.
5) (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et)
6) I speak for myself. I am not a parrot.
7) Dinosaurs were not prey, their meat was not preferred.

1) 2) and 3) you can't support.
4) Still inferring sans fact.
5) Your image is of a coot.  The coot's nest is anchored to a foundation which touches the ground.  It would not sail an ocean.
6) Ca-Caw
7) See 4 and below.

(http://www.billcurtsingerphoto.com/*Resources/*homeimages/Tiger%20Story/tigereatsbird.jpg)

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
See above picture.


Quote
You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.

In what way is the belief that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans ridiculous? How would you describe someone who would proclaim that dinosaurs used any type of sophisticated ship and sailed the oceans?  What would your opinion of their logic be?

TD's post just reminded me.  Why does a German speaking doctor have a Spanish speaking interpreter?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: LiceFarm on December 10, 2009, 11:14:32 AM
What you know as "James theory" here has been discussed for decades as the "Transoceanic Migration Theory".

No it hasn't.

"No you weren't" - this is an excellent response. Keep up the good work LiceFarm [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic.]

I quoted you in the reply. You weren't talking about flat earth but dinosaurs.

Also, given that you're just a weak alt do you think you could quit the "Interpreters note" thing?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 10, 2009, 11:22:40 AM
I do think it a little odd that a German can spell English words like "denigrate" yet is unable to spell the word "thankyou" in his own language.
[interpreter's note - I'm not being sarcastic]
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
I simply answered your question. What is a "batroom"? I do not understand the picture you provided. Would you please stay on topic?

Sorry, doctor Spelling. I meant bathroom.  Maybe one day you will see the potential of the item in the picture.

For S's and G's we'll go around again then.


1) Excellent observation.
2) Why don't you ask one.
3) See 2) above.
4) Is is common knowledge that dinosaur fossils are highly concentrated in sub-oceanic waters.
5) (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et)
6) I speak for myself. I am not a parrot.
7) Dinosaurs were not prey, their meat was not preferred.

1) 2) and 3) you can't support.
4) Still inferring sans fact.
5) Your image is of a coot.  The coot's nest is anchored to a foundation which touches the ground.  It would not sail an ocean.
6) Ca-Caw
7) See 4 and below.

(http://www.billcurtsingerphoto.com/*Resources/*homeimages/Tiger%20Story/tigereatsbird.jpg)

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.
See above picture.


Quote
You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.

In what way is the belief that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans ridiculous? How would you describe someone who would proclaim that dinosaurs used any type of sophisticated ship and sailed the oceans?  What would your opinion of their logic be?

TD's post just reminded me.  Why does a German speaking doctor have a Spanish speaking interpreter?

This was already addressed in a previous post. Please stay on topic.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 11:49:42 AM
What you know as "James theory" here has been discussed for decades as the "Transoceanic Migration Theory".

No it hasn't.

"No you weren't" - this is an excellent response. Keep up the good work LiceFarm [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic.]

I quoted you in the reply. You weren't talking about flat earth but dinosaurs.

Also, given that you're just a weak alt do you think you could quit the "Interpreters note" thing?

Please stay on topic.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 11:50:32 AM
I do think it a little odd that a German can spell English words like "denigrate" yet is unable to spell the word "thankyou" in his own language.
[interpreter's note - I'm not being sarcastic]

How does this further your "science"?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Lord Wilmore on December 10, 2009, 12:10:34 PM
Or, it is James.  I asked a mod if the IP address matched the location of Argentina given, but got stonewalled- as I expected though.


Yeah, massive surprise that I refuse to give out private, confidential information to anyone who cares to ask. ::)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 10, 2009, 12:15:08 PM
Or, it is James.  I asked a mod if the IP address matched the location of Argentina given, but got stonewalled- as I expected though.


Yeah, massive surprise that I refuse to give out private, confidential information to anyone who cares to ask. ::)

No suprise was noted, thus the as I expected.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 12:27:45 PM
Or, it is James.  I asked a mod if the IP address matched the location of Argentina given, but got stonewalled- as I expected though.


Yeah, massive surprise that I refuse to give out private, confidential information to anyone who cares to ask. ::)

No suprise was noted, thus the as I expected.

RE'r strategy:

1) Present illogical facts
2) when those fail, bombard the FE'r with dozens of posts stating his theory is ridiculous
3) when that fails, resort to name-calling. Unless you are the "alt" LiceFarm then simply say "no, you are"

Now that this thread has officially been derailed may we discuss this matter intelligently? Do so in Spanish, Hindi, or German if you wish me to respond personally. English if you wish to include others in the discussion.
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 10, 2009, 12:48:03 PM
1) Present illogical facts
2) when those fail, bombard the FE'r with dozens of posts stating his theory is ridiculous
3) when that fails, resort to name-calling. Unless you are the "alt" LiceFarm then simply say "no, you are"

Now that this thread has officially been derailed may we discuss this matter intelligently? Do so in Spanish, Hindi, or German if you wish me to respond personally. English if you wish to include others in the discussion.

Half of the posts on this page are your's

Try responding with something with more content than no, which does not count as addressing a post. (click below to connect)
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 10, 2009, 12:50:25 PM
Radioactive dating is absolutely invalid. The decay rates used as the basis for this testing uses the same logic of extrapolation as you use to validate your continental movement for three billion years.  It seems faulty extrapolation is the key to your continental drift theory.
And your arguments to say it is invalid are... what, exactly? That you do not like it?

Your argument is, in essence, that scientists are idiots that extrapolate anything they have in front of them and declare that the extrapolation is science. Your arrogance only demeans yourself, because it shows that you do not even read the articles that you criticize. I have news for you, Adolf: you are less intelligent than the people you are considering beneath you, and all those Doctors and Professors in Geology have actually understood the scientific method, something you still have not shown to have bothered to do.

Every research paper that you are criticizing refers to or describes a model of the Earth and its internal dynamics, makes predictions based on that model and compares the predictions with actual results. That comparison is the basis for the conclusions.

If you want to declare invalid a research paper you have to show that the data is invalid or that the conclusions are not supported by the data. Saying "it is absolutely invalid" is not part of the scientific method.

Which of the papers about the drilling of strata near the hotspots are you declaring invalid? Have you even read a single paper about the research on continental drift? Or have you just said "it smells like extrapolation" and never read a word?
Title: Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
Post by: trig on December 10, 2009, 01:00:49 PM

I am fully aware of the arguments and "evidence" for continental d