1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos

« on: December 11, 2009, 12:51:23 PM »

Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter.

Using your logic I could say that no one has ever seen the wind, only the effects of the wind. Therefore, using your logic, a Neutrinobeast could be blowing on the Earth which is evidenced by the leaves blowing in the wind. Once again, nice try.

Could be, its certainly possible (its impossible to prove that its impossible). However, this is not the theory that I am defending. Besides, the theory of fluid flow is quite well developed and I see no reason to think its from a neutrino beast. You can come up with all the fanciful hypotheses you want, but you have to test them before they become theories.

Could a better hypothesis be to invent "Neutrinos" as conclusive evidence of a round Earth then use taxpayer and "grant" money to employ bright people and build elaborate machinery to find "evidence" which really amounts to nothing more than "spots on detectors"?

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 11:48:22 AM »

You deviated from the subject by proposing a general idea that people who believe in a round earth are brainwashed but flat guys are not. I merely provided facts that countered that. Do not blame the deviation on me.

And so the deviation continues...

Yes, fuelled by you as much as me. Who cares if it deviates? The purpose of this thread was to establish who among the flat guys supports James's lunatic notion that dinosaurs built boats. Anyone who does has had ample time to identify themselves. YOU have turned it into a RE-bashing session, "Dr" Einholm. You may beat your interpreter and gnash your teutonic teeth as much as you want, but none of us are taking you seriously. And my "deviation" had the valid point that RE devotees are arguably less brainwashed than FET devotees.

Continue your rant until your are all tired out. Then you may return to your Communal College.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos

« on: December 11, 2009, 11:46:48 AM »

Thanks for posting, I appreciate the interesting discussion.

I see two points here:

If you want to be involved in the data analysis then get a physics degree and sign up, they need people. Also, you can have a free tour of many government physics experimentation halls (at least in the USA and Canada). If you visit Vancouver, BC on a Wednesday or Friday I can show you around TRIUMF myself. You can view all the physics data and code that you want. You will see that its the grunts (physics grad students) that directly analyze the data, not a few highly paid executives.

Trying to further capitalize on your business or are you spreading the propaganda? I can also go to NASA and look at "Moon Rocks" and "Space Suits". Nice try.

Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter.

Using your logic I could say that no one has ever seen the wind, only the effects of the wind. Therefore, using your logic, a Neutrinobeast could be blowing on the Earth which is evidenced by the leaves blowing in the wind. Once again, nice try.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 11:36:07 AM »

Consider this a challenge to your reasoning. If more dinosaurs died in the ocean then how would you know? What evidence would you expect to see? If more died on land, how would you know?

You see less fossil records on land than in the waters yet believe more dinosaurs live on land. Your rationale is that the conditions are more favorable to fossilization in the water. However this is directly contradicted by fossils discovered throughout the world.

If you know that conditions for fossilization are better in the waters, then you would expect to find more fossils in water environments.  If conditions for fossilization on land are less favorable, then you would expect to find fewer fossils in land environments.  It a simple matter of statistical analysis to estimate populations based on remains found.

Which poses the question, if there were more dinosaurs living in the water, how would you know?

By statistical analysis of the number of fossils found in different environments.

You can only statistically analyze the number of fossils found, if the environmental variable determines the number of living beings in that same environment, how can you quantify the living dinosaur population?

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 11:34:33 AM »

You deviated from the subject by proposing a general idea that people who believe in a round earth are brainwashed but flat guys are not. I merely provided facts that countered that. Do not blame the deviation on me.

And so the deviation continues...

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 11:21:37 AM »

Consider this a challenge to your reasoning. If more dinosaurs died in the ocean then how would you know? What evidence would you expect to see? If more died on land, how would you know?

You see less fossil records on land than in the waters yet believe more dinosaurs live on land. Your rationale is that the conditions are more favorable to fossilization in the water. However this is directly contradicted by fossils discovered throughout the world.

If you know that conditions for fossilization are better in the waters, then you would expect to find more fossils in water environments.  If conditions for fossilization on land are less favorable, then you would expect to find fewer fossils in land environments.  It a simple matter of statistical analysis to estimate populations based on remains found.

Which poses the question, if there were more dinosaurs living in the water, how would you know?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 11:20:19 AM »

I think the main problem with RE'rs is their interpretation of data. You are so "brainwashed" into believing a theory that has been preached to you that you ignore what is right in front of you.

Things flat guys ignore which is right in front of them:
The presence of two celestial poles (no explanation in a flat world)
Why nobody can go further south than 90^oS, even in a plane.
Why aircraft travel times fit exactly with what one would expect in a round world and not at all with what you'd expect with a flat one.

And he thinks we're brainwashed... 

Yet you continue to deviate from the subject at hand.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos

« on: December 11, 2009, 11:19:04 AM »

While Parsec is studying for exams, any other FET'ers want to take a stab?

While not my field of scientific study, I find it amusing that this new item, the "Neutrino" which has near zero mass and supposedly travels near the speed of light is suddenly (relatively) hailed by all of you as proof the Earth is round. Just when the RET is being critically evaluated this magical particle is "discovered". Let me ask you this; Have you ever seen a neutrino? Even better, let us use taxpayer and contributing monies to build large detectors and artificial neutrino generators.

I find it concerning that the "research" for these projects is supported by government funding. How convenient that the government controls the outcome of the data, once again.

I have seen your picture young man. While you seem intelligent and are obviously very attractive in a boyish way, I am inclined to believe you have drunk the Kool-Aid refreshment.

Nice try but you will not fool us.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 09:19:14 AM »

Didn't we go over that it was because of better conditions for fossilization?

So, by your logic, the only fossils ever found would be in the water. This is not the case.

Not part of my logic. I said better, as I've bolded for you, not the only conditions.

That is very convenient for you then. Using your logic, even if more dinosaurs actually died in the ocean than on land, you would blindly dismiss it because fossilization occurs easier in the ocean environment. This is a perfect example of coming to a conclusion then manipulating the evidence to match it. I am now aware of your tactics.

This is a what if scenario. If you proved to me, without a doubt, that more dinosaurs died in the ocean, then I'd come to different conclusions. Right now, You're saying, "Well, a lot more dinosaurs could have died in the ocean!" You've come to a conclusion about my logic, and are manipulating my words to fit your own conclusion.

Consider this a challenge to your reasoning. If more dinosaurs died in the ocean then how would you know? What evidence would you expect to see? If more died on land, how would you know?

You see less fossil records on land than in the waters yet believe more dinosaurs live on land. Your rationale is that the conditions are more favorable to fossilization in the water. However this is directly contradicted by fossils discovered throughout the world.

I think the main problem with RE'rs is their interpretation of data. You are so "brainwashed" into believing a theory that has been preached to you that you ignore what is right in front of you.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 09:14:01 AM »

There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.

You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?

What is your question?

Question is why is okay for you to do it? I thought I made myself pretty clear.

Birds today are different from extinct dinosaurs. Do you deny this?

No, I don't deny that, and that wasn't my point. Please don't straw man.

You are making little sense. I do not understand "don't straw man." What is your point?

You're making a straw man argument. I never denied that Birds from today are different than dinosaurs.

If you agree then you have admitted your comparison is baseless.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 08:31:17 AM »

Didn't we go over that it was because of better conditions for fossilization?

So, by your logic, the only fossils ever found would be in the water. This is not the case.

Not part of my logic. I said better, as I've bolded for you, not the only conditions.

That is very convenient for you then. Using your logic, even if more dinosaurs actually died in the ocean than on land, you would blindly dismiss it because fossilization occurs easier in the ocean environment. This is a perfect example of coming to a conclusion then manipulating the evidence to match it. I am now aware of your tactics.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 08:27:14 AM »

There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.

You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?

What is your question?

Question is why is okay for you to do it? I thought I made myself pretty clear.

Birds today are different from extinct dinosaurs. Do you deny this?

No, I don't deny that, and that wasn't my point. Please don't straw man.

You are making little sense. I do not understand "don't straw man." What is your point?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 08:02:20 AM »

There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.

You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?

What is your question?

Question is why is okay for you to do it? I thought I made myself pretty clear.

Birds today are different from extinct dinosaurs. Do you deny this?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 08:00:09 AM »

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.

Continental Movements.

Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.

See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?

I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read  my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.

If I am unclear about something you've stated, usually giving a brief run-down is productive, especially if I'm not the only one who is confused.

I think my previous posts would be valuable to you then.

From what I've read, you've said fossils of dinosaurs found on the ocean floor is your proof, right?

Disproportionate amounts of dinosaur fossils have been found in ancient sea beds and in current sub-oceanic regions.

Didn't we go over that it was because of better conditions for fossilization?

So, by your logic, the only fossils ever found would be in the water. This is not the case.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 06:32:48 AM »

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.

Continental Movements.

Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.

See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?

I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read  my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.

If I am unclear about something you've stated, usually giving a brief run-down is productive, especially if I'm not the only one who is confused.

I think my previous posts would be valuable to you then.

From what I've read, you've said fossils of dinosaurs found on the ocean floor is your proof, right?

Disproportionate amounts of dinosaur fossils have been found in ancient sea beds and in current sub-oceanic regions.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 06:31:12 AM »

There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.

Like the differences between ants and dinosaurs or elephants and dinosaurs which you so eagerly grasped on to earlier?  Again nice job dodging the rest of the points and continuing to not post any supporting data.

I have grown bored with your consistent deflection of points, you provide no new material, no references to anything you claim and have yet to add one piece of credible evidence, such as accounting for the sea travel.  One picture you do post is that of a bird whose nest is anchored to the bed below the water it is in, way to not research that one.
Carry on with your doctor act.  
At least Bishop will debate.

Ants "clumping" and elephants swimming was used to illustrate a behavior, and a theory supported by the fossil record, that may explain transoceanic migration. The fossil record is evidence of this.

You asked for a picture of a birds nest on the water. I provided you one as you requested. From your request it seemed you denied that birds could not make floating nests. There are other species of birds whose nests are not anchored.

As for evidence. My theories are as well or better evidenced than that of dancing continents. What specifically would you like to see?

I see you are growing frustrated because you cannot support your theory. This is understandable. If I were you I would be frustrated too. Perhaps it is time to re-examine the evidence with open eyes?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 11, 2009, 06:23:38 AM »

There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.

You gave me a baseless comparison earlier and tried to use that as an argument. Is it only okay when you do it?

What is your question?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 10, 2009, 03:34:39 PM »

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.

Continental Movements.

Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.

See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?

I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read  my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.

If I am unclear about something you've stated, usually giving a brief run-down is productive, especially if I'm not the only one who is confused.

I think my previous posts would be valuable to you then.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 10, 2009, 03:29:19 PM »

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.

Continental Movements.

Yes, that's why I have another sentence to explain everything I mean. Please quit cherry-picking.

See, but here's the thing, where is the proof of these boats? You've stated that fossil record is what proves that dinosaurs migrated across the ocean (At least I think that was you), but there are no boats. Wouldn't you say that's extrapolating?

I have already discussed the evidence of these boats, please read  my previous posts. Redundancy is not productive discussion.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 10, 2009, 03:27:26 PM »

When you are ready to have a mature conversation I am willing.

I have been trying to do just that.
To save room I only copied the link, it is located here.

I would have thought that a doctor would have used scientific notation and included references and citations for his claims in his replies to trig.

Your picture of a shark about to eat a bird is irrelevant. Your parroting is irrelevant. When you are ready to have a mature discussion, let us do that. [interpreters note - the Doctor is growing impatient with you. He says you should re-post your valid questions without your ignorant rambling. I think it is funny though. Good job.]

As birds are descended from dinosaurs it addresses your baseless claims of both dinosaur meat not being eaten and fish not eating dinosaurs.
[/quote]

There are significant differences between the birds of today and the Maniraptora of old. You comparison is baseless.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 10, 2009, 02:46:41 PM »

When you are ready to have a mature conversation I am willing.

I have been trying to do just that.
To save room I only copied the link, it is located here.

I would have thought that a doctor would have used scientific notation and included references and citations for his claims in his replies to trig.
[/quote]

Your picture of a shark about to eat a bird is irrelevant. Your parroting is irrelevant. When you are ready to have a mature discussion, let us do that. [interpreters note - the Doctor is growing impatient with you. He says you should re-post your valid questions without your ignorant rambling. I think it is funny though. Good job.]

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 10, 2009, 01:38:56 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)

When you are ready to have a mature conversation I am willing.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: December 10, 2009, 01:36:42 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?

Trig, you seem to be the fairest of the RE'rs in this forum. Thank you for your professionalism. I offer you the following:

An invalid argument is one that lacks evidence. I accept many theories that I do not personally favor because the evidence supports them.
My argument regarding the extrapolation of data exists only when the known data is less than 1/100,000,000,000,000 of the frame to which it is applied. I do not believe this is science. You think I am arrogant because of the fallacies in your logic? I have stated the fallacies yet you continue to accept them blindly as truth and use them to support your theory. I do know that calling me ?stupid? because I disagree with the conclusion of your data is not scientific.
I am very familiar with the regurgitation of articles and the same data being parsed in different ways. It has been the same for the last twenty five to thirty years. I know these theories and the data well.
I would like to address your points individually:
Hypothesis ?
Dinosaur fossils exist world-wide because the Earth was once a ?Pangea?
Observation ?
1) there are similar fossils located around the world.
2) South America and Africa seem to fit together.
3) Geological stratum in these ?matching? areas are similar. 
4) the polarity of the stratum indicates a precise match.
5) We can measure the movement of the continents.
6) Isotope decay proves the continental drift theory.
Conclusion ? the Earth was once a ?Pangea?
Consider the following:
1)   I agree with this.
2)   I disagree that they ?fit together?. A close review of the perceived connection demonstrates that this ?fit? is not possible. The northern portion of the continent does not fit in a manner consistent with the remainder of the continent. When you ?zoom out? to a higher level the tessellation seems more acceptable but then you must account for the twisting and tilting that has to occur for the ?fit? to take place. It is not acceptable, in my mind, to play with the continents like a jigsaw puzzle.
3)    I agree that geological stratum are consistent in some of these ?matched? areas of the world. How do you explain the consistency of geological stratum in places that do not ?match?? Also, how do you explain the lack of consistency in places where the stratum should ?match?? All areas that should ?match? must be consistent for your theory to be correct. This is not the case.
4)   This observation is true in many instances but false in others. The same issues discussed in 3) apply here as well.
5)   No, you extrapolated less than one hundred years of movement to a period in excess of three billion years.
6)   The decay tables used as a basis for the aging process use similar extrapolation methods where one short time period of decay is applied to a substantially longer time period.
In actuality your only evidence is that the same dinosaur fossils are located around the world. This can be used to prove that their migration occurred in a different manner. I think this is fair.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« 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.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« 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"?

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« 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.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« 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)
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.

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.

See above picture.

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.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« 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?

I simply answered your question. What is a "batroom"? I do not understand the picture you provided. Would you please stay on topic?

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« 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.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« 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.]