antartica

  • 356 Replies
  • 77592 Views
antartica
« Reply #30 on: June 18, 2006, 11:44:33 AM »
We need more people of Dogplatters quality on the forum, he at least is not putting forward crackpot arguments.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
antartica
« Reply #31 on: June 18, 2006, 11:47:57 AM »
Quote from: "horse"
We need more people of Dogplatters quality on the forum, he at least is not putting forward crackpot arguments.


Oh thanks, I hope you're not being sarcastic. Your dinosaur carving thing sounded like you might have been taking the mickey a bit.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

antartica
« Reply #32 on: June 18, 2006, 11:49:15 AM »
Fair enough Dogplatter, i accept that my arguement doesn't disprove FE theory, but can we now safely assume that Pangaea never existed in the FE model?

antartica
« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2006, 11:50:07 AM »
cracking shells and using twigs to make a nest is leaps and bounds below building a ship which could sail intercontinentally, and if you can demonstrate to me how a bunch of plants (which is much of what the fossil evidnce is) could have built a ship... walked across hundreds of miles of land, died, left no fossil evidence of the ship ever being created (i.e. no ship, no boat, etc) than i might be persuaded to believe you
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Advocatus Diaboli

antartica
« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2006, 11:54:02 AM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
cracking shells and using twigs to make a nest is leaps and bounds below building a ship which could sail intercontinentally, and if you can demonstrate to me how a bunch of plants (which is much of what the fossil evidnce is) could have built a ship... walked across hundreds of miles of land, died, left no fossil evidence of the ship ever being created (i.e. no ship, no boat, etc) than i might be persuaded to believe you



You believe a wooden boat (most likely, I dont believe the dinosaurs pioneered steel making) would not degrade over millions of years? And even then who is to say there is not remains of a ship, for the sea is very large and since the time of the dinosaurs depositation would result in such seacraft being buried deep in the ocean floor in any case.

antartica
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2006, 11:56:10 AM »
I have been a firm believer in FE theory for some time now, and i have committed my team of researchers to discoving the truth behing Pangaea once and for all, and the results of our preliminary research are highly interesting.
We have already discovered that Pangaea did in fact exsist, a very long time ago upon the seas surrounded by the ice wall. Out research has shown that the two FE plates that the sections of Pangaea sat upon did not slide apart as in RE theory, but in fact exploded upwards with a great force, which we have calculated to have continued for some weeks. During these weeks, the power of the swelling magma below the surface of the Earth was pushed upwards to form mountain, as with 'Constructive plate theory' of RE believers. However, the construction of the mountains did not, as some posters have speculated, split the ice wall in any way. The new land masses simply made the sea levels rise across the disk, and then proceeded to break apart with shattering force that sent the two halves of Pangaea hurtling from each other due to the build up of pressure inside the mountains. Thus the halves of Pangaea took up new positions on the disk-oceans, and the sea levels returned to what they had been because the mountains had been scattered by the almost explosion-like splitting of Pangaea. Thus the Ice Wall remained in tact, and fossil evidence is explained through the sudden splitting that the continental plate experianced.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
antartica
« Reply #36 on: June 18, 2006, 11:56:52 AM »
Quote from: "Sepulchre"
Fair enough Dogplatter, i accept that my arguement doesn't disprove FE theory, but can we now safely assume that Pangaea never existed in the FE model?


Yes, I completely agree with you on this point.

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


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

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

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

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

2: Given the number of dinosaur fossils found compared with dinosaur population, it's clear that hardly any stuff becomes fossil matter, relatively speaking. The ships could easily have disintegrated along with the millions of unfound dinosaur cadavers.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

antartica
« Reply #37 on: June 18, 2006, 11:57:10 AM »
yes but something needed to but cut down in order to make the boat, the evidence of which doesn't degrade over the centuries.  Im sure the chopping down of hundreds, if not thousands, of trees (in order to make enough ships for the magnitude of fossil's needed on each continents) would have been mentioned
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Advocatus Diaboli

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
antartica
« Reply #38 on: June 18, 2006, 11:59:26 AM »
Quote from: "Professor Sphincter"
I have been a firm believer in FE theory for some time now, and i have committed my team of researchers to discoving the truth behing Pangaea once and for all, and the results of our preliminary research are highly interesting.
We have already discovered that Pangaea did in fact exsist, a very long time ago upon the seas surrounded by the ice wall. Out research has shown that the two FE plates that the sections of Pangaea sat upon did not slide apart as in RE theory, but in fact exploded upwards with a great force, which we have calculated to have continued for some weeks. During these weeks, the power of the swelling magma below the surface of the Earth was pushed upwards to form mountain, as with 'Constructive plate theory' of RE believers. However, the construction of the mountains did not, as some posters have speculated, split the ice wall in any way. The new land masses simply made the sea levels rise across the disk, and then proceeded to break apart with shattering force that sent the two halves of Pangaea hurtling from each other due to the build up of pressure inside the mountains. Thus the halves of Pangaea took up new positions on the disk-oceans, and the sea levels returned to what they had been because the mountains had been scattered by the almost explosion-like splitting of Pangaea. Thus the Ice Wall remained in tact, and fossil evidence is explained through the sudden splitting that the continental plate experianced.


This is pure speculation! What would possibly cause some sort of worldwide explosion that would not damage the Ice wall?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

antartica
« Reply #39 on: June 18, 2006, 12:00:06 PM »
Well even if dogplatter's FE theory of dinosaur boat building was correct, only a few pioneers would be needed to sail the ocean to found the new dinosaur colonies. You don't believe that when the american forefathers made their way to america they took billions of residents with them do you? It is the same principal here my friend.

antartica
« Reply #40 on: June 18, 2006, 12:01:40 PM »
How would we differentiate a human boat of the middle ages to a dinosaur boat? I am perplexed.

antartica
« Reply #41 on: June 18, 2006, 12:01:42 PM »
Dogplatter, my research has found that the pent up pressure inside the mountains was simply very concentrated, hence the power it released when it broke apart was extreme but also well refined, simply sending the continental plates on their ways without damaging any other aspects of the FE.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
antartica
« Reply #42 on: June 18, 2006, 12:02:49 PM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
yes but something needed to but cut down in order to make the boat, the evidence of which doesn't degrade over the centuries.  Im sure the chopping down of hundreds, if not thousands, of trees (in order to make enough ships for the magnitude of fossil's needed on each continents) would have been mentioned


There are so many flaws with this rebuttal.

    Why couldn't dinosaurs have -
      Used their teeth and claws
      Harvested already fallen tree matter
      Used other resources like reeds which require less effort to collect?

    And as for the "thousands of trees" (assuming they even USED trees) -
      Why couldn't a boat have made several back-and-forth trips between continents? In a single dinosaur lifetime, hundreds upon hundreds of dinosaurs could have made voyages right across the Earth.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

antartica
« Reply #43 on: June 18, 2006, 12:03:39 PM »
Quote from: "Professor Sphincter"
Well even if dogplatter's FE theory of dinosaur boat building was correct, only a few pioneers would be needed to sail the ocean to found the new dinosaur colonies. You don't believe that when the american forefathers made their way to america they took billions of residents with them do you? It is the same principal here my friend.



This is very true, and in fact the boats could have sailed back over the sea to pick up more dinosaurs, not every dinosaur would need his or her own seacraft! A ferry system would be much more economic.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
antartica
« Reply #44 on: June 18, 2006, 12:04:42 PM »
Quote from: "Professor Sphincter"
Dogplatter, my research has found that the pent up pressure inside the mountains was simply very concentrated, hence the power it released when it broke apart was extreme but also well refined, simply sending the continental plates on their ways without damaging any other aspects of the FE.


Hmm, it sounds plausible, but without more detailed proof I can't accept this theory when my own makes so much sense, and is qualified by fossil evidence.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

antartica
« Reply #45 on: June 18, 2006, 12:09:32 PM »
Yes, I quite understand Dogplatter, a man of science like myself i see. Unforetunately my team is currently severly underfunded, as I am only able to find one sponser for our research - me. There are only a small number of FE supporters at this time, seeing as people have only just been able to break the government oppression, so I am having trouble finding people to fund our research, and as such, we cannot afford to publish any of our findings. If anyone here would like to help our research, please send me a private message, and I'm sure we can arrange something.

antartica
« Reply #46 on: June 18, 2006, 12:09:34 PM »
I'm perfectly aware of the fossil theory, I am not claiming there could be a boat, im on the other side, so they wouldnt sail into a tar pit, as they wouldnt be able to sail at all.

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

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

first of all it would have to be hundreds of boats due to the sheer magnitued of fossils found, and if you know anything about wooden ships, you need to do maitenance quite often, to prevent mold and rot from forming, but good try
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Advocatus Diaboli

antartica
« Reply #47 on: June 18, 2006, 12:13:43 PM »
You seem to be ignorant of our point, no wonder you do not understand.

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

Quote

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


*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
antartica
« Reply #48 on: June 18, 2006, 12:14:21 PM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
I'm perfectly aware of the fossil theory, I am not claiming there could be a boat, im on the other side, so they wouldnt sail into a tar pit, as they wouldnt be able to sail at all.

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


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

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

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


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

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

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


I answered this already! Boats don't have to be one-time deals - a boat could make hundreds of round trips in a single lifetime. As for maintenance, if the dinosaurs were capable of building boats they were probably capable of maintaining them.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

antartica
« Reply #49 on: June 18, 2006, 12:15:33 PM »
WOAH HOLD THE BOAT FOR A SECOND

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

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

Honestly, this baffles me

antartica
« Reply #50 on: June 18, 2006, 12:19:09 PM »
"Hold the boat"? Is this some kind of hint that these boats did exist and infact you have obtained one? Please, photograph.

antartica
« Reply #51 on: June 18, 2006, 12:19:20 PM »
It is because of some of these simply ludicrous theories that i ahve started research into this matter, and how the breaking of what I and my team have come to call the Pangaea Steamer (on account of the sheer natural forces inside the mountains) caused Pangaea to seperate.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
antartica
« Reply #52 on: June 18, 2006, 12:19:36 PM »
Quote from: "Sepulchre"
WOAH HOLD THE BOAT FOR A SECOND

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

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

Honestly, this baffles me


Well Sep, we established that Pangea can't have existed in FE model - How did dinosaur remains end up so spread around the globe, if not by intercontinental travel by the dinosaurs themselves?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
antartica
« Reply #53 on: June 18, 2006, 12:21:08 PM »
Quote from: "Professor Sphincter"
It is because of some of these simply ludicrous theories that i ahve started research into this matter, and how the breaking of what I and my team have come to call the Pangaea Steamer (on account of the sheer natural forces inside the mountains) caused Pangaea to seperate.


I still just can't take this seriously! The only "Pangea Steamer" that existed would have been a Dinosaur-built "Steamer" carrying the population to exotic shores.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

antartica
« Reply #54 on: June 18, 2006, 12:23:43 PM »
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you Sphincter, for your theories are too far out to be acceptable. "Steamer"? Please, be realistic.

antartica
« Reply #55 on: June 18, 2006, 12:24:03 PM »
but dinosaurs would not be able to, and im not saying that they would crash their "ships" into dangerous situations, because there were no ships, im saying they are dumb enough to walk right in, or walk onto unstable land, and fallen in, which is a way that fossilization had occured also, its not only tar that does it

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

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

Advocatus Diaboli

antartica
« Reply #56 on: June 18, 2006, 12:27:25 PM »
Well, you are arguing also, so it cant be too ridiculous.

antartica
« Reply #57 on: June 18, 2006, 12:27:58 PM »
no basically im arguing that youre wrong, which is not arguing the concept in question
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Advocatus Diaboli

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
antartica
« Reply #58 on: June 18, 2006, 12:29:10 PM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

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

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


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

For all we know, dinosaurs could have had powertools and CAD/CAM. Whatever technology was required to build those boats, odd as it may seem to us, must have existed in order for dinosaurs to spread so far across the world.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

antartica
« Reply #59 on: June 18, 2006, 12:31:05 PM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
no basically im arguing that youre wrong, which is not arguing the concept in question


Surely if you are arguing that im wrong, that is the basic outline for every argument? If you agreed then why would you argue? Please, take this seriously and put forward valid points.