antartica

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

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

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

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

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

Not if they pragmatically used the cadavers of their dead to build tools and sinews (for rope), and idea which I have already laid down in one of the two current dino-centric threads.

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

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

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

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

Not if they pragmatically used the cadavers of their dead to build tools and sinews (for rope), and idea which I have already laid down in one of the two current dino-centric threads.

Sinew is too weak for rope.

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

Ok.

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

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

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

Sinew is too weak for rope.

Not if you dry it and then twist several sinews into larger strings which then form a single rope.

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

Tarpits and lava weren't covering the landscape millions of years ago, and getting out of the tar is only the first hurdle (a hurdle that would be hard even with a 180 IQ and some friends helping out), he'd then have to remove the tar, because it would seal up his pores and cause death. And removing tar requires more than just water and a towel.

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

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

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

Not if you dry it and then twist several sinews into larger strings which then form a single rope.

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

Tarpits and lava weren't covering the landscape millions of years ago, and getting out of the tar is only the first hurdle (a hurdle that would be hard even with a 180 IQ and some friends helping out), he'd then have to remove the tar, because it would seal up his pores and cause death. And removing tar requires more than just water and a towel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We were making so much progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll give you that one (not necessarily a dinosaur) could you parts of an animal to make a rope-like material... it would still be impossible to make something strong enough to hold together a barge-like sea-faring vessel.

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

Excuse me?! You ready to back that one up. Because you can't be making claims like that without some kind of hard evidence. As of now, we are the most technological civilization in existence. We're not de-evolving, so to suggest that a society of less technology would de-evolve for that very reason is ludicrous. Not to mention, evolution is about survival and success of the species, not about, "Oh God, out technology might soon destroy us, so we'll de-evolve to stop that from happening." Sorry. Doesn't work that way. I am done arguing your ridiculous notion that dinosaurs built boats to cross the continents. You would be laughed right out of any scientific community for proposing something that ludicrous. It didn't happen. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it didn't.

An interesting discussion on http://dml.cmnh.org/2001May/msg00761.html is relevant to this one.

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

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

And what's more:

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

What Aralith was saying is completely true, the modern understanding of the structure of the brain, there is a reptilian brain, involving simple things like breathing and allowing the heart to beat.  It involves only the most basic of emotions.

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

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

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

Thanks Aralith, I totally forgot about that concept until you brought it up

An interesting discussion on http://dml.cmnh.org/2001May/msg00761.html is relevant to this one.

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

Quote from: "Steve Brusatte"

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

And what's more:

Quote

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

Yeah, they're not debating whether it could build and use complex tools, they're debating it's hunting skills and thought process. Once again, please read over Aralith's explanation of the brain.

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

Except antarctica is LANDMASS, as in a mass, with land, not a big wall of ice, so it is fundamentally different, good try though

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

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

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

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

Quote from: "gc"

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

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

How about over the edge?

How about over the edge?

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

Quote from: "gc"

How about over the edge?

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

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

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

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

Quote from: "gc"

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: "gc"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're pretty much just guessing.

Quote from: "gc"

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence of the ice wall is that the world is flat, since the world is flat, there needs to be something holding the water back from falling off the face of the earth.  This is a giant wall of ice, sometimes observed as Antarctica.

The evidence of the ice wall is that the world is flat, since the world is flat, there needs to be something holding the water back from falling off the face of the earth.  This is a giant wall of ice, sometimes observed as Antarctica.

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

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

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

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

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

No, what I mean is there's no DIRECT evidence. The Con stops us taking pictures and recording data, but given other factors we can see that Ice Wall theory is the only way it CAN be. It's a sort of Socratic/Taoistic "definition by process of elimination".

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

Yeah, some light shines on it, just much less than on the Equator. It never shines DIRECTLY on it.

Quote from: "gc"

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

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

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

Ok a few points here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antarctica IS the Ice Wall.

You are ignoring my point. There is water touching the ice. There can't be a sudden drop in temperature from the ice and the water touching the ice.

All you need is for the water in the ice wall and the water in the oceans to have different salinity: specifically, if the water in the ice wall is purer, then it will freeze at a higher temperature than the water in the oceans.