What about the Dinosuars?

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 23, 2009, 03:43:02 AM

1. Just because dinosaurs could walk from Eurasia to North America, does not mean they couldn't have built boats. This is a nonsensical point killabee, so stop making it.

Umm. You're misunderstanding Tom point. Tom says Dinosaurs didn't need to build boats. They could just walk. He's reducing the burden on himself by pointing towards the more plausible argument of what Dinosaurs probably could do, and not some idiotic speculation about what they might have been able to do.

But he is not saying that Dogplatter is wrong, as you have asserted.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 24, 2009, 04:08:27 AM

But he is not saying that Dogplatter is wrong, as you have asserted.

What he is saying contradicts Dogplatters account of Dinosaur dispersal across the earth.

No it doesn't. He is saying they could have walked, which doesn't mean they couldn't have built boats.

Umm. You're misunderstanding Tom point. Tom says Dinosaurs didn't need to build boats. They could just walk. He's reducing the burden on himself by pointing towards the more plausible argument of what Dinosaurs probably could do, and not some idiotic speculation about what they might have been able to do.

Sure he is, what's wrong with that? He's saying that at the very least, they might have walked across sea-ice. Both of us are arguing that the continents were never merged in a single giant landmass, Tom is not contradicting me, he is saying that even if they didn't build boats, the main conclusion still stands.

No, Dogplatter didn't post any fossil records that support the idea of dinosaurs travelling by boats. Nice rush play though.

I posted a detailed and accurate analysis of the distributions of a number of related species of dromaeosaur which strongly suggest maritime colonisation. It is right here in this very thread. The fact that I have posted it is indeniable. If you deny that I have posted this analysis you are in denial of an simple empirical fact. The account is provided on page 4 of this thread, and some supporting analysis is posted on page 5.

If the earth is flat and and heat rises from the ground as you believe then the theory that a gaint meteor hit the earth and the dust blocked the sun and made the earth colder which slowly killed them couldn't be true so how else could you explain their extinction?

(Starting from the beginning of the thread, not enough time to read it all lol)

Why can't a meteor hit a huge rising disc?
Why can't the cloud of dust be suspended in the air between the flat earth and the suspended sun? What stops rainclouds from doing the same?

There is no problem with Dinosaureses on a FE.

Their maritime civilization was dwarf by the achievement of colonizing space.  And all this with out thumbs mind you, smart bastards.

i believe that the dinosaurs enlisted the aid of all the local iguanadons to build all their boats

You link to these "boats" built by birds. Firstly it is a nest that happened to end up in the water, not a boat. Secondly these are not seafaring and are carrying a bird weighing maybe half a kilo. Not a 50 tonne dinosaur

Dinosaureses

Please note that this is not the plural form of dinosaur.  It's "dinosaurs."

You link to these "boats" built by birds. Firstly it is a nest that happened to end up in the water, not a boat. Secondly these are not seafaring and are carrying a bird weighing maybe half a kilo. Not a 50 tonne dinosaur

Our test case, the Early-Cretacious North American Deinonychus, would have weighed a maximum of 73 kilograms, based on the very largest specimens which have ever been discovered. I weigh 76 kilograms, and I assure you, I have travelled on many boats without causing them to sink. I've actually travelled, even, on a crude raft of my own construction. It didn't sink. We are posthulating that the Deinonychus and its livestock travelled on rafts of at least this magnitude.

As for large dinosaurs, let us turn our attention the Jurassic sauropod giants, Apatosaurus and Diplodocus, which would have preceded the Dromaeosaurs by several million years. Specimens of these two creatures, who of course would have great trouble traversing the ocean, are found exclusively on the North American continent. They were most probably not even sentient, and evidence suggests that they did not colonise by boat (or else they would also be found in Asia). You can stop using ridiculous hyperbole, too. No dinosaur ever weighed anything close to 50 tonnes (or 100 tonnes, the figure you previously cited). The very heaviest Diplodocus would likely not have exceeded 16 tonnes, but it really doesn't matter because we aren't suggesting that Diplodocus was a maritime colonist anyway.

What about Saurolophus, the veritable cattle of the Cretacious? Adults of this species would have weighed roughly 1.9 tonnes, but specimens appear in both the Far East and America. However, we've already established that these animals were farmed by Deinonychus and the descendant forms, so the logistical problems associated with transporting them would have fallen upon the pioneers of the Asian colonisation. I think it's very likely that infant Saurolophus were transported in those colonial ships rather than full-grown adults, because as you say, a 1.9 tonne dinosaur does not make a brilliant skipper.

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.

Wow Dogplatter.  A fleet of sailing ships is quite a bit more sophisticated than a floating nest that Tom Bishop proposed.  I'm guessing that by referencing the Mayflower, you're suggesting that the dinosaurs built multi-decked ships with sails, it that correct?  Just out of curiosity, have you or your associates ever tried to weave sails without the use of your thumbs?

Wow Dogplatter.  A fleet of sailing ships is quite a bit more sophisticated than a floating nest that Tom Bishop proposed.  I'm guessing that by referencing the Mayflower, you're suggesting that the dinosaurs built multi-decked ships with sails, it that correct?  Just out of curiosity, have you or your associates ever tried to weave sails without the use of your thumbs?

The notorious highly dexterous toe-claw common to all dromaeosaur species would have been ideal for certain types of clothwork, rapid stitching of cloth included.

If I get the time, I will film myself performing some basic weaving operations with my fingers taped though, as I am confident that the three hand-claws of a Deinonychus would also be fine for tasks like that.



The above is a work in progress, I'll post more later on when I'm done. I feel that while there is currently an abundance of artist's impressions of dinosaurs, they generally portray them in accordance with the brutal, ferocious Hollywood "Jurassic Park" myth. I intend to produce and disseminate a series of much more accurate portrayals of what life may have been like in the Early Cretaceous.

Quote from: Starbuck on June 21, 2009, 08:21:22 AM

You've never been at sea, have you?

It's not impossible to swim from the US to Asia. You can actually see Russia from the tip of Alaska. The nearest Russian landmass is just 1.5 miles away.

I believe that you dodged the question.

This is outstanding. The most thorough trolling I have ever seen.
Where is your evidence for these boats, other than saying "they may have used boats". With that logic you could also say they teleported to another planet.

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 26, 2009, 01:07:34 PM

This is outstanding. The most thorough trolling I have ever seen.
Where is your evidence for these boats, other than saying "they may have used boats". With that logic you could also say they teleported to another planet.

Why must globularists always resort to implying that I'm not sincere and serious when they run out of other arguments? Time and time again, year after year, a fresh troupe of Round Earth philosophasters inevitably call us trolls and charlatans instead of legitimately addressing our research. Since the 19th Century, accusations such as these have been a favourite mainstay of globe-believers who don't seem to be able to come up with anything else. If you are genuinely complimenting my illustration, then thank you, though I can't help but detect dripping sarcasm there.

Where is my evidence? My ample evidence is strewn all across these 22 pages, to which you should refer. Don't worry, I'll soon be publishing the entire body of my work on zetetic palaeontology in a more organised form, at which point you will be able to peruse the various arguments without looking through this thread.

Quote from: King Awesome on June 26, 2009, 05:38:06 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 26, 2009, 01:07:34 PM

LOL-ABLE IMAGE

This is outstanding. The most thorough trolling I have ever seen.
Where is your evidence for these boats, other than saying "they may have used boats". With that logic you could also say they teleported to another planet.

Why must globularists always resort to implying that I'm not sincere and serious when they run out of other arguments? Time and time again, year after year, a fresh troupe of Round Earth philosophasters inevitably call us trolls and charlatans instead of legitimately addressing our research. Since the 19th Century, accusations such as these have been a favourite mainstay of globe-believers who don't seem to be able to come up with anything else. If you are genuinely complimenting my illustration, then thank you, though I can't help but detect dripping sarcasm there.

Where is my evidence? My ample evidence is strewn all across these 22 pages, to which you should refer. Don't worry, I'll soon be publishing the entire body of my work on zetetic palaeontology in a more organised form, at which point you will be able to peruse the various arguments without looking through this thread.

Research? All you have done is say "they may have made boats & fished". No animal in the animal kingdom has shown the kind of intelligence before, other than humans, and you have no proof for your claim. Without evidence, you may as well say they used jetpacks to cross the sea.
You have no evidence, just an over developed hypothesis. Now go find some evidence to support your claim, or I may as well claim that the dinosaurs looked like this:
[image removed]

Research? All you have done is say "they may have made boats & fished". No animal in the animal kingdom has shown the kind of intelligence before, other than humans, and you have no proof for your claim. Without evidence, you may as well say they used jetpacks to cross the sea.
You have no evidence, just an over developed hypothesis. Now go find some evidence to support your claim, or I may as well claim that the dinosaurs looked like this:

You obviously haven't read the rest of the thread very well. I've provided reasonably detailed analyses of distributions in the fossil record which support my claims. It's funny that you don't seem to be particularly keen to answer to those, instead resorting to making fun of my sketching ability (a complete red herring and ad hominem).

Quote from: King Awesome on June 26, 2009, 06:11:48 PM

Research? All you have done is say "they may have made boats & fished". No animal in the animal kingdom has shown the kind of intelligence before, other than humans, and you have no proof for your claim. Without evidence, you may as well say they used jetpacks to cross the sea.
You have no evidence, just an over developed hypothesis. Now go find some evidence to support your claim, or I may as well claim that the dinosaurs looked like this:

You obviously haven't read the rest of the thread very well. I've provided reasonably detailed analyses of distributions in the fossil record which support my claims. It's funny that you don't seem to be particularly keen to answer to those, instead resorting to making fun of my sketching ability (a complete red herring and ad hominem).

Have you found any evidence for dinosaur boats or fishing equipment, or signs of intelligence that suggests dinosaurs were able to command fleets of ships?
Again, all you have is an over-developed hypothesis with no evidence.

Have you found any evidence for dinosaur boats or fishing equipment, or signs of intelligence that suggests dinosaurs were able to command fleets of ships?
Again, all you have is an over-developed hypothesis with no evidence.

The existence of a North American maritime society capable of fishing and existent during the Cretaceous period is attested by the distribution of plesiosaurs, shellfish and other marine animal fossil specimens across the continental United States. Deinonychus (and by extension its evolutionary descendant Dromaeosaurus), which existed during this period on the North American continent, is by far the most likely candidate species for this activity. Sea animals only end up dying in large numbers hundreds of miles inland when they are transported there deliberately for the purposes of consumption or captivity.

King Awesome has been permenantly banned because it is an alt account for forums user matzy88. Attempting to circumvent existing bans by creating new accounts is strictly prohibited, and as a result, matzy88's ban has been extended. Let this be a lesson to everyone, and now let's get back on with the thread.

Don't worry, I'll soon be publishing the entire body of my work on zetetic palaeontology in a more organised form, at which point you will be able to peruse the various arguments without looking through this thread.

How, exactly, is what you've put forth here in any way "zetetic"?

Instead of manipulating observable evidence in order to conform to the preconceived notions of the globularist geological dialectic, I have employed a ground-up approach in order to obtain a common-sense, dogma-free interpretation of what the available evidence tells us.

Instead of manipulating observable evidence in order to conform to the preconceived notions of the globularist geological dialectic, I have employed a ground-up approach in order to obtain a common-sense, dogma-free interpretation of what the available evidence tells us.

What definition of zetetic are you using?

Dogplatter, there are two problems with the anatomy of the Dromaeosaurids in your drawing.  Firstly, if those are Deinonychus, then they have the following two things:

• Feathers.  At the very least, it has been proven that they had feather precursors.
• Semi-lunate carpals.  This forced the raptor's palms to face each other, extended the range of motion up and down in said formation (far past our own) while severely limiting or eliminating the range of motion left and right in that formation.  This resulted in a natural barrier against prey escaping its grasp after it has been caught.

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 26, 2009, 08:24:25 PM

Instead of manipulating observable evidence in order to conform to the preconceived notions of the globularist geological dialectic, I have employed a ground-up approach in order to obtain a common-sense, dogma-free interpretation of what the available evidence tells us.

What definition of zetetic are you using?

http://naturyl.humanists.net/zetetic.html

The term 'Zetetic' is formally defined as "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker." In modern usage, the term 'inquiry' is understood as 'critical inquiry,' and the zetetic is therefore best considered a 'skeptical seeker.'

Zeteticism, then, is the principle and practice of being a zetetic, a skeptical seeker. In plainer terms, it is an open-minded yet realistic approach to matters of truth, philosophy, and religion. It is based in critical thinking.

In that Zeteticism is a skeptical worldview, it is generally humanistic in its approach. This is to say that since traditional mythologies and ideas are examined critically, the zetetic worldview tends toward secular humanism.

Zeteticism is not dogmatic, nor does it eschew concepts such as spirituality and numinous experience. It is generally open-minded toward most ideas, but it encourages discernment based on logic, reason, and critical thought.

I thought I might add something to the discussion, namely that many historians agree that the Vikings acheived transatlantic crossings in their longboats, and that even if they didn't, they were certainly capable of doing so, as the distance between Scandinavia and Iceland is actually greater than than between Greenland and North America (though not by much), and the weather far more stable.

I realise that for some people here the idea of Dinosaurs constructing a ship like the Mayflower may seem difficult to swallow, but let's put aside the idea of multi-decked ships for a minute, and take a look at the Viking longboat:











The Viking longboat was a relatively simple vessel capable of oceanic travel, and I personally believe that having started with rafts, over the course of time, dinosaurs would have been capable of perfecting the art of constructing vehicles like these.

Now, as for the sails, I have read that in ancient times leather was sometimes used to create sails. I can't find anything at the moment other than the following link- if you open it and search for 'leather sail' within the page you'll find the bit I'm talking about:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14400/14400-h/14400-h.htm

Now this is just my own hypothesis, but assuming Deinonychus were already farming other dinosaurs, they would have access to large dinosaur hides, from which leather sails could be easily made, which would eliminate the need for cloth stitching.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 26, 2009, 08:50:50 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 26, 2009, 08:24:25 PM

Instead of manipulating observable evidence in order to conform to the preconceived notions of the globularist geological dialectic, I have employed a ground-up approach in order to obtain a common-sense, dogma-free interpretation of what the available evidence tells us.

What definition of zetetic are you using?

http://naturyl.humanists.net/zetetic.html

Okay, that actually does make sense.  It just doesn't seem to me that the theory of continental drift and plate tectonics were arrived at in any less of a zetetic way than Dogplatter's theory of seafaring dinosaurs.  To me they both seem like equally plausible theories when considered zetetically.  When Dogplatter claims that his theory is based on a more zetetic approach he seems to be adding the clause "not globularist" to the definition you linked to above which is a bit disturbing, because it really just turns the bias from one direction to the other and I think in order for it to be taken seriously zeteticism should be completely free of bias.  Maybe Dogplatter can explain the distinction better to me.

Okay, that actually does make sense.  It just doesn't seem to me that the theory of continental drift and plate tectonics were arrived at in any less of a zetetic way than Dogplatter's theory of seafaring dinosaurs.  To me they both seem like equally plausible theories when considered zetetically.  When Dogplatter claims that his theory is based on a more zetetic approach he seems to be adding the clause "not globularist" to the definition you linked to above which is a bit disturbing, because it really just turns the bias from one direction to the other and I think in order for it to be taken seriously zeteticism should be completely free of bias.  Maybe Dogplatter can explain the distinction better to me.

Well it's not really deniable that the globularist paradigm has massively influenced the geologists involved in the invention and promotion of tectonic plate theory before they took a single piece of empirical data or even formulated their hypothesis. Zeteticism as a whole does not notionally discriminate between Flat Earth Theory and Round Earth Theory, but in practice, actually executing a zetetic study can often necessitate extracting oneself from the prevailing preconceptions about the subject matter.

In the case of explaining fossil record distributions, if we consider them from the initial perspective of globularist ontology, we are damned to make certain unfounded assumptions in favour of one particular explanation, so in order to effect proper zetetic inquiry we are required to cast off the intellectual shackles of globularism (at least suspending conviction of their certainty temporarily, if not abandoning it altogether).

Notice that the notion that dinosaurs colonised by oceanic travel is not geoidologically specific (i.e., it makes no assumptions about the shape of the Earth and is compatible with either model). For this reason, its candidacy as a potential result of zetetic study is high. Independent inquiry into its truth or falsehood can, and has, been conducted without specific deference to either geoidolgical paradigm. The same cannot be said of tectonic plate theory.

Feathers.  At the very least, it has been proven that they had feather precursors.

You're assuming that Deinonychus did not shave themselves. Many human societies which have reached the kind of technological level which allows them to build boats have also developed cultures which encourage the removal of body hair (the functional equivalent to non-flying feathers).

Semi-lunate carpals.  This forced the raptor's palms to face each other, extended the range of motion up and down in said formation (far past our own) while severely limiting or eliminating the range of motion left and right in that formation.  This resulted in a natural barrier against prey escaping its grasp after it has been caught.

What's the evidence for this? I'm not sure that I deny it, but I'm also not yet sure that I want to affirm it.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 26, 2009, 09:33:07 PM

Feathers.  At the very least, it has been proven that they had feather precursors.

You're assuming that Deinonychus did not shave themselves. Many human societies which have reached the kind of technological level which allows them to build boats have also developed cultures which encourage the removal of body hair (the functional equivalent to non-flying feathers).

Sorry.  I just get stuffy when people depict them with scaly skin when they were actually covered with filamentous "protofeathers."

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 26, 2009, 09:33:07 PM

Semi-lunate carpals.  This forced the raptor's palms to face each other, extended the range of motion up and down in said formation (far past our own) while severely limiting or eliminating the range of motion left and right in that formation.  This resulted in a natural barrier against prey escaping its grasp after it has been caught.

What's the evidence for this? I'm not sure that I deny it, but I'm also not yet sure that I want to affirm it.

Dogplatter, it's common knowledge to paleontologists, especially the ones with an interest in taxonomy and phylogeny.  It's one of the identifying characteristics that distinguish one family from another.  I learned it in a class, with the instructor using his own hands in a demonstration while he explained it to the class.

Here's what I could scrounge up from the Internet:

A semi-lunate carpal in the wrist that facilitates the peculiar sideways folding (pronation) of the forelimb or wing.

Further reading.  Has a picture of what a semilunate carpal would look like.