James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 281783 Views
?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
James's theory on dinosaurs
« on: November 09, 2009, 02:46:24 PM »
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

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

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2009, 01:43:16 AM »
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

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


Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2009, 07:03:05 AM »
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

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


Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.
To be fair, they are hypotheses.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2009, 08:57:31 AM »
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

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


Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.

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

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2009, 08:58:55 AM »
Hypothesis or theory,  it merits more than just compulsive skepticism disguised as clear-sightedness.  I support James and I think there are others, Ski for instance.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2009, 11:22:32 AM »
Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

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


Untrue. Several of us support James' theories.

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


I've done so on several occasions. You've been here two months, I've been here 31/2 years. Just because you haven't seen something happen in the last two month isn't a reason to assume it hasn't happened at all.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2009, 04:28:43 AM »
I've done so on several occasions. You've been here two months, I've been here 31/2 years. Just because you haven't seen something happen in the last two month isn't a reason to assume it hasn't happened at all.

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

That's not the zetetic way.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2009, 05:03:18 AM »
I'm not appealing to ignornance, because you are free to use the search function. If you do so, you will easily find several, lengthy threads where I defend that theory. In fact, I doubt there's more than one or two significant threads on that subject in which I do not state my support for that theory. Honestly, search dinosaurs, and you'll find me in those threads. Search for dinosaurs under my username, and you'll find endless examples.


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


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


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


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


never seen anyone else make a post promoting colonial dinosaurs.


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


must be passive and unspoken support.


It really is very simple.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2009, 05:18:55 AM »
My point is that you not having seen it doesn't mean you should assume that my support "must be passive and unspoken support."

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

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

You could have just posted this first time round.

*shrugs*

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

The point still stands, most FEers seem to have their own "flat earth". There is little unity. See our discussion on redundancy in the FAQ for details.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2009, 05:27:25 AM »
However, having searched it seems that you are the only one to support James in his colonial dinosaur boat theory. So "one" not "several" support James.


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


You could have just posted this first time round.


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


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


Should you assume they are untrue without seeing evidence? I stated I had supported James on several occasions; you made the assumption that I had not done so openly The Zetetic way is based on removing assumptions. You should look into it.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2009, 05:44:04 AM »


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

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

« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 05:53:38 AM by John Davis »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2009, 05:49:13 AM »
I've in the past argued  in support of the possibility of colonial dinosaurs despite it being against my personal worldview.

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

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2009, 07:31:27 AM »


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


If you will only do a proper search, you will see you are wrong.  Try the threads 'Do Dinosaurs exist in FE theory?' and  'Antartica' (sic).

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41970
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2009, 07:45:05 AM »
*Ahem*

The topic of discussion seems to have strayed from sky mirrors to dinosaurs.  Unless the dinos had something to do with erecting the sky mirrors, I'd say that you guys should get back on topic.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2009, 10:32:33 AM »
I've in the past argued  in support of the possibility of colonial dinosaurs despite it being against my personal worldview.

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

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

Similar is not equal to.

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

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

Since we are getting off topic I suggest a new topic be launched.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2009, 09:38:19 PM »
I've in the past argued  in support of the possibility of colonial dinosaurs despite it being against my personal worldview.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've seen no evidence to indicate such. I have searched the threads mentioned.
Apparently you haven't.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2009, 04:27:01 AM »
Apparently you haven't.

I have.

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

 :-\

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2009, 04:33:32 AM »
Obviously larger nests might be able to weather the ocean.  I know that at least one of those species lives in the sea during certain parts of the year.

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

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

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

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2009, 04:45:34 AM »
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.

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

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

I'll have to restate the question here.



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

Would all such supporters please state their support in no uncertain terms here.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 04:49:51 AM by Crustinator »

*

MikeVaughanG

  • 84
  • Get Yo'self Some Truthiness
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2009, 07:25:41 AM »
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.

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

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

I'll have to restate the question here.



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

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

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

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

IOf there's one thing you learn from this forum, let it be .. Some people, You just CAN'T reach.
Quote
"your retarted"
Quote
ps. i couldnt give s shit about spelling, gramma or puntuation -slammer

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2009, 07:34:43 AM »
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.


You never specified boat building. I also think it's hilarious that you assume you have the right to demand that other people state their beliefs to you at a time and place of your choosing. We've already shown that there are a number of people on this site who support that theory, and that your initial statement was false.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 07:40:48 AM by Lord Wilmore »
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2009, 08:18:26 AM »
You never specified boat building.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Even if only one species of dinosaur attained naval capabilities, their travel would doubtless have included the transportation of "livestock" analogous to human society's domain over less developed animals, which would still corroborate fossil evidence.

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

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

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

And finally...

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

...

Further details can be found by reading those threads.

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

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2009, 08:39:10 AM »
I somehow got the idea you disliked redundancy.  This thread is redundant.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2009, 01:14:30 PM »
Yes I did. James' colonial dinosaur theory encompasses boat building amongst many other things. I claified what I was requesting in the new topic.


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


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

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


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


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


To quote someone is to provide an example of people speaking for themselves. Nobody is obligated to come running at your beck and call.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2009, 03:01:05 PM »
By pointing to threads where others express their support, I have shown you that there are a number of people on this site who support his theory.

You haven't pointed to any such threads.

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

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2009, 04:23:34 PM »
You haven't pointed to any such threads.


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



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


They already proved as much by supporting his theories in previous threads.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2009, 07:58:24 PM »
That's floating nests not colonisation by boat building.
I disagree, they are the same thing.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2009, 02:57:15 AM »
You haven't pointed to any such threads.


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

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

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

No they're not.

Let me help you.

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

I'll ask you directly John. Do belief that dinosaurs were an advanced and civilised race who colonised the planet building cities and boats?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2009, 03:23:28 AM »
I've already answered that.

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

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2009, 03:50:37 AM »
You haven't pointed to any such threads.


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

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


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


I disagree, they are the same thing.


Agreed, especially as Tom has also claimed that Dinosaurs may have used logs to float across the ocean. Used in this manner, a log is essentially a simple raft.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord