James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 312293 Views
?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1080 on: November 29, 2010, 10:35:22 AM »
So you believe something without direct senatorial.evidence for it.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1081 on: November 29, 2010, 11:55:04 AM »
So you believe something without direct senatorial.evidence for it.


I am not a big fan of the U.S. or indeed any other Senate. Such bodies are largely useless in their current form, and where useful, often bloated or even dangerous. After all, Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator, and much of the evidence placed before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was extremely dubious. This is reason alone not to trust such evidence, never mind that it is neither direct nor sensorial in nature.
"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

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1082 on: November 29, 2010, 12:00:53 PM »
The verb used is irrelevant zork. His point stands either way. Plenty of early primates have been found without tools nearby, probably a lot more than have been found with tools.
  But there is plenty of them with tools near them and there are plenty of tools without them in their time-line. But there is no findings of anything that resembles a tool at that we can place in the relevant time-frame for dinosaurs. There isn't even any hints about the civilization. So, you can fantasize all you want but it is only a fantasy, nothing more.

  And I am claiming that it is even super-hyper-extremely unlikely that Deinonychus may have some sort of civilization. Given such limited info it is totally absurd to suggest that there was some sort of advanced tool usage and society built by Deinonychus. It is absurd to say that absence of evidence for civilization means that there was a civilization.

I have never claimed that absence of evidence equals evidence, simply that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (which is what you have claimed).
There is absence of evidence for civilization and you still claim that there was civilization. What else this is if not claiming that absence of evidence equals evidence.


What I am about here? Your only argument for the dinosaur civilization was the fossil distribution around the world and then you bring for the showcase the specimen who live in some local area.

No, I did not:
I have no idea what you're on about here. I raised Tyrannosaurus rex because it is a species of dinosaur for which we have a (relatively) excellent fossil record. Yet we still only have 30 specimens of it. I was not suggesting that Tyrannosaurs used tools, just that your expectation that we should have found tools by now is absurd.

If you have reading difficulties zork, consult a professional. If not, then I suggest you take your strawman arguments elsewhere. I have been perfectly clear about why I brought Tyrannosaurus into this thread, and pretending that I made a different point when it's there in black & white is a shoddy debating tactic.
So, you take a irrelevant specimen and try to make a point. If Tyranosaurs didn't have civilization and were scattered around area then there isn't anything to find. Now bring me a relevant example for a large area civilization developing some tens of millions years and from what we have only speculation and zero findings.

I have no idea what you're on about here. And the number of fossil records of one specimen have no relation for the tools and their remnants and preservation.

Yes it does, don't be so ridiculous. Here are some posts James made in an earlier thread (which you would already have encountered had you bothered to look for it):
...
To suggest that the number of fossils discovered has no bearing on the probability of discovering tools or boats is demonstrably absurd.

 Not it isn't. You are just being deliberately stubborn. There are fossil findings down to 2.7 billion years ago and thousands of findings for organisms/animals from 600 million to 60 million years. The percentages displayed are just a demagogy. If there was a civilization built during tens of  millions of years(just look where the humans got with some 100 000 years) with tools and buildings then the possibility of them disappearing without leaving any signs is zero. The signs about the creators of such civilizations are disappering first and the signs about the civilization remain longer. I say again, define your civilization or there is nothing to talk about because you and James talk about some very primitive social community at least but nothing more. And that is definitely not civilization.


I still don't understand any of your claims that there may have been a civilization. For the further clarification please define the 'civilization' and in what evidence you base your conclusion that dinosaurs may have had it. And something else than fossil distribution, because it isn't in any way evidence for the civilization, it is only evidence for the fact that dinosaurs moved around, traveled.

The construction of boats or rafts for the purposes of group-travel strongly suggests the existence of a Dromaeosaur civilisation/culture.
  There is no evidence for the boat or even raft buildings. So, there isn't anything that suggest the existence of civilization. You are just making things up.
  His theory is also based only on assumption that the continents were unchangeable for the last 200 or more million years. That notion is absurd even if the plate tectonic theory isn't right. And the place he uses is the Bering Strait which is covered with ice in the winter and offers a possibility to cross over without any boats. There is also very great possibility that it was considerably narrower 200 million years ago or the continents were connected with land. In addition, only the construction of rafts and boats won't let you cruise over the Pacific Ocean. You need navigation skills also.

Sure, it's tiresome when you go by some vague memory or hearsay and even can't point out your sources. Fossil distribution is the only argument for dinosaurs civilization and I surely don't get how in the hell you can deduce civilization from the two fossil remnants.


It's very simple:
...

 Short summary - nice pictures and some facts mixed with fantasies. But at least it seems that there is some effort put in it. I guess I come back for it after some time. For now I want to say that, was it so hard to provide your source? Search won't give this message up so easy so I guess you must know the exact right keywords for the search.


You cannot simultaneously demand sources and dismiss them in advance. It makes you look inconsistent at best and petulant at worst. You being awkward for the sake of it, raising imaginary obstacles and setting arbitrary standards in whatever way suits you best. This is not the first time you have done this, nor do I expect it to be the last. It's one of your worst habits zork.

If James' work is so trivial, so unimportant, so lacking in 'seriousness', then you should have no trouble engaging with it and critiquing it. Instead you seek to have it deemed 'impermissable as evidence' because it fails to satisfy some obscure definition of 'work' held by you alone. I think the reason you're trying to avoid discussing his work is because you cannot find any problems with it.
  I don't dismiss sources in advance. They are just not easy to find ad you playing kindergarten child play "I know but I don't tell you" won't make things easier. You refusing to disclose your sources makes you seem equally inconsistent and petulant. I can very well describe you with the same words as you did. You are no better.
  As for James "work" then it is in no way serious. I have no problem to come back to it later when I have some time but the main faults in his theory is that he just fantasizes without any supportive real findings and discards the known facts that the continents weren't as they are now 200-100 hundred millions years ago. Also the overall time-line which is tens of millions of years. That is plenty of time to develop something more in addition to primitive raft building.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1083 on: November 29, 2010, 12:37:47 PM »
  But there is plenty of them with tools near them and there are plenty of tools without them in their time-line. But there is no findings of anything that resembles a tool at that we can place in the relevant time-frame for dinosaurs. There isn't even any hints about the civilization. So, you can fantasize all you want but it is only a fantasy, nothing more.


Yes, but we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of specimens of early primates. Also please say what you mean by 'plenty', and provide sources to back up your claim.


There is absence of evidence for civilization and you still claim that there was civilization. What else this is if not claiming that absence of evidence equals evidence.


I claim that a maritime civilisation was probable given the fossil record.


So, you take a irrelevant specimen and try to make a point. If Tyranosaurs didn't have civilization and were scattered around area then there isn't anything to find. Now bring me a relevant example for a large area civilization developing some tens of millions years and from what we have only speculation and zero findings.


zork, if you're not going to read my posts, don't reply to them. You are exposing yourself as either stupid or dishonest. Your argument is a total straw man, and is only exceptional because it is so obvious.


Not it isn't. You are just being deliberately stubborn. There are fossil findings down to 2.7 billion years ago and thousands of findings for organisms/animals from 600 million to 60 million years. The percentages displayed are just a demagogy.


Yes, but we are not suggesting that all creatures used tools! We are suggesting that a certain species of dinosaur (and possibly some of its ancestors) used tools. Please show us the "thousands" of findings for these species, or else accept that comparison with humans is ridiculous. Also, as James himself said:


If anybody has any disagreement with these figures and processes, provide me with new variables. If you believe that either of the following:

    Total number of dinosaur specimens discovered by humanity
    Total number of dinosaurs, on average, born every year during the 160 million years in which they existed

ought to be different, please provide your own variables. I assure you that any reasonable estimates will yield the result that a miniscule percentage of the total dinosaurs which have existed have actually been found, and that the same would be true of the boats they built.


If there was a civilization built during tens of  millions of years(just look where the humans got with some 100 000 years) with tools and buildings then the possibility of them disappearing without leaving any signs is zero. The signs about the creators of such civilizations are disappering first and the signs about the civilization remain longer. I say again, define your civilization or there is nothing to talk about because you and James talk about some very primitive social community at least but nothing more. And that is definitely not civilization.


Semantics, and a comment which shows you are totally unaware of the huge amount of debate and discourse surrounding the term 'civilisation'. It is anything but fixed or clearly defined. Moreover, the precise term is irrelevant. I am happy to describe it as a primitive, ocean-faring social community if you like. It doesn't make a bit of difference.


  There is no evidence for the boat or even raft buildings. So, there isn't anything that suggest the existence of civilization. You are just making things up.


The distribution of fossils suggests a maritime culture.



  His theory is also based only on assumption that the continents were unchangeable for the last 200 or more million years. That notion is absurd even if the plate tectonic theory isn't right.


What?


And the place he uses is the Bering Strait which is covered with ice in the winter and offers a possibility to cross over without any boats. There is also very great possibility that it was considerably narrower 200 million years ago or the continents were connected with land. In addition, only the construction of rafts and boats won't let you cruise over the Pacific Ocean. You need navigation skills also.


1) The distribution of fossil evidence, which is our only source of evidence, does ot yet suggest crossings cia the Bering Strait.


2) Plenty of nomadic human cultures crossed oceans without advanced navigation tools. As for navigation 'skills', plenty of animals possess this, both at sea and on land (notably avian dinosaurs).


Short summary - nice pictures and some facts mixed with fantasies. But at least it seems that there is some effort put in it. I guess I come back for it after some time. For now I want to say that, was it so hard to provide your source? Search won't give this message up so easy so I guess you must know the exact right keywords for the search.


It isn't hard at all. I searched for posts by James containing the word 'dinosaur'. That topic is one of the first results. I'm sure more specific searches (e.g.  You've been here long enough, so I don't see why I should present links to arrogant RE'ers who simply can't be bothered to look themselves.


  I don't dismiss sources in advance. They are just not easy to find ad you playing kindergarten child play "I know but I don't tell you" won't make things easier. You refusing to disclose your sources makes you seem equally inconsistent and petulant. I can very well describe you with the same words as you did. You are no better.


Earlier you specifically stated you would not accept his posts/messages as work. How easy or difficult they are to find, or how reluctant I am to satisfy the lazy and arrogant, is irrelevant.


  As for James "work" then it is in no way serious. I have no problem to come back to it later when I have some time but the main faults in his theory is that he just fantasizes without any supportive real findings and discards the known facts that the continents weren't as they are now 200-100 hundred millions years ago. Also the overall time-line which is tens of millions of years. That is plenty of time to develop something more in addition to primitive raft building.


zork, you have presented no contrary evidence whatsoever. People in glass houses...
"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

?

Terra Plana

  • 35
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1084 on: December 01, 2010, 01:16:19 AM »
So you believe something without direct senatorial.evidence for it.

I think Lord Wilmore's reasoning is fine in this context and in the thread where he discussed the sun's movements. It is fair enough demanding direct sensorial evidence for present day phenomena, after all these experiments are repeatable. The dinosaurs are a totally different matter, they are separated from us by millions of years and we have only a very sparse fossil record. No direct sensorial evidence can possibly be offered here because we don't have a time machine. We are forced to use only the few fossils we have, and fill the rest in with hypotheses which are largely untestable and always will be.

We can argue which hypotheses are more probable based on which have more supporting data but it will ultimately be impossible to prove either way. I argue for the existence of a primitive dinosaur civilization because it would explain both the distribution of dinosaur fossils all over the world, evolution of the deinonychus to smaller dinosaurs with smaller claws. This evolution of deinonychus would be explained perfectly if they were a largely social race with rudimentary agricultural skills, as they would no longer have the need for such large, combat oriented bodies.

I know that this is only hypothesizing and cannot prove anything either way, but as mentioned we will never know these things for sure. I am simply trying to demonstrate that dinosaur civilization is certainly possible and that the distribution of dinosaur fossils record poses no problems for FET.
It's a proven fact, those in power are more likley to lie.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1085 on: December 01, 2010, 07:34:28 AM »
Terra Plana is correct. Ultimately we are only speculating and discussing the probability of each theory. It would be wrong of us (or anyone) to make absolute declarations of truth or validity based on the very limited evidence we have.
"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

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1086 on: December 01, 2010, 08:07:13 AM »
Terra Plana is correct. Ultimately we are only speculating and discussing the probability of each theory. It would be wrong of us (or anyone) to make absolute declarations of truth or validity based on the very limited evidence we have.

Therefore you should not absolutely declare that the earth is flat based on the very limited evidence you have.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1087 on: December 01, 2010, 08:38:55 AM »
So you believe something without direct senatorial.evidence for it.

So you believe things which require you to take a leap of faith?

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1088 on: December 01, 2010, 09:56:25 AM »
So you believe something without direct senatorial.evidence for it.

So you believe things which require you to take a leap of faith?

No.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1089 on: December 01, 2010, 01:03:28 PM »
Terra Plana is correct. Ultimately we are only speculating and discussing the probability of each theory. It would be wrong of us (or anyone) to make absolute declarations of truth or validity based on the very limited evidence we have.

Therefore you should not absolutely declare that the earth is flat based on the very limited evidence you have.


There is plenty of direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is flat. I was talking about evidence for the behaviour patterns and lifestyles of prehistoric dinosaurs.
"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

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1090 on: December 04, 2010, 11:38:17 AM »
Yes, but we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of specimens of early primates. Also please say what you mean by 'plenty', and provide sources to back up your claim.

 Plenty is enough to see that there were tools and they were used by humanoids. Read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool for example.

I claim that a maritime civilisation was probable given the fossil record.
Finding a bunch of bones from somewhere don't indicate any civilization. Even not the probability.

Yes, but we are not suggesting that all creatures used tools! We are suggesting that a certain species of dinosaur (and possibly some of its ancestors) used tools.
Sure, and you do that without any evidence. It's kind of absurd because in that logic I may claim that the dinosaurs built the rockets and they didn't go extinct but they fly away to another planets. You may suggest anything but to really show that they did it there must be some evidence which you totally lack.

  His theory is also based only on assumption that the continents were unchangeable for the last 200 or more million years. That notion is absurd even if the plate tectonic theory isn't right.

What?

Plate tectonics doesn't ring any bell? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/tectonics/intro.html for example? That means that the continents weren't in same places as they are right now but in different places. James theory relies completely on the fact that the continents were in dinosaurs time exactly like they are now. And my point is that even if there isn't tectonic plates and there wasn't pangea and continents don't move event then the continents can't stay unchangeable in the hundreds of millions of years.

It isn't hard at all. I searched for posts by James containing the word 'dinosaur'. That topic is one of the first results. I'm sure more specific searches
Topic! Not the message. To me the search gives result which has the James message at the page 20 and your quoted message was on 3 page. That means that you expect others to go through the who know how many pages to find something. I expect to use Search function to find the mesage I want not the N page long topic from where there may or may not be the relevant message. I quite see you as the arrogant one here.

zork, you have presented no contrary evidence whatsoever. People in glass houses...
Lord Wilmore, you have presented no evidence whatsoever for the civilization case. So, we are even.

I was talking about evidence for the behaviour patterns and lifestyles of prehistoric dinosaurs.
Your sources please. Where do we have such kind of evidence for their behaviour patterns and lifestyles?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1091 on: December 04, 2010, 12:37:51 PM »
Yes, but we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of specimens of early primates. Also please say what you mean by 'plenty', and provide sources to back up your claim.

 Plenty is enough to see that there were tools and they were used by humanoids. Read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool for example.

I'm not sure how we can deduce that all of the stone tools found were used by humanoids and not dexterous dinosaurs. Perhaps some of the crude tools found were crafted and used by dinosaurs. They may even have been re-used by later human settlements.

I have no beef with continental drift. I don't see why that could not account for fossil distribution, but Mr. McIntyre's theory is at least plausible. Certainly not as impossible as you make it sound. 
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1092 on: December 04, 2010, 12:58:13 PM »
Yes, but we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of specimens of early primates. Also please say what you mean by 'plenty', and provide sources to back up your claim.

 Plenty is enough to see that there were tools and they were used by humanoids. Read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool for example.

I'm not sure how we can deduce that all of the stone tools found were used by humanoids and not dexterous dinosaurs. Perhaps some of the crude tools found were crafted and used by dinosaurs. They may even have been re-used by later human settlements.

I have no beef with continental drift. I don't see why that could not account for fossil distribution, but Mr. McIntyre's theory is at least plausible. Certainly not as impossible as you make it sound. 

I think it highly unlikely that two species separately started using similar tools while having very different ergonomic needs. While it is possible dinosaurs had tools, it is a rather rash assumption to say they would look like ours.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1093 on: December 04, 2010, 01:02:31 PM »
Perhaps this is true of the instruments themselves, but the axe heads, boring heads, etc would of necessity be similar. The handles and mountings of these instruments do not survive, of course.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1094 on: December 04, 2010, 01:21:47 PM »
I wonder if previously discovered stone tool cores have been examined with the possibility of non humanoid crafters?  I've been told that right and left-handedness can be deduced if these are expertly studied.  Could other clues come to light with Mr. McIntyre's theory in mind?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1095 on: December 04, 2010, 01:25:33 PM »
I'm sure the possibility is rarely, if ever, entertained while studying lithic artifacts. It's not a wonder that no stone tools have been attributed to dinosaurs, as one generally finds what one is looking for.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1096 on: December 04, 2010, 01:49:19 PM »
I know one such expert.  As I'll be seeing her during Christmas, I'll ask and see what she might be able to lend to the theory.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1097 on: December 04, 2010, 03:14:43 PM »
I'm not sure how we can deduce that all of the stone tools found were used by humanoids and not dexterous dinosaurs. Perhaps some of the crude tools found were crafted and used by dinosaurs. They may even have been re-used by later human settlements.
  There is no way to determine that. You may theorize about it but what methods you can hope to use to attribute the tools making time to the 60 or more million years later? And it is not very probable that the tools just lied around on the ground some 60 million or more years for the stone age humans to find. Things lying around so many years have tendency to be buried quite deep underground.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1098 on: December 04, 2010, 04:37:05 PM »
I'm not suggesting humans didn't form tools or stole them from dinosaurs. I'm simply saying that we do find tools, and I'm not sure how one could conclude they were not pre-human or dinosauric.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42318
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1099 on: December 04, 2010, 04:42:17 PM »
One can get a rough idea of the age of the artifacts by knowing how deep they were buried.
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.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1101 on: December 04, 2010, 05:36:31 PM »
One can get a rough idea of the age of the artifacts by knowing how deep they were buried.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1102 on: December 06, 2010, 12:21:52 PM »
Like this?

http://weirdsciences.net/2009/12/19/does-human-existed-before-current-thoughts-or-something-else/

If someone can unlock secrets that are hidden from us by the government or some other unknown entity, they should hire someone to check their work for grammar.


Just saying.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1103 on: December 06, 2010, 02:06:47 PM »
Plenty is enough to see that there were tools and they were used by humanoids. Read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool for example.


Okay, so we don't have plenty of relevant fossils then, do we?


Finding a bunch of bones from somewhere don't indicate any civilization. Even not the probability.


Making wild, unsupported (and unsupportable) statements doesn't help your argument.


Sure, and you do that without any evidence. It's kind of absurd because in that logic I may claim that the dinosaurs built the rockets and they didn't go extinct but they fly away to another planets. You may suggest anything but to really show that they did it there must be some evidence which you totally lack.


This is not a good analogy. If we had found dinosaur fossils on Mars, it would be.


Plate tectonics doesn't ring any bell? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/tectonics/intro.html for example? That means that the continents weren't in same places as they are right now but in different places. James theory relies completely on the fact that the continents were in dinosaurs time exactly like they are now. And my point is that even if there isn't tectonic plates and there wasn't pangea and continents don't move event then the continents can't stay unchangeable in the hundreds of millions of years.


This is what I don't understand. Please justify that statement.


Topic! Not the message. To me the search gives result which has the James message at the page 20 and your quoted message was on 3 page. That means that you expect others to go through the who know how many pages to find something. I expect to use Search function to find the mesage I want not the N page long topic from where there may or may not be the relevant message. I quite see you as the arrogant one here.


Listen, the search function works the same way for everyone. You know what I did when I got you that link? I looked through each page of that topic. I didn't know where the post was, or even remember it that well, I just looked. Basically, you're just admitting what I've already contended, which is that you are simply too lazy to search for yourself and expect others to do it for you.


Lord Wilmore, you have presented no evidence whatsoever for the civilization case. So, we are even.


Not so. We have presented evidence, you simply do not wish to acknowledge it as such. This is not my problem.


Your sources please. Where do we have such kind of evidence for their behaviour patterns and lifestyles?


Please read my posts or do not bother responding to them. My point was that nobody has evidence of such things. Nonetheless, it is still considered legitimate to speculate about such things.
"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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42318
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1104 on: December 06, 2010, 03:38:03 PM »
Lord Wilmore, you have presented no evidence whatsoever for the civilization case. So, we are even.

Not so. We have presented evidence, you simply do not wish to acknowledge it as such. This is not my problem.

Sorry Wilmore, but speculation does not count as evidence.
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.

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3340
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1105 on: January 16, 2011, 04:01:45 PM »
Who is to say that dinosaurs were not a civilized people?

Who is to say that they were?

(I found this over in another thread and wanted to respond so I thought I would move and respond to it here to not progress a different topic in that thread?)

I was recently greeted with a cordial welcome by a dinosaur in the home of a friend. It has been accepted into their family in a kind way like one of their own. 

Whether this behavior is indicative of past dinosaurs I can not claim, but of the current type I was quite impressed with the behavior.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1106 on: January 16, 2011, 05:06:36 PM »
Who is to say that dinosaurs were not a civilized people?

Who is to say that they were?

(I found this over in another thread and wanted to respond so I thought I would move and respond to it here to not progress a different topic in that thread?)

I was recently greeted with a cordial welcome by a dinosaur in the home of a friend. It has been accepted into their family in a kind way like one of their own. 

Whether this behavior is indicative of past dinosaurs I can not claim, but of the current type I was quite impressed with the behavior.


Perhaps some dinosaurs kept other, small dinosaurs as companions?

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3340
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1107 on: January 16, 2011, 05:13:16 PM »
Who is to say that dinosaurs were not a civilized people?

Who is to say that they were?

(I found this over in another thread and wanted to respond so I thought I would move and respond to it here to not progress a different topic in that thread?)

I was recently greeted with a cordial welcome by a dinosaur in the home of a friend. It has been accepted into their family in a kind way like one of their own. 

Whether this behavior is indicative of past dinosaurs I can not claim, but of the current type I was quite impressed with the behavior.


Perhaps some dinosaurs kept other, small dinosaurs as companions?

Brilliant!  I had never thought of that?  Very worthy of consideration.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1108 on: January 16, 2011, 08:29:51 PM »
And larger dinosaurs too. My scientific studies have indicated that certain large dinosaur species were used as pack-animals for smaller ones.
"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

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1109 on: January 17, 2011, 02:04:59 PM »
And larger dinosaurs too. My scientific studies have indicated that certain large dinosaur species were used as pack-animals for smaller ones.

Please post this evidence. Preferably in pencil sketch format. You may use pencils B to 4B.