James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 316370 Views
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1200 on: March 10, 2011, 09:24:36 AM »
That dinosaurs are intelligent is not seriously in doubt. How intelligent they were/are is another matter.
"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 #1201 on: March 10, 2011, 09:29:54 AM »
James theory is that dinosaurs migrated due to intelligence.  If they aren't intelligent, it is still possible they migrated.

Protip: You don't need intelligence to migrate.


*

Username

  • President Of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 17113
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1202 on: March 10, 2011, 10:06:28 AM »
James theory is that dinosaurs migrated due to intelligence.  If they aren't intelligent, it is still possible they migrated.

Protip: You don't need intelligence to migrate.


Quantum Ab Hoc

1 + 1 = 2
"The above proposition is occasionally useful." - Bertrand Russell

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1203 on: March 10, 2011, 10:13:09 AM »
You do, in this case, need the ability to cross an ocean safely. It has not been established yet that ancient dinosaurs had this ability.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1204 on: March 10, 2011, 10:24:17 AM »
It need not be a matter of safety, just feasibility.  That ninety-nine cruises ended in disaster would not matter if one was successful.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42362
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1205 on: March 10, 2011, 11:41:42 AM »
James theory is that dinosaurs migrated due to intelligence.  If they aren't intelligent, it is still possible they migrated.

Protip: You don't need intelligence to migrate.



You do if you want to build a boat to migrate.
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.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1206 on: March 10, 2011, 11:44:29 AM »
It need not be a matter of safety, just feasibility.  That ninety-nine cruises ended in disaster would not matter if one was successful.

We aren't talking about just one dinosaur fossil being found either.

We are talking about thousands, even millions.

*

Username

  • President Of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 17113
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1207 on: March 10, 2011, 12:20:00 PM »
It need not be a matter of safety, just feasibility.  That ninety-nine cruises ended in disaster would not matter if one was successful.

We aren't talking about just one dinosaur fossil being found either.

We are talking about thousands, even millions.
Dinosaurs, I assume, reproduce.
Quantum Ab Hoc

1 + 1 = 2
"The above proposition is occasionally useful." - Bertrand Russell

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1208 on: March 10, 2011, 12:37:05 PM »
It need not be a matter of safety, just feasibility.  That ninety-nine cruises ended in disaster would not matter if one was successful.

We aren't talking about just one dinosaur fossil being found either.

We are talking about thousands, even millions.
Dinosaurs, I assume, reproduce.

So they happen, by chance, to be washed away waywardly on the ocean in pairs?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1209 on: March 10, 2011, 12:38:59 PM »
Yes, but the same thing could have happened by "dumb luck".  If dinos had often built floating nests of significant size, then it is feasible that some migrated through dumb luck.   

Another idea to look at would be that dinos were frozen and simply floated across where they landed, later melted, and much later were fossilized.

And this is an idea that no one has argued with. The argument was over dinosaurs intentionally building seafaring vessels.

Another point of contention is the whole "mind link" thing ichy threw in which is ridiculous.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8851
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1210 on: March 10, 2011, 12:44:23 PM »
"collective consciousness"
Not a new idea in the least bit.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1211 on: March 10, 2011, 01:28:19 PM »
"collective consciousness"
Not a new idea in the least bit.

It's not a new idea, but it's not the most reasonable explanation, and you are only using it to explain a phenomena you've decided needs an explanation.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8851
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1212 on: March 10, 2011, 01:30:35 PM »
No I haven't. Where did I ever say it fulfills something I believe needs explaining?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1213 on: March 10, 2011, 01:46:14 PM »
No I haven't. Where did I ever say it fulfills something I believe needs explaining?

Where did I ever say that you said that?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8851
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1214 on: March 10, 2011, 01:47:58 PM »
you are only using it to explain a phenomena you've decided needs an explanation.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1215 on: March 10, 2011, 01:48:33 PM »
you are only using it to explain a phenomena you've decided needs an explanation.

I said decided not "said" or "claimed"

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8851
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1216 on: March 10, 2011, 01:49:42 PM »
*Sigh. Your trolling has been really pathetic lately Raist.
It still is not the case.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1217 on: March 10, 2011, 01:58:01 PM »
*Sigh. Your trolling has been really pathetic lately Raist.
It still is not the case.

 ::) because you never do the exact same thing.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8851
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1218 on: March 10, 2011, 01:59:57 PM »
I do not make straw man arguments. Raist does.
I find it hard to understand why you would consider believing in collective cousciousness to be 'trolling' EG.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 02:03:24 PM by Ichimaru Gin :] »
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1219 on: March 10, 2011, 02:16:06 PM »
I find it hard to understand why you would consider believing in collective cousciousness to be 'trolling' EG.

When have I ever stated so?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1220 on: March 10, 2011, 02:20:11 PM »
Didn't mammals migrate to madagascar by clinging to logs?
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Username

  • President Of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 17113
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1221 on: March 10, 2011, 02:21:21 PM »
It need not be a matter of safety, just feasibility.  That ninety-nine cruises ended in disaster would not matter if one was successful.

We aren't talking about just one dinosaur fossil being found either.

We are talking about thousands, even millions.
Dinosaurs, I assume, reproduce.

So they happen, by chance, to be washed away waywardly on the ocean in pairs?
Its no coincidence that a nest full of eggs is likely to contain males and females.
Quantum Ab Hoc

1 + 1 = 2
"The above proposition is occasionally useful." - Bertrand Russell

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3347
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1222 on: March 10, 2011, 03:39:04 PM »
This grouping I observed today and here they are focusing their attention on me.  Before this picture they were congregating around and constructing the object below.





They fled this object to the position pictured above before I could know exactly what they were up to, but this is their creation via their own hands and consists of pieces of plywood and what appears to be bone of some sort?





*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1223 on: March 10, 2011, 04:21:20 PM »
Didn't mammals migrate to madagascar by clinging to logs?


I'm not so much concerned with finding evidence for this theory, as I think that most research into pre-historic dinosaurs is imperfect and largely speculative. I think that we have clearly established that it's a strong possibility that dinosaurs could build boats, and I've yet to see a see a significant counter argument.
"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

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1224 on: March 10, 2011, 04:59:59 PM »
I think that we have clearly established that it's a strong possibility that dinosaurs could build boats, and I've yet to see a see a significant counter argument.

How has anybody established that? I think a real argument needs to be constructed before a counter-argument can possibly be made. Perhaps I've simply missed it, this is quite a long thread.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1225 on: March 10, 2011, 06:17:31 PM »
Didn't mammals migrate to madagascar by clinging to logs?


I'm not so much concerned with finding evidence for this theory, as I think that most research into pre-historic dinosaurs is imperfect and largely speculative. I think that we have clearly established that it's a strong possibility that dinosaurs could build boats, and I've yet to see a see a significant counter argument.

I do not see how this has been established. All that has been proven is that small lightweight birds can make nests that can float on water.

It has not been proven that several ton dinosaurs would, or even could do such a thing. A "nest" large enough to carry such a ridiculously large dinosaur would have to be gigantic. Also, the dinosaurs would of had to bring food with them for the voyage, which shows premeditation, which would mean that would have to be intelligent.

All discovered nests have been minuscule, they weren't large enough for the entire T-Rex to sit in. There was only enough room for the eggs.

« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 06:19:48 PM by EnglshGentleman »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1226 on: March 10, 2011, 07:30:00 PM »
I think it's been established that it's a possibility.  But a strong possibility?  I think that's a little, well, strong.

Nobody has reasonably established that it's an implausible scenario. 

There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1227 on: March 10, 2011, 07:41:47 PM »
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.

This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.
"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
  • 42362
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1228 on: March 10, 2011, 09:05:04 PM »
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.

If you are referring to the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs known as continental drift, then I agree.  It is quite reasonable from a FE or an RE perspective.
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.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1229 on: March 10, 2011, 09:23:29 PM »
There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.

This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.

They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.

Now of course, we don't know for sure that dinosaur brains worked anything like ones that are around today, but considering today has the modernized evolved forms of them, we can assume that they function similar.