James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 391825 Views
?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1680 on: March 30, 2012, 07:03:52 PM »
If you can't see it by now there's no point continuing.  I might as well beat my head against a wall.


I have presented links in which the fossil record is used to support our model. If you are unwilling to contest that evidence, then there really is no point in continuing.

You haven't contested the evidence for continental drift.  I'll spend my time looking at your links and writing a response if I feel I'm going to get an actual response out of my effort and not more ignoring and hand-waving.

Edit: Oh, and which links do you want me looking at?  This is a long thread.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 07:15:38 PM by Cat Earth Theory »
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1681 on: March 30, 2012, 07:55:32 PM »
You haven't contested the evidence for continental drift.  I'll spend my time looking at your links and writing a response if I feel I'm going to get an actual response out of my effort and not more ignoring and hand-waving.


This thread isn't about continental drift, and in any event I'm not sure any evidence for CDT has been presented. There certainly hasn't been very much.


Edit: Oh, and which links do you want me looking at?  This is a long thread.


The posts by James that I most recently linked to. You actually responded to the post the links are contained in. Either read my posts, or stop replying to them.
"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

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1682 on: March 30, 2012, 07:59:30 PM »
This thread isn't about continental drift, and in any event I'm not sure any evidence for CDT has been presented. There certainly hasn't been very much.

Mhmm, you don't know because you didn't read it.

The posts by James that I most recently linked to. You actually responded to the post the links are contained in. Either read my posts, or stop replying to them.

I already read those, you rude dude.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1683 on: March 30, 2012, 08:09:04 PM »
Mhmm, you don't know because you didn't read it.


I have been posting in this thread since 2009 (which is a fair length of time), and accordingly I cannot be absolutely sure that no claimed 'evidence' for CDT has been presented. I am certain very little has been put forward. I presume you will forgive me if I cannot remember everything the thread contains, and if you will not, then you are quite the hypocrite, as you asked for the same courtesy just moments ago.


I already read those, you rude dude.


Then I await your response.
"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

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1684 on: March 30, 2012, 08:10:44 PM »
Then I await your response.

Sure, just point me to where you think the actual evidence is contained in these great works.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1685 on: March 30, 2012, 08:13:29 PM »
Sure, just point me to where you think the actual evidence is contained in these great works.


James uses the distribution of fossils to support his model. He does so quite explicitly - it really couldn't be clearer.
"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

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1686 on: March 30, 2012, 08:15:45 PM »
James uses the distribution of fossils to support his model. He does so quite explicitly - it really couldn't be clearer.

Ok, so they somehow got across the ocean (or the continents moved).  I don't think anyone's challenging that.

So where's the support for them being intelligent enough to create a civilization?  Write things with their claws?  Create fabrics?  Make ships large enough to haul dinosaurs?
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1687 on: March 30, 2012, 08:26:05 PM »
So where's the support for them being intelligent enough to create a civilization?


Earlier you claimed comparison with living animals is a legitimate way of exploring the potential traits of non-existent animals. Modern dinosaurs can construct floating structures, and prehistoric dinosaurs were physically stronger than modern dinosaurs.


Make ships large enough to haul dinosaurs?


The fossil evidence we have presented.
"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

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1688 on: March 30, 2012, 08:30:22 PM »
Earlier you claimed comparison with living animals is a legitimate way of exploring the potential traits of non-existent animals. Modern dinosaurs can construct floating structures, and prehistoric dinosaurs were physically stronger than modern dinosaurs.

Nests that float in ponds.  Do you believe you could just make a larger nest out of larger pieces of wood and float them across the ocean with cargo?  I'm curious because I don't think you realize the challenges that increased weight brings.

Also writing, fabric?

The fossil evidence we have presented.

Says nothing about a civilization of any kind.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1689 on: March 30, 2012, 08:43:09 PM »
Nests that float in ponds.  Do you believe you could just make a larger nest out of larger pieces of wood and float them across the ocean with cargo?  I'm curious because I don't think you realize the challenges that increased weight brings.


I believe that a stronger dinosaur could do a lot more with stronger pieces of wood. Beavers can build dams that have incredible structural integrity overnight, so the idea that a sea-faring structure could not be built along those lines is clearly silly. Rafts have been built out of reeds, and the currach is a proven trans-oceanic craft that is light and simple to build. It's also worth noting that whilst historians do not doubt the existence of hide-based currach, they base this solely on written sources, as they deem it highly unlikely that such vessels would survive in any recognisable form.


Also writing, fabric?


There is of course no fossil evidence of this, but its possibility is tied directly to the intelligence of the creature in question.


Says nothing about a civilization of any kind.


How do you define civilisation? ???
"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

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1690 on: March 30, 2012, 09:09:15 PM »
I believe that a stronger dinosaur could do a lot more with stronger pieces of wood. Beavers can build dams that have incredible structural integrity overnight, so the idea that a sea-faring structure could not be built along those lines is clearly silly. Rafts have been built out of reeds, and the currach is a proven trans-oceanic craft that is light and simple to build. It's also worth noting that whilst historians do not doubt the existence of hide-based currach, they base this solely on written sources, as they deem it highly unlikely that such vessels would survive in any recognisable form.

Beaver dams are walls made out of branches and mud.  Their construction is nothing like that of a boat, and their integrity comes from repairs made by the beavers and, over time, the growth of plants on them.

The vessels you speak of have been built by humans, yes.  But once again we have no evidence of any such craft existing in the time of the dinosaurs, and we don't see birds building them, either.

I should also point out that all the dinosaur nests we've found have not been similar to bird nests.  They've been pits dug into the ground, some with mud piled up around the side.  They're like reptile nests.

There is of course no fossil evidence of this, but its possibility is tied directly to the intelligence of the creature in question.

An intelligence that would be remarkable when compared to their EQ measurements.  It would be larger mismatch than any we see in modern species.

How do you define civilisation? ???

In anthropology we'd say it's a civilization once people start getting into specialized jobs and the population exceeds a certain amount.  At this point, the governance has to become more formalized to deal with the lack of personal ties between people.  The distinction between civilizations and chiefdoms is fuzzy, though, and it's a word I believe both you and James have used.

The point is that we don't have remains of dinosaur cities and villages, no fabric that they made, writing, or any artifacts of any sort.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1691 on: March 31, 2012, 10:21:13 AM »
Beaver dams are walls made out of branches and mud.  Their construction is nothing like that of a boat, and their integrity comes from repairs made by the beavers and, over time, the growth of plants on them.


But they are constructed to an extremely high standard, and by a relatively small animal. I bet most of us here would fail if given the same task.


The vessels you speak of have been built by humans, yes.  But once again we have no evidence of any such craft existing in the time of the dinosaurs, and we don't see birds building them, either.


But we don't have any physical evidence of them existing among humans of that time either. We're totally reliant on written accounts, and even they only go so far back. Nevertheless, we posit that such boats existed long before the surviving textual evidence was written.


I should also point out that all the dinosaur nests we've found have not been similar to bird nests.  They've been pits dug into the ground, some with mud piled up around the side.  They're like reptile nests.


And I should point out that the oldest fossils of birds' nests we have found are (to my knowledge) only a few thousand years old. Yet no-one is suggesting that birds did not have nests before then, or that prehistoric species of bird (now extinct) did not build nests.


An intelligence that would be remarkable when compared to their EQ measurements.  It would be larger mismatch than any we see in modern species.


The subject of EQ measurements has been a source of dispute in this thread and others, and I am satisfied that it does not serve as an accurate measure of intelligence. I suggest doing a few searches, as there have been extensive discussions on the subject.


In anthropology we'd say it's a civilization once people start getting into specialized jobs and the population exceeds a certain amount.  At this point, the governance has to become more formalized to deal with the lack of personal ties between people.  The distinction between civilizations and chiefdoms is fuzzy, though, and it's a word I believe both you and James have used.

The point is that we don't have remains of dinosaur cities and villages, no fabric that they made, writing, or any artifacts of any sort.


But we do have fossil evidence that supports the contention that they migrated over huge distances. As the geography necessitates that they would have done so by sea, the requisite technological advancement can be inferred.


As for anthropology, it goes without saying that it is by definition an anthropocentric discipline, so I feel it may be difficult to make 1:1 comparisons between our standards of civilisation and that of any other species. In any event, I am not particularly tied to the word civilisation - chiefdom would be fine, or even a term which encompassed technologically sophisticated nomads/herders.
"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

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1692 on: April 01, 2012, 01:52:01 PM »

For example, palaeontologists have found teeth marks from a dromaeosaur on the fossil (or near the remains of) a large dinosaur. They then speculate that dromaeosaurs may have been intelligent creatures that practised coordinated hunting in packs.

This is getting funnier by the minute. Now we are off with the Deinonychus and on with the Dromaeosaurus. And the Dromaeosaurus carried dinosaurs that even when young already weigh tens or even thousands of times their own weight? Across an ocean? We have jumped from a 70 kg dinosaur which might have been somewhat intelligent to a 15 kg dinosaur that was mostly brawn an no brain. How on Earth would a 15 kg dinosaur even move the egg of a large dinosaur, when the egg itself outweighs him? Not to mention the response from the owner of the eggs. Did the dromaeosaurus also invent the hydraulic crane?

This is a typical tactic of bad scientists and pseudo-scientists. You need an intelligent dinosaur? You talk about the Deinonychus. You need one that has been found in several places? You change to the Dromaeosaurus. You need one which uses tools? You change to the crows, or some other bird who knows how to lift a stone over an egg and drop it.

When are you going to stop the special pleading and take one argument to its conclusion?

PS. And where did you get the information on the intelligence of the Dromaeosaur?

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1693 on: April 01, 2012, 06:23:17 PM »
Trig, Wilmore was giving me an example of an instance where paleontologists came to a conclusion with as little evidence as James has.  I don't agree that they're equivalent leaps, but you're not responding to it in context.
'
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1694 on: April 02, 2012, 04:54:27 PM »

For example, palaeontologists have found teeth marks from a dromaeosaur on the fossil (or near the remains of) a large dinosaur. They then speculate that dromaeosaurs may have been intelligent creatures that practised coordinated hunting in packs.

This is getting funnier by the minute. Now we are off with the Deinonychus and on with the Dromaeosaurus. And the Dromaeosaurus carried dinosaurs that even when young already weigh tens or even thousands of times their own weight? Across an ocean? We have jumped from a 70 kg dinosaur which might have been somewhat intelligent to a 15 kg dinosaur that was mostly brawn an no brain. How on Earth would a 15 kg dinosaur even move the egg of a large dinosaur, when the egg itself outweighs him? Not to mention the response from the owner of the eggs. Did the dromaeosaurus also invent the hydraulic crane?

This is a typical tactic of bad scientists and pseudo-scientists. You need an intelligent dinosaur? You talk about the Deinonychus. You need one that has been found in several places? You change to the Dromaeosaurus. You need one which uses tools? You change to the crows, or some other bird who knows how to lift a stone over an egg and drop it.

When are you going to stop the special pleading and take one argument to its conclusion?

PS. And where did you get the information on the intelligence of the Dromaeosaur?


1) As CET said, you're quoting me out of context.


2) This post shows you did not read the links I provided earlier. If you want to be spoon fed, contact a child-minder. It's not what this forum is for.
"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 #1695 on: April 03, 2012, 06:30:44 AM »
This line is all just one logical fallacy. Just because modern birds can build a floating nest does not mean that much larger creatures would be capable of doing the same.  However, the inverse cube law when applied to the building materials that dinosaurs had available certainly makes it unlikely. That being said, there is a slim possibility that they could have accomplished such a feat.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1696 on: April 03, 2012, 06:38:31 AM »
This line is all just one logical fallacy. Just because modern birds can build a floating nest does not mean that much larger creatures would be capable of doing the same.  However, the inverse cube law when applied to the building materials that dinosaurs had available certainly makes it unlikely. That being said, there is a slim possibility that they could have accomplished such a feat.
Still they did it somehow. We can't know how exactly, but there is no evidence they were incapable of that.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1697 on: April 03, 2012, 07:39:39 AM »
Still they did it somehow. We can't know how exactly, but there is no evidence they were incapable of that.

Not having evidence that they were incapable is not the same as evidence that they were capable.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42704
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1698 on: April 03, 2012, 12:40:14 PM »
This line is all just one logical fallacy. Just because modern birds can build a floating nest does not mean that much larger creatures would be capable of doing the same.  However, the inverse cube law when applied to the building materials that dinosaurs had available certainly makes it unlikely. That being said, there is a slim possibility that they could have accomplished such a feat.
Still they did it somehow.
Did they?  Without any evidence, how can you know for sure?

Quote
We can't know how exactly, but there is no evidence they were incapable of that.
There is also no evidence that they were capable of that.
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.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1699 on: April 04, 2012, 04:37:50 AM »
According to todays Metro there is some scientist geezer who is saying that dinosaurs were far more aquatic than we think, due to water being able to support their huge bulks far better than relying on their muscles alone.

Another win for FE Transcontinental Dinosaurs.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1700 on: April 04, 2012, 05:23:43 AM »
You just have to love someone who uses the word geezer lol.  I am assuming that that article was talking about the large herbivores like Brontosaurus?
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1701 on: April 04, 2012, 07:42:13 AM »
They were refering to any number of the large, tailed dinosaurs, but emphasis was indeed upon the large herbivores.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1702 on: April 04, 2012, 12:15:47 PM »
According to todays Metro there is some scientist geezer who is saying that dinosaurs were far more aquatic than we think, due to water being able to support their huge bulks far better than relying on their muscles alone.

Another win for FE Transcontinental Dinosaurs.

I heard this being discussed on the Today programme. The idea was put forward by a microbiologist. The theory was pooh-poohed by a paleontologist who said this idea was nothing new and harked back to a time when we knew less about skeletal mechanics. They won't be flooding the Natural History Museum just yet.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1703 on: April 17, 2012, 07:19:26 PM »
It's a shame that the dinosaurs were not such strong swimmers as science had previously thought, but it is hardly surprising that they made up for it with deftness and industry, so that they were still able to enjoy the pleasures of the ocean.  Life always finds a way!
"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

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1704 on: April 18, 2012, 02:58:23 AM »
Life always finds a way!

James,

Sorry to be a pedant, but if life always finds a way there would be no extinctions.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1705 on: April 18, 2012, 08:48:06 AM »
yes but even with extinctions, life does go on, the life just evolves.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1706 on: April 22, 2012, 11:34:23 AM »
Life always finds a way!

James,

Sorry to be a pedant, but if life always finds a way there would be no extinctions.
Also, life always finds a way to what? If the answer is "to survive", well, every extinction has spared some species until now. But if the answer is "to everything", well, NO!

Life has not found a way to cure all cancers, to explore other worlds from Earth, to feed all the population. "Life always finds a way" is just like the infamous "God acts in mysterious ways". It is just a phrase to say when you do not have an answer.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1707 on: April 22, 2012, 12:12:19 PM »
Life always does find a way. Thank goodness or we'd ALL be in trouble!
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1708 on: April 22, 2012, 12:17:14 PM »
Life always does find a way. Thank goodness or we'd ALL be in trouble!
A baseless piece of rhetoric! It's most unscientific to conclude simply that past performance predicts future performance.

Maybe true: Since existence of our most distant ancestor, some form of life has found a way to survive until now.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1709 on: April 22, 2012, 12:33:54 PM »
Life always does find a way. Thank goodness or we'd ALL be in trouble!
A baseless piece of rhetoric! It's most unscientific to conclude simply that past performance predicts future performance.

Maybe true: Since existence of our most distant ancestor, some form of life has found a way to survive until now.
Actually true: life always finds a way!
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?