James's theory on dinosaurs

Archeopteryx is a bird. Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances. The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs. It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests

Which bird travels large distances in nests?

Archeopteryx is a bird.

No, Archeopteryx is a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds.  Some of both, but not quite one or the other.

Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances.

What does building nests have to do with traveling large distances?

The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs.

OK, sure.

It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests

No, it doesn't.  For one thing, it hasn't been established that birds use their nests to travel large distances.

Archeopteryx is a bird. Birds build nests. Birds travel large distances. The Archeopteryx came from dinosaurs. It reasonably follows then that it is possible for dinosaurs to have traveled across large bodies of water in nests

Can I add you to the growing list of Colonial Seafaring Dinosaurs Believers?

(not floating nest builders)

I have personally seen the Archeopteryx

Seems pretty damn clear birds are descendants of dinosaurs.

There's not enough evidence to say that is "pretty damn clear". On the face of it, humans look like they descended from apes, and apes look like they descended from monkeys. But that's not the case - all three share a common ancestor but none is descended from the other. They are three seperate primate branches. It's possible that archaeopteryx and dinosaurs evolved seperately from a common ancestor in the same way, but since there must be thousands of species that we have no fossils of at all, it's extremely difficult to work out the exact relationship between dinosaurs, birds and archaeopteryx.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 01:49:58 PM

Right back atchya'.

You really are refusing to read the evidence I gave you? That's cool.

I have read them, but they can't  change the fact that this is what leading thinkers in the field have to say on the subject:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows.html

"No other animal?not even a chimp?has ever spontaneously solved a problem like this, a fact that puts crows in a class with us as toolmakers," Savage writes in her book.

Nope. Not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."

See above.

The point is rather academic. It doesn't matter which is "more impressive". A twig bending crow does not a dinotopia make.

The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.

Once again, no you haven't.

Yes we have! We've shown they have the capacity, both physically and mentally, and the fossil record supports us.

Why would I need to do that?!

To back up your unsubstantiated claims?

There is no fossil evidence of the boats

Oh good. I'm glad we got that sorted.

Hold. On. Are you telling me your "source" is James?

Why are you quoting the word 'source'? I never referred to it as a source. I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.


www.rif.org

Quote from: Crustinator on November 20, 2009, 09:04:30 AM

You really are refusing to read the evidence I gave you? That's cool.

I have read them, but they can't  change the fact that this is what leading thinkers in the field have to say on the subject:

So that researcher puts the crow in the same bracket as humans for that single problem solving task.

But again that's old research and apes/chimps/bonobos have shown they are adept at tool making and problem solving. See links provided.

It doesn't really matter. Arguing that crows are smarter than chimps achieves nothing.

A twig bending crow does not a seafaring dinotopia make.

The fossil record supports us;

No the fossil records support what they show. Bones of dinosaurs. If there's bones then there were once living dinosaurs. Assuming one out of a range of possibilities is true without evidence is a broken argument.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 20, 2009, 09:04:30 AM

Nope. Not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."

See above.

You gave an example of problem solving not tool creation.

The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.

This is not support by fossil records, it's support by conjecture. However there are many explanations. Most of which do not include fantasies about dinomariners. Suppressing options to force your preferred explanation to be the only explanation is a fallacy.

To back up your unsubstantiated claims?

I already did that.

Why are you quoting the word 'source'? I never referred to it as a source. I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.

Most people would recognise a source to be a source of evidence, and understand the intent of the post. However, I appologies. Let me write that out again.

Hold. On. Are you telling me your "evidence" is James?

Quote from: Crustinator on November 20, 2009, 09:04:30 AM

The point is rather academic. It doesn't matter which is "more impressive". A twig bending crow does not a dinotopia make.

The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.

Umm... No.  Continental Drift also explains the fossil record.  Continental Drift also explains the geological similarities between coastal regions that dinosaur colonization can not.

The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.

What?  That's the only thing capable of explaining it?
They could have flown.  They could have been moved via alien technology.  They could have built bridges. They could have developed teleportaion technology.  They could have frozen the oceans and walked across.  They could have silly philosophical argument #87'd to get there too.


Maybe Jesus rode them there......
Or, perhaps what markjo said could explain it.

A quick question. Wouldn't it be easier to hypothesize that there is actual tectonic movement in a FE scenario (attributed to UA or some other force), than to come up with seafaring intelligent dinosaur ranchers building colonies all around the world?

I think that a research on how the tectonic plates behave in FE would be far more convincing.... I believe that both continental drift and current seismological status of the earth can be explained in a FE scenario. At least, more easily than sentient t-rexes and nest-ships able to transport 100ton sauropods...

A quick question. Wouldn't it be easier to hypothesize that there is actual tectonic movement in a FE scenario (attributed to UA or some other force), than to come up with seafaring intelligent dinosaur ranchers building colonies all around the world?

Some do.  It just so happens that James isn't one of them.  For some odd reason, a few others support him (including Tom, who likes to support multiple, mutually exclusive models).

So that researcher puts the crow in the same bracket as humans for that single problem solving task.

But again that's old research and apes/chimps/bonobos have shown they are adept at tool making and problem solving. See links provided.

It doesn't really matter. Arguing that crows are smarter than chimps achieves nothing.

A twig bending crow does not a seafaring dinotopia make.

Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows and superiour physiology. Additionally, the fossil record supports our theory.

No the fossil records support what they show. Bones of dinosaurs. If there's bones then there were once living dinosaurs. Assuming one out of a range of possibilities is true without evidence is a broken argument.

The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.

You gave an example of problem solving not tool creation.

I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.

This is not support by fossil records, it's support by conjecture. However there are many explanations. Most of which do not include fantasies about dinomariners. Suppressing options to force your preferred explanation to be the only explanation is a fallacy.

"Suppressing options"?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 21, 2009, 10:30:50 AM

To back up your unsubstantiated claims?

I already did that.

Sorry, but you claimed that the period in question had better conditions for the petrification of wood than exist currently. As yet, you haven't backed that up with any evidence.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 21, 2009, 10:30:50 AM

Why are you quoting the word 'source'? I never referred to it as a source. I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.

Most people would recognise a source to be a source of evidence, and understand the intent of the post. However, I appologies. Let me write that out again.

Hold. On. Are you telling me your "evidence" is James?

How could my evidence "be" James? Honestly, I made it very clear:

I referred to it as evidence, and I've already said that James presented that evidence.

The evidence is the fossil distribution. James presented that evidence. What's so difficult to understand? If you can't understand this basic concept regarding the presentation of evidence, then I suggest you visit this link and sort the problem out yourself.

Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows and superiour physiology. Additionally, the fossil record supports our theory.

What direct sensory evidence tells you that?

The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.

So why is a sea faring dinosaur civilization a better explanation that continental drift again?

I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.

Now if you can show us a study where crows used tools to build floating nests, then you might be onto something.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 21, 2009, 11:01:06 AM

This is not support by fossil records, it's support by conjecture. However there are many explanations. Most of which do not include fantasies about dinomariners. Suppressing options to force your preferred explanation to be the only explanation is a fallacy.

"Suppressing options"?

Yes, like continental drift.

Dinosaurs had equal intelligence to crows...

Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.

Additionally, the fossil record supports our theory.

No it doesn't.

The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.

No it can't.

I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.

So you recognise that not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."? Cool.

"Suppressing options"?

Continental drift. For one.

Sorry, but you claimed that the period in question had better conditions for the petrification of wood than exist currently. As yet, you haven't backed that up with any evidence.

I already did that. I told you where to look.

How could my evidence "be" James?

You provided a link to James' post.

James didn't present any evidence. He presented a cool story about how dinosaurs were good at knitting. This is not evidence, it's romance.

Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.

Sorry, but you took EQ out of the equation when you decided that speculation without evidence was  off-limits. Not my problem.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 04:05:23 AM

I've already provided a study where crows created tools, which you have acknowledged. Stop making pointless statements.

So you recognise that not one of your sources agrees that "the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised."? Cool.

Why do you insist on constantly butchering my quotes and taking them out of context? Is it because you know the only way you can possibly win this debate is through pathetic semantic tricks? Here is that quote verbatim:

Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.

I never claimed my sources said anything of the sort. This isn't the first time you've taken my quotes out of context, and your pathetic straw man tactics show just how weak your position is.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 04:05:23 AM

"Suppressing options"?

Continental drift. For one.

In what way have I "suppressed" continental drift?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 04:05:23 AM

Sorry, but you claimed that the period in question had better conditions for the petrification of wood than exist currently. As yet, you haven't backed that up with any evidence.

I already did that. I told you where to look.

Sorry, but it's not my job to find evidence to back up your claims. You made the claim, so back it up or else withdraw it.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 04:05:23 AM

How could my evidence "be" James?

You provided a link to James' post.

James didn't present any evidence. He presented a cool story about how dinosaurs were good at knitting. This is not evidence, it's romance.

James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory. You can misrepresent his theory all you want, but the fact is you haven't tackled the substance of his argument once.

How exactly does one go from:

James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory.

to

The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record

James being incorrect is another that comes to mind quickly.

Also, which birds purposefully travel across large bodies of water in nests?

Quote from: Crustinator on November 23, 2009, 07:14:50 AM

Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.

Sorry, but you took EQ out of the equation when you decided that speculation without evidence was  off-limits. Not my problem.

Yes speculation without evidence is off limits. The EQ data is speculation with evidence.

I'm now confused as to whether you want to use EQ data or not. *shrugs*

But your statement is still incorrect.

I never claimed my sources said anything of the sort.

Yes you did. Allow me to once again "quote you out of context"...

Quote from: Crustinator on November 19, 2009, 07:16:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 02:28:26 AM

Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.

That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.

No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.

Are you now acknowledging that this is not the case? Or do you want to continue insisting I'm quoting you out of context? Either is fine by me.

In what way have I "suppressed" continental drift?

By insisting that a seafaring dinotopia is the only explanation for the dispersal of fossil evidence.

I'm guessing you're playing for time now.

Sorry, but it's not my job to find evidence to back up your claims. You made the claim, so back it up or else withdraw it.

I gave you the evidence. Read the links. This is embarrassing now.

James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory. You can misrepresent his theory all you want, but the fact is you haven't tackled the substance of his argument once.

No he doesn't. If there's any specific thing in James post you wish to highlight then please do so now.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 07:44:38 AM

Quote from: Crustinator on November 23, 2009, 07:14:50 AM

Since you fail to recognise EQ comparisons, this is incorrect.

Sorry, but you took EQ out of the equation when you decided that speculation without evidence was  off-limits. Not my problem.

Yes speculation without evidence is off limits. The EQ data is speculation with evidence.

I'm now confused as to whether you want to use EQ data or not. *shrugs*

But your statement is still incorrect.

First of all, like I said several pages ago, you need to make your mind up. You seem to be setting 'limits' according to what you consider valid evidence or not; in other words, whatever agrees with CD theory is ok, but anything else is somehow unacceptable.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 07:44:38 AM

I never claimed my sources said anything of the sort.

Yes you did. Allow me to once again "quote you out of context"...

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 01:49:58 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on November 19, 2009, 07:16:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 02:28:26 AM

Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.

That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.

No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.

Are you now acknowledging that this is not the case? Or do you want to continue insisting I'm quoting you out of context? Either is fine by me.

No Crustinator, unlike you I am willing to concede a point when I have made an error. You are right, in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces, meaning I've had to repeat myself to stop you warping my posts. And as you were once again cutting up my posts, I thought you were doing the same thing again. My point still stands; you're debating to try and score points, rather than actually argue the matter at hand.


However, to tackle the issue at hand:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm

This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.

Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task. Clearly that is more impressive than making general tools for general tasks, which is why the study was considered so impressive.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 01:49:58 PM

In what way have I "suppressed" continental drift?

By insisting that a seafaring dinotopia is the only explanation for the dispersal of fossil evidence.

I'm guessing you're playing for time now.

So by the same token, you're suppressing our theory. Seriously, since when is not agreeing with a theory eqivalent to "suppressing" it?

I gave you the evidence. Read the links. This is embarrassing now.

If I recall correctly, the only links you actually posted spoke about the triassic period. The triassic period is not the period in question.


Also, why all this "this is embarrassing" nonsense? Seriously, it's childish at best, pathetic at worst. I don't go round saying "how embarrassing" it is that you've confused the triassic and cretaceous periods despite being prompted several times.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 01:49:58 PM

James showed how the fossil distribution and physiology of certain dinosaurs contradicts the 'pangea' theory. You can misrepresent his theory all you want, but the fact is you haven't tackled the substance of his argument once.

No he doesn't. If there's any specific thing in James post you wish to highlight then please do so now.

All of it. We've presented the evidence, so the onus is on you to challenge it. Stop dodging.

First of all, like I said several pages ago, you need to make your mind up. You seem to be setting 'limits' according to what you consider valid evidence or not; in other words, whatever agrees with CD theory is ok, but anything else is somehow unacceptable.

No my mind was always made up.

EQ is evidence to indicate a dinosaurs intelligence.

It indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as some birds and animals of today.

This does not suggest dinosaurs were a seafaring nation who spread glorious civilisations across the world in gigantic fleets of ships.

I have always made this opinion clear. Please don't try an muddy the waters.

No Crustinator, unlike you I am willing to concede a point when I have made an error. You are right, in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces, meaning I've had to repeat myself to stop you warping my posts.

Not true. However if you genuinely feel slighted I'll be happy to discuss this off topic issue in another thread under "Suggestions and Concerns".

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8029933.stm

Quote

This was the first time that any animal had been seen to make a new tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning.

Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task.

No. The conditional in that sentence was "without an extended period of trial-and-error learning." That is, what is remarkable was that the crow was able to bend the wire on first attempt, as opposed to presumed efforts in other animals who go through a period of trial and error.

It's still a bold claim to say the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hittingthings that apes have devised, since  But it's outrageous to suggest that leading scientists think the same.

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
So by the same token, you're suppressing our theory. Seriously, since when is not agreeing with a theory eqivalent to "suppressing" it?

When you insist that there are no other theories and so yours by default is the only plausible option.

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
If I recall correctly, the only links you actually posted spoke about the triassic period.

Quite likely they did.

Here's a piece from the Cretaceous. http://geology.about.com/library/bl/images/blfossilwood.htm

I'm not sure how this helps you but I hope you like it.

However, to tackle the issue at hand:
Also, why all this "this is embarrassing" nonsense? Seriously, it's childish at best, pathetic at worst. I don't go round saying "how embarrassing" it is that you've confused the triassic and cretaceous periods despite being prompted several times.

Nope I was never confused over the Triassic or Cretaceous. Are we wasting time again?

However, to tackle the issue at hand:

Quote from: Crustinator on November 23, 2009, 08:16:11 AM

If there's any specific thing in James post you wish to highlight then please do so now.

All of it. We've presented the evidence, so the onus is on you to challenge it. Stop dodging.

No sorry it is not evidence, nor does it present evidence.

As a work of fiction it's wonderful. Example:

The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines.

There are many fiction writer forums on the internet. This is not one of them.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 01:28:10 PM

First of all, like I said several pages ago, you need to make your mind up. You seem to be setting 'limits' according to what you consider valid evidence or not; in other words, whatever agrees with CD theory is ok, but anything else is somehow unacceptable.

No my mind was always made up.

EQ is evidence to indicate a dinosaurs intelligence.

It indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as some birds and animals of today.

This does not suggest dinosaurs were a seafaring nation who spread glorious civilisations across the world in gigantic fleets of ships.

I have always made this opinion clear. Please don't try an muddy the waters.

So speculation is acceptable. Glad we cleared that up.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 01:28:10 PM

No Crustinator, unlike you I am willing to concede a point when I have made an error. You are right, in that instance you did not quote me out of context. However, you have done so on several occasions in this topic, often by cutting my quotes into pieces, meaning I've had to repeat myself to stop you warping my posts.

Not true. However if you genuinely feel slighted I'll be happy to discuss this off topic issue in another thread under "Suggestions and Concerns".

Why? There's no rule against poor debating tactics. People do it here all the time, so there's no need to highlight your case in particular. You're free to use such tactics as much as you want, but I'll call you out on it.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 01:49:58 PM

Right there you have a quote saying that this is the first time a new tool has been created for a specific task.

No. The conditional in that sentence was "without an extended period of trial-and-error learning." That is, what is remarkable was that the crow was able to bend the wire on first attempt, as opposed to presumed efforts in other animals who go through a period of trial and error.

It's still a bold claim to say the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hittingthings that apes have devised, since  But it's outrageous to suggest that leading scientists think the same.

So crows have created a specific tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning. Scientists consider this impressive. It was the specificity and improvised nature of the tool that impressed them. In this way, it was more impressive than the tools created by apes.

When you insist that there are no other theories and so yours by default is the only plausible option.

When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"?

Quite likely they did.

Here's a piece from the Cretaceous. http://geology.about.com/library/bl/images/blfossilwood.htm

I'm not sure how this helps you but I hope you like it.

Well, it would have helped if it supported your claim that conditions during the period in question were especially suited to the petrification of wood. The above link just shows a piece of pertrified wood from the cretaceous period, and in no way supports your earlier claims.

Nope I was never confused over the Triassic or Cretaceous. Are we wasting time again?

We were discussing the cretaceous period. You made the claim that conditions during this period were especially good for the petrification of wood, and then when I pressed you for sources to back up this claim, you said you had already posted links saying as much. However, these links referred to the triassic period, which is not the period in question. Now, you were obviously confused about something.

No sorry it is not evidence, nor does it present evidence.

As a work of fiction it's wonderful. Example:

Quote

The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines.

There are many fiction writer forums on the internet. This is not one of them.

It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 23, 2009, 02:30:30 PM

When you insist that there are no other theories and so yours by default is the only plausible option.

When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"?

I would assume that he is referring to this:

The fossil record supports us; dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record, so all we need to do is demonstrate their capacity to do so.

It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.

You still seem confused about what a dinosaur is. We have found many species of dinosaurs in almost every continent, not just "bird-like" dinosaurs.

Even if your speculations happened to have anything right, the fossil record shows dinosaurs similar to the Allosaurus, Stegosaurus, four legged dinosaurs, two legged dinosaurs, carnivores and herbivores, flying and non-flying, reptilians and proto-mammalians, to name just a few, were found in every continent except Antarctica (yet). James' speculation could account for one dominant, intelligent species and a couple of its "farm animals" but it cannot account for such an intricate and complex mesh of species. That is, of course, when signs of a civilization capable of ship building appears in the Cretaceous layers.

You make a "theory" based on a wild speculation that some nests could have been used as boats (ignoring everything we know about Engineering) and that is a wild speculation. But you do not follow your line of thought to the logical conclusion of the idea: how does your speculation explain all of the fossil record found.

It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.

And a conclusion supported by gems like this:

Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.

Quote from: VTI

WHAT? Penguin fossils were discovered in Australia, South America, South Africa and Antarctica in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Sailors discovered penguins in the 15th century. Many expeditions were made to Antarctica prior to the 1900s and they all, no doubt, ran into penguins.
History of Penguins
Notes  on a 1903 expedition to Antarctica, featuring PENGUINS.
A history of Antarctica, also mentioning penguins in 1903

Oh sure, "Sailors" discovered "penguins" in the "15th century". How can we possibly confirm this? The British Natural History Museum is run by the British government, and C.A. Larsen could easily be a made up figure designed to confirm the existence of penguins before 1960.

and

For all we know, dinosaurs could have had powertools and CAD/CAM. Whatever technology was required to build those boats, odd as it may seem to us, must have existed in order for dinosaurs to spread so far across the world.

"My theory is true, therefore anything I concoct to support it must also be true by definition!"
 And my personal favorite:

Even if dinosaurs had been paraplegic, they could still have constructed formidable navies.

So speculation is acceptable. Glad we cleared that up.

Baseless speculation is unacceptable. Again this has always been made clear. You're in Tom Bishop mode now it seems.

There's no rule against poor debating tactics.

And it's a poor debating tactic to baw that someone has misquoted you when they haven't at all.

So crows have created a specific tool for a specific task, without an extended period of trial-and-error learning. Scientists consider this impressive. It was the specificity and improvised nature of the tool that impressed them.

No it wasn't, it was the rapidity with which they produced the tool. Reread the quote. Misrepresenting your sources when everyone can read your sources makes you look bad.

But once again, a wire bending crow, even one that can do it in one turn, does not a seafaring dinotopia make.

When have I ever insisted that "there are no other theories"?

Why here...

dinosaur boats are the only thing that can account for the fossil record

and here...

The evidence presented by James shows that the evolutionary track followed by certain species can only be explained by inter-continental migration.

Memory loss?

Well, it would have helped if it supported your claim that conditions during the period in question were especially suited to the petrification of wood. The above link just shows a piece of pertrified wood from the cretaceous period, and in no way supports your earlier claims.

I've no idea what you're talking about now. How does petrified wood from the Cretaceous wood not support my claims?

Wood falls to ground.
Decomposition and destructive elements removed.
Silicates added.

Lots of silicates = quick petrification. Few silicates = slow petrification.

Start a new thread called "petrified wood" as I feel you're having difficulty with this concept.

It's a conclusion based on the evolving physiology of Deinonychus, which James outlines. Claiming it is "fiction" is not actually challenging the evidence presented.

No. Claiming it's fiction challenges the "evidence" by indicating that it has no basis in fact.

Using unsubstantiated presupposition of a flat earth:

We can therefore conclude that Pangea didn't exist. And before you try and use fossil evidence to debunk this - the fact that dinosaur fossils are spread out in confusing ways reflects the fact that dinosaurs were actually much more highly advanced than we think they were - they had mastered the technology of intercontinental travel. Heck, they probably knew about the ice wall too, and who knows, their governments (if they had any) were probably surpressing it even back then.

Unsubstantiated:

Also, bear in mind that widespread killing of other dinosaurs may have been discouraged as murder if dinosaurs had a society. Meat-eaters would probably either have feasted on corpses (soylent green style) or eaten meat substitutes, so evidence of cooking may have been very limited.

From one side of the mouth:

They do not face evolutionary pressures which necessitate the evolution of sentience. By the same token, humans have evolved recently - how are they super smart? If humanity can evolve to a planet-dominating level of intelligence in such a geologically short space of time, why can't dinosaurs have done so (fossil evidence suggests that they did, in fact evolve to a planet-dominating level).

However, it's entirely plausible that many species of dinosaur became enlightened and would have used their skills to compliment one another's in building a fleet of intercontinental boats. Given the amount of time dinosaurs ruled the Earth compared with humans, it's quite likely that dinosaurs would have overcome the petty prejudices which still plague mankind today, and created a harmonious society in which several species had a legitimate role.

Then the other:

But I'm not disputing that time of existence and development of sentience lack strong positive correlation. Over incredibly large timescales, evolution of sentience becomes statistically more probable, but is never ensured for any particular species and has more to do with selection pressure than just number of millenia of survival.

From simple tools:

Birds are one of the modern species most closely related to dinosaurs. However, species of many different subclassifications have exhibited varying degrees of tool use - otters, for example, which are mammals, routinely use rocks as tools for breaking open shellfish.

Now advanced tools without presedence are possible

Perhaps, like native Americans, they used every part of the animal (skin for clothing - which WOULD HAVE DISINTEGRATED DURING FOSSILIZATION before you ask), guts for sinews (sailing related?) which would also be biodegradable, and bones to make more advanced tools. Bone tools have never been found because fossil remains only occur in extreme, rare conditions like lava flows and tar pits, and any dinosaur smart enough to make tools would know to steer clear of these.

Advanced tools of stone and wood would probably be sufficient to build a small fleet of crafts capable of intercontinental travel.

1: Why would the dinosaurs sail near to a dangerous place like a glacier or tar pit, knowing full well that it might sink their boat?

2: Given the number of dinosaur fossils found compared with dinosaur population, it's clear that hardly any stuff becomes fossil matter, relatively speaking. The ships could easily have disintegrated along with the millions of unfound dinosaur cadavers.

1) Insinuates a higher order of intelligence and reasoning beyond simple tool construction originally cited.
2) Is a simple counter to the claim that the species were exclusive to NA and Asia and that there just hasn't been a fossilized specimin dixcovered yet.

We actually have a modern example of this - the Galapagos Islands. Over a relatively short amount of time, areas of isolation in which species do not colonise or migrate exhibit radically different patterns of evolution. Fossil evidence supports the maritime dinosaur hypothesis.

Which could actually support a theory of continental drift, as since it is claimed, relatively short periods of isolation can result in radically different patterns of evolution.

Additionally nothing has been proven which supports how these dinosaurs could have taken water and food stores for a several month long journey on the open ocean to support themselves, their "livestock" and their plant life.

Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water?  As for large stocks of food, they possibly needed to carry very little with them and simply used up their fat reserves. If they were cold-blooded, they wouldn't have needed these reserves to generate heat.

Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water?  As for large stocks of food, they possibly needed to carry very little with them and simply used up their fat reserves. If they were cold-blooded, they wouldn't have needed these reserves to generate heat.

Possibly, probably, if, maybe is not the foundation for a sound theory. 

What would suggest that they had no need for fresh water?

Who says that the sea-faring dinosaurs needed fresh water?

All animals need fresh water. Dinosaurs are no different, whether on land or sea.

As for large stocks of food, they possibly needed to carry very little with them and simply used up their fat reserves. If they were cold-blooded, they wouldn't have needed these reserves to generate heat.

Wilmore wants them to be warm blooded.

Picking the best of both worlds?

I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys.  They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.

I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys.  They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.

If they were ocean dwellers perhaps. But the dinosaurs James is punting are land dwellers (hence the boats). So unlikely.

I don't think we know very much about dinosaur kidneys.  They could have been adapted to expel more salt in the urine.

Could, maybe, perhaps.  What evidence is there to suggest that a land dwelling animal would suddenly be able to drink salt water when there would have been no evolutionary need for such an ability?