James's theory on dinosaurs

And that they had feathery heads  ahaha

Quote from: zork on November 17, 2010, 11:05:16 PM

I understood that the question was if the dinosaurs had the civilization not the primitive society like the ants. If there is civilization then there is always remnants of tools and other products of civilization. There is dinosaurs bones and fossilized dinosaurs. How come there isn't any signs of their civilization?

We've been over this time and time again. The fossil record of dinosaurs is patchy at best. For example, around 30 specimens of Tyrannosaurus have been found, and this is considered a relatively huge number. The odds of us finding wooden boats etc. from the era are miniscule. Brand new species of dinosaur are regularly discovered, yet your shocked we haven't found boats or rafts from hundreds of millions of years ago?

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 09:26:31 AM

Please look out your window

All I see is a flat disc. your point?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2010, 08:05:30 AM

Quote from: zork on November 17, 2010, 11:05:16 PM

I understood that the question was if the dinosaurs had the civilization not the primitive society like the ants. If there is civilization then there is always remnants of tools and other products of civilization. There is dinosaurs bones and fossilized dinosaurs. How come there isn't any signs of their civilization?

We've been over this time and time again. The fossil record of dinosaurs is patchy at best. For example, around 30 specimens of Tyrannosaurus have been found, and this is considered a relatively huge number. The odds of us finding wooden boats etc. from the era are miniscule. Brand new species of dinosaur are regularly discovered, yet your shocked we haven't found boats or rafts from hundreds of millions of years ago?

Yes, I am. There are misc remnants from of stone age even when there were no human civilizations in that time. If there was dinosaur civilization and they supposedly built whatever they built then they had tools which were done from something other than wood. From something that didn't break or perish so easily. Or maybe you really didn't speculate about civilization but just dinosaurs building boats with their teeth and claws. But that is no civilization built by intelligent being. That is... I don't know, some stupid animal scratching trees with teeth and claws.

Quote from: zork on November 18, 2010, 01:12:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2010, 08:05:30 AM

Quote from: zork on November 17, 2010, 11:05:16 PM

I understood that the question was if the dinosaurs had the civilization not the primitive society like the ants. If there is civilization then there is always remnants of tools and other products of civilization. There is dinosaurs bones and fossilized dinosaurs. How come there isn't any signs of their civilization?

We've been over this time and time again. The fossil record of dinosaurs is patchy at best. For example, around 30 specimens of Tyrannosaurus have been found, and this is considered a relatively huge number. The odds of us finding wooden boats etc. from the era are miniscule. Brand new species of dinosaur are regularly discovered, yet your shocked we haven't found boats or rafts from hundreds of millions of years ago?

Yes, I am. There are misc remnants from of stone age even when there were no human civilizations in that time. If there was dinosaur civilization and they supposedly built whatever they built then they had tools which were done from something other than wood. From something that didn't break or perish so easily. Or maybe you really didn't speculate about civilization but just dinosaurs building boats with their teeth and claws. But that is no civilization built by intelligent being. That is... I don't know, some stupid animal scratching trees with teeth and claws.

Firstly, the stone age was far more recent than the dinosaurs. That's like saying "I have leftovers in my fridge from yesterday, but I don't have any from before 3 days ago, therefore I must not have eaten anything, ever, up until 3 days ago." The evidence of tool use may not have been preserved or it may simply have yet to be discovered.

Secondly, as was mentioned earlier, not all evidence is preserved in the fossil record, in fact next to none of it is, not to mention the fact that we have yet to conduct archaeological digs everywhere on earth. discounting this theory because of the lack of evidence for tool usage is like discounting the theory of evolution because we don't have a steady chain of fossils connecting the dinosaurs to archaeopteryx.

And finally, while I greatly respect James' work, I am in favor of a less technologically focused society. I'm not talking about a dino ancient Greece or anything, I'm thinking more along the lines of a dino australian-aboriginal type of society. Nomadic or with simple permanent residences such as caves. Simple boats made from hollowed out logs. That sort of thing.

Firstly, the stone age was far more recent than the dinosaurs. That's like saying "I have leftovers in my fridge from yesterday, but I don't have any from before 3 days ago, therefore I must not have eaten anything, ever, up until 3 days ago." The evidence of tool use may not have been preserved or it may simply have yet to be discovered.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on November 18, 2010, 01:37:31 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 09:26:31 AM

Please look out your window

All I see is a flat disc. your point?

Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 01:41:07 PM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on November 18, 2010, 01:37:31 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 09:26:31 AM

Please look out your window

All I see is a flat disc. your point?

Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.

How could you tell whether a dinosaur had feathers on its head from so far away? This is ridiculous, dinosaurs fly far too fast and are far to small to be reliably examined in this manner. Somebody will have to catch one in order to adequately demonstrate the veracity of this hypothesis.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 01:41:07 PM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on November 18, 2010, 01:37:31 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 09:26:31 AM

Please look out your window

All I see is a flat disc. your point?

Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.

How could you tell whether a dinosaur had feathers on its head from so far away? This is ridiculous, dinosaurs fly far too fast and are far to small to be reliably examined in this manner. Somebody will have to catch one in order to adequately demonstrate the veracity of this hypothesis.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 01:41:07 PM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on November 18, 2010, 01:37:31 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 09:26:31 AM

Please look out your window

All I see is a flat disc. your point?

Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.

How could you tell whether a dinosaur had feathers on its head from so far away? This is ridiculous., dDinosaurs fly far too fast and are far totoo small to be reliably examined in this manner. Somebody will have to catch one in order to adequately demonstrate the veracity of this hypothesis.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 01:41:07 PM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on November 18, 2010, 01:37:31 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 18, 2010, 09:26:31 AM

Please look out your window

All I see is a flat disc. your point?

Wait until a dinosaur flies by and examine its head for feathers.

How could you tell whether a dinosaur had feathers on its head from so far away? This is ridiculous, dinosaurs fly far too fast and are far to small to be reliably examined in this manner. Somebody will have to catch one in order to adequately demonstrate the veracity of this hypothesis.

No, but we have evidence that Tyrannosaurs existed.

Time is irrelevant. We have fossilized dinosaurs and their bones. If these are preserved then other things must also. We are talking about civilization here which always leaves the signs and to hollow something big out of log you have to have some tools made from stones or metal.
  But as you still push forward the idea of society then this is based on what? Give me a hint what physical findings from history gives you a hint that there might have been something society like with dinosaurs.

And finally, while I greatly respect James' work, I am in favor of a less technologically focused society. I'm not talking about a dino ancient Greece or anything, I'm thinking more along the lines of a dino australian-aboriginal type of society. Nomadic or with simple permanent residences such as caves. Simple boats made from hollowed out logs. That sort of thing.

Quote from: zork on November 18, 2010, 09:03:01 PM

Time is irrelevant. We have fossilized dinosaurs and their bones. If these are preserved then other things must also. We are talking about civilization here which always leaves the signs and to hollow something big out of log you have to have some tools made from stones or metal.
  But as you still push forward the idea of society then this is based on what? Give me a hint what physical findings from history gives you a hint that there might have been something society like with dinosaurs.

What do you mean "time is irrelevant"? In archeology?


We actually have very few dinosaur fossils given the number that supposedly existed. As I have said, to expect evidence of tools over that period of time and with such a sketchy fossil record is ridiculous.

What direct sensorial evidence do you have of prehistoric dinosaurs making tools? Are you concluding something again in violation of first principles?

Quote from: ClockTower on November 19, 2010, 07:40:28 AM

What direct sensorial evidence do you have of prehistoric dinosaurs making tools? Are you concluding something again in violation of first principles?

Irrelevant to this thread. I have always made the scope and application of that line of reasoning clear. Please do not derail every thread with discussions about it.

You guys keep bringing up abstract reasoning, models, and thought experiments, but they are not valid in this context. Here is the rule, and it is very simple:


Direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen!

Quote from: zork on November 18, 2010, 09:03:01 PM

Time is irrelevant. We have fossilized dinosaurs and their bones. If these are preserved then other things must also. We are talking about civilization here which always leaves the signs and to hollow something big out of log you have to have some tools made from stones or metal.
  But as you still push forward the idea of society then this is based on what? Give me a hint what physical findings from history gives you a hint that there might have been something society like with dinosaurs.

What do you mean "time is irrelevant"? In archeology?

We actually have very few dinosaur fossils given the number that supposedly existed. As I have said, to expect evidence of tools over that period of time and with such a sketchy fossil record is ridiculous.

Quite relevant to the thread. How do we know, based on your own reasoning, that prehistoric dinosaurs made tools? Should we not hold you to your own principles when you join a debate like you hold me when I join a debate. Please explain. Thanks.

So does this only apply when concluding the shape of the earth:

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2010, 06:30:48 AM

You guys keep bringing up abstract reasoning, models, and thought experiments, but they are not valid in this context. Here is the rule, and it is very simple:


Direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen!

You seem to be arguing in favor of several things you do not have direct sensorial evidence for, such as a dino civilization, the sun not being where it appears to be, etc.

You guys keep bringing up abstract reasoning, models, and thought experiments, but they are not valid in this context.

I have always made the scope and application of that line of reasoning clear. Please do not derail every thread with discussions about it.

Time is irrelevant in this context.

And to expect signs of civilization if there are signs of the persons who build civilizations isn't ridiculous. To have fossils and bones but not signs of tools or something other if they had civilization is ridiculous.

I have no problem with their civilization or your fantasizing about it but right now I just want to know to what this "dinosaur civilization" opinion is based. You all just say that there is absolutely nothing but still claim that they may had civilization. And that opinion is based on... what? Elaborate a little.

It's your rule, not mine, I'm just trying to understand why you abide by it in some circumstances and not others.

It's your rule, not mine, I'm just trying to understand why you abide by it in some circumstances and not others.

I have always made the scope and application of that line of reasoning clear.

Quote from: General Disarray on November 19, 2010, 08:45:02 AM

It's your rule, not mine, I'm just trying to understand why you abide by it in some circumstances and not others.

There is a very simple way to understand, which is by reading my posts:

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2010, 08:06:19 AM

I have always made the scope and application of that line of reasoning clear.

Read my original post on this line of reasoning. I've re-posted it many times (and in recent days/weeks too), so to be honest if you haven't already read it then you have business debating with me about it.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2010, 08:55:16 AM

Read my original post on this line of reasoning. I've re-posted it many times (and in recent days/weeks too), so to be honest if you haven't already read it then you have business debating with me about it.

I didn't think you'd respond. I guess we'll just have to keep pointing out to you when you violate first principles--unless you can provide a reason that you shouldn't apply first principles consistently.

Quote from: zork on November 19, 2010, 08:36:13 AM

Time is irrelevant in this context.

No it isn't, and that is a ridiculous statement to make.

Quote from: zork on November 19, 2010, 08:36:13 AM

And to expect signs of civilization if there are signs of the persons who build civilizations isn't ridiculous. To have fossils and bones but not signs of tools or something other if they had civilization is ridiculous.

So wait, all human/pre-human remains should have tools or signs of civilisation present around them?

Quote from: zork on November 19, 2010, 08:36:13 AM

I have no problem with their civilization or your fantasizing about it but right now I just want to know to what this "dinosaur civilization" opinion is based. You all just say that there is absolutely nothing but still claim that they may had civilization. And that opinion is based on... what? Elaborate a little.

The distribution of fossils. Please read James' work if you're going to comment on it.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2010, 08:42:19 AM

Quote from: zork on November 19, 2010, 08:36:13 AM

Time is irrelevant in this context.

No it isn't, and that is a ridiculous statement to make.

Yes, it is and it's ridiculous for you to emphasize it.

So, wait there is absolutely no evidence of pre-human having any tools? Or cave paintings and use of the fire? Don't you twist my words. I didn't say that all remains must have something with them. But there is absolutely nothing. Zero signs of evidence. That is ridiculous.

There is no such thing as "James' work". There are only some messages in this forum where he fantasizes about dinosaurs having civilization. And the distribution of the fossils doesn't say anything about civilization. Only that the dinosaurs were here and there. There is still absolutely no direct sensorial evidence about civilizations. I quite can't understand why you are even in this thread.