James's theory on dinosaurs

Have we observed aliens? No.
Has time travel, backwards, been observed? No

And have we found Deinonychi in enough quantity to justify the idea that they had a culture? No. (Remember, they could have made their tools with wood, but they would have left, at least, their skeletons). And have they been found close to the remains of the creatures they supposedly took across the oceans? No. And have we found any creature that had the ecological sense to carry all living things, including plants, predators, herbivores so big that it was impossible to use them as food?

Even we, humans, have never even attempted moving such enormous amount of different flora and fauna, enough to populate a continent or two. And remember, the geological strata also matches. Did the Deinonichi also carry geological strata in their 4 meter rafts?

All I ask of you is that you believe in one unobserved phenomenon, be it space travel or time travel. And yes, it is too much to ask.

Why should anybody believe in something for which there is no evidence?

Why should anybody believe in something for which there is no evidence?

Well, there are two possible reasons:

1) They really want to (por ejemple, religious converts)
2) They were raised to believe so (por ejemple, most RE'ers)

This phenomenon, however, has quite a bit of evidence. For instance, fossils of certain ancient dinosaurs of the same species have been found on separate continents.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 21, 2012, 10:02:38 AM

Ancient dinosaurs haven't been observed building structures.

Ancient Egyptians have not been observed building structures. Therefore...?

But we have artifacts from the ancient Egyptians.  No so for ancient dinosaurs.

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 21, 2012, 05:42:27 PM

Why should anybody believe in something for which there is no evidence?

Well, there are two possible reasons:

1) They really want to (por ejemple, religious converts)
2) They were raised to believe so (por ejemple, most RE'ers)

This phenomenon, however, has quite a bit of evidence. For instance, fossils of certain ancient dinosaurs of the same species have been found on separate continents.

Which is completely reasonable if continents shift, which we can currently record them doing.  And our theory of how they are moving uses a mechanism that would have been present when the dinosaurs were around.

I was taught RE, and for an extensive period of time now i have been exposed to FE and never have i seen a single topic that is better explained by FE than it is by RE.  At best FE offers inadequate semi plausible alternatives to things that RE predicts extremely well, and on many topics FE has absolutely no theory.

Quote from: Pongo on March 21, 2012, 01:05:11 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 21, 2012, 10:42:31 AM

Wait, I am confused, dinosaurs were not very smart, did they do this great ocean travel by accident?

I can't imagine the people that mastered boats and populated the South Pacific thousands of years ago were much smarter than dinosaurs. If they could do it in just a matter of a few thousand years, surely it's not too hard to imagine that dinosaurs could have done it in the millions of years they had on the planet.

Thousands of years ago we were still humans, we may not have been as knowledgeable as we are now, and with less emphasis one education we were certainly on average less intelligent, but i am looking at the EQ of the dinosaurs, and frankly its minuscule compared to homo sapiens, monkeys, and dolphines, even elephants.

Do you have the IQ stats for all dinosaurs?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 21, 2012, 02:21:33 PM

Quote from: Pongo on March 21, 2012, 01:05:11 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 21, 2012, 10:42:31 AM

Wait, I am confused, dinosaurs were not very smart, did they do this great ocean travel by accident?

I can't imagine the people that mastered boats and populated the South Pacific thousands of years ago were much smarter than dinosaurs. If they could do it in just a matter of a few thousand years, surely it's not too hard to imagine that dinosaurs could have done it in the millions of years they had on the planet.

Thousands of years ago we were still humans, we may not have been as knowledgeable as we are now, and with less emphasis one education we were certainly on average less intelligent, but i am looking at the EQ of the dinosaurs, and frankly its minuscule compared to homo sapiens, monkeys, and dolphines, even elephants.

Do you have the IQ stats for all dinosaurs?

You cannot test the IQ of dead things.  We have calculated every EQ for all the dinosoars that we have complete skeletons for.  Another issue is that it is not very effective outside of mammals, because mammals have more brain power devoted outside of cognitive functions than reptiles, and therefore require larger brains.  But on average the EQ of cold blooded dinosaurs is lower than mammals and birds.

Mean EQ for reptiles are about one tenth of the EQ for mammals. EQ in birds (and estimated EQ in dinosaurs) generally also falls below that of mammals, possibly due to lower thermoregulation and/or motor control demands.[18] Estimation of brain size in the oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx, shows it had an EQ in the upper reptilian range, but below that of living birds.

The general consensus according to most people who devote their entire life to researching this is that dinosaurs were not ship builders, they were just relatively smart overgrown reptiles.

Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded.  It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.

There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.

Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.

Quote from: Pongo on March 21, 2012, 11:41:48 PM

Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded.  It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.

There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.

Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.

Most mammals can't use tools. Does that mean that all mammals can't use tools?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 21, 2012, 05:19:29 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 21, 2012, 10:02:38 AM

Ancient dinosaurs haven't been observed building structures.

Ancient Egyptians have not been observed building structures. Therefore...?

But we have artifacts from the ancient Egyptians.  No so for ancient dinosaurs.

So you agree that whether or not anyone has observed ancient dinosaurs/Egyptians building structures has no bearing on whether they did or not. Glad we cleared that up.


Now, what are the odds of us having found sea-faring boats made by dinosaurs, given the state of the fossil record?

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 21, 2012, 06:06:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 21, 2012, 05:19:29 PM

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 21, 2012, 10:02:38 AM

Ancient dinosaurs haven't been observed building structures.

Ancient Egyptians have not been observed building structures. Therefore...?

But we have artifacts from the ancient Egyptians.  No so for ancient dinosaurs.

So you agree that whether or not anyone has observed ancient dinosaurs/Egyptians building structures has no bearing on whether they did or not. Glad we cleared that up.

James brought up that we've seen dinosaurs build structures.  I was merely pointing out that we haven't seen ancient dinosaurs (i.e. what most people mean when they say dinosaur) doing that, so it's proof of nothing.  We certainly haven't seen birds building ships with sails and berths to hold goods, either.

I'm afraid you can't use semantics to magic away the fact that you have no evidence of boat-building ancient dinosaurs.  Unless we're counting the hallucinations of a schizophrenic as evidence, now.

Modern dinosaurs don't need to build grand ships. They evolved a means of flight.

Um, dinosaurs fly so dinosaurs didn't need ships.  Argument over.

Um, dinosaurs fly so dinosaurs didn't need ships.  Argument over.

Not the early ones.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 22, 2012, 10:31:24 AM

Um, dinosaurs fly so dinosaurs didn't need ships.  Argument over.

Not the early ones.

How do you know?

I believe that these early civilizations of dinosaurs may have, in fact, been dragons.

Now, what are the odds of us having found sea-faring boats made by dinosaurs, given the state of the fossil record?

Archeologists have found a number of fossilized dinosaur bones, eggs, nests and even feces.  Why should it be unreasonable to expect to be able to find fossilized dinosaur boats?

I'd just like to point out that it's paleontologists who find dino bones.  Archaeologists deal with human artifacts only, as they're a branch of anthropology.

Well, it's one of those stupid -oligists.

James brought up that we've seen dinosaurs build structures.  I was merely pointing out that we haven't seen ancient dinosaurs (i.e. what most people mean when they say dinosaur) doing that, so it's proof of nothing.

It's proof that dinosaurs can build boats. It shows that ancient dinosaurs could plausibly have such a capability.

Archeologists have found a number of fossilized dinosaur bones, eggs, nests and even feces.  Why should it be unreasonable to expect to be able to find fossilized dinosaur boats?

Paleontologists have only found a handful of Deinonychus specimens. It's entirely reasonably to think that they would not have found their wooden, sea-faring boats, due to the probability of such material surviving intact and where they were probably stored (at sea or on the coast).

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 22, 2012, 09:33:44 AM

James brought up that we've seen dinosaurs build structures.  I was merely pointing out that we haven't seen ancient dinosaurs (i.e. what most people mean when they say dinosaur) doing that, so it's proof of nothing.

It's proof that dinosaurs can build boats. It shows that ancient dinosaurs could plausibly have such a capability.

Ha ha, ok, if you say so.

I like how you guys keep conveniently leaving out the bits about taking other plants and animals with them and having an actual civilization when you bring up the whole "birds can build boats" thing.  No, they can't build boats like would be required for this theory to work.

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2012, 01:05:24 PM

Archeologists have found a number of fossilized dinosaur bones, eggs, nests and even feces.  Why should it be unreasonable to expect to be able to find fossilized dinosaur boats?

Paleontologists have only found a handful of Deinonychus specimens. It's entirely reasonably to think that they would not have found their wooden, sea-faring boats, due to the probability of such material surviving intact and where they were probably stored (at sea or on the coast).

Paleontologists have found thousands of dinosaurs that the Deinonychus were supposed to have moved across the ocean, and yet, they have found a handful (I think even a handful is an exageration) of Deinonychus skeletons. Even if you want to continue with the fantasy of a complete civilization of Deinonychus that left absolutely no trace whatsoever, the Deinonychus would have left their own bones behind. Why have the Paleontologists found thousands of the animals that were herded by these Deinonychus and not found a single Deinonychus near the herds?

Lots of things are wrong with this "theory", among which the most possible lack of capacity to make an ocean-faring boat is just one.

You can also think about the humans, which you use so much in your analogies. When paleontologists from the future look for evidence of our time they will find human skeletons everywhere. In every continent, in every kind of strata. Your Deinonychus have been found in even less quantities than the Trilobites from the early Cambrian.

I like how you guys keep conveniently leaving out the bits about taking other plants and animals with them and having an actual civilization when you bring up the whole "birds can build boats" thing.  No, they can't build boats like would be required for this theory to work.

Tell me something, when was the first human civilisation? And what do you mean by civilisation? Why are we confident that the Pacific was colonised by humans who could build boats, despite there being no evidence of such boats?

Paleontologists have found thousands of dinosaurs that the Deinonychus were supposed to have moved across the ocean, and yet, they have found a handful (I think even a handful is an exageration) of Deinonychus skeletons. Even if you want to continue with the fantasy of a complete civilization of Deinonychus that left absolutely no trace whatsoever, the Deinonychus would have left their own bones behind. Why have the Paleontologists found thousands of the animals that were herded by these Deinonychus and not found a single Deinonychus near the herds?

Can you post evidence of the above please? I think the fossil record is a lot patchier than you're trying to make out.

Lots of things are wrong with this "theory", among which the most possible lack of capacity to make an ocean-faring boat is just one.

Could you clarify what the bolded terms mean? I don't understand.

You can also think about the humans, which you use so much in your analogies. When paleontologists from the future look for evidence of our time they will find human skeletons everywhere. In every continent, in every kind of strata. Your Deinonychus have been found in even less quantities than the Trilobites from the early Cambrian.

If that's so, why is it we have found relatively few prehistoric human remains, despite their temporal proximity?

Why are we confident that the Pacific was colonised by humans who could build boats, despite there being no evidence of such boats?

Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events.  Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.

Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events.  Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.

There are oral histories of many things which no mainstream scientist believes. There are even oral histories which have become written histories, such as the Old Testament. Does this mean Moses parted the Red Sea with the power of God?


And as we don't really know that much about dinosauric vocalisation, it's a bit much to say we know for certain no such oral history exists.

If that's so, why is it we have found relatively few prehistoric human remains, despite their temporal proximity?

This is the way you get perceived as an idiot. "Relatively few"? Compared with the handful (I think that was your own word) of Deinonychus found in all the Earth?

We have found prehistoric human remains in every continent except Antarctica. We have found Australopithecus from the time when all of humanity (if you consider Australopithecus human) was no more than some groups of individuals in the center of Africa. We have found more Mayas in Mexico than Tyrannosaurus in the whole world. I have seen more remains of Muiscas than the findings of Diplodocus found in the whole world.

By contrast, your beloved Deinonychus have been found only in the current USA, and all the findings together are less than the findings of pharaohs in Egypt.

But please tell me, why if the Deinonychus are supposed to have been moving thousands of plants and animals across the ocean, why do we find remains of them only on one side of the ocean? And what about Africa, Australia, and so many other places where we have found dinosaurs but no Deinonychus?

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2012, 08:39:21 PM

Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events.  Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.

There are oral histories of many things which no mainstream scientist believes. There are even oral histories which have become written histories, such as the Old Testament. Does this mean Moses parted the Red Sea with the power of God?


And as we don't really know that much about dinosauric vocalisation, it's a bit much to say we know for certain no such oral history exists.

So why should we assume?  Modern dinosaurs don't seem capable of advanced.  Alex the parrot, for example, did little beyond answer questions like "which block is blue?"  It's an impressive trick, yes, but the most remarkable communicator of the birds wasn't creating oral histories and plans.

It'd be very odd indeed for ancient dinosaurs to have had those capabilities and to have no remnant of them today in birds.  It could have happened, yes, but to think it's plausible is ridiculous.

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2012, 08:39:21 PM

Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events.  Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.

There are oral histories of many things which no mainstream scientist believes. There are even oral histories which have become written histories, such as the Old Testament. Does this mean Moses parted the Red Sea with the power of God?

Perhaps: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/22/holy-moses-science-may-explain-parting-of-sea/

And as we don't really know that much about dinosauric vocalisation, it's a bit much to say we know for certain no such oral history exists.

Apparently the birds aren't talking, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_bird