James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 281779 Views
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1740 on: May 06, 2012, 01:21:59 AM »
I wanted to make sure James has seen this article about T. Rex having feathers, in case it helps his research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html

Considering modern dinosaurs have feathers, as well, it could shed some light on converging the gap between colonial and modern dinosaur attributes.

What is a "modern" dinosaur!?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3331
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1741 on: May 06, 2012, 04:43:46 AM »
I wanted to make sure James has seen this article about T. Rex having feathers, in case it helps his research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html

Considering modern dinosaurs have feathers, as well, it could shed some light on converging the gap between colonial and modern dinosaur attributes.

What is a "modern" dinosaur!?

Birds are dinosaurs.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1742 on: May 06, 2012, 08:18:10 AM »
I wanted to make sure James has seen this article about T. Rex having feathers, in case it helps his research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/dinosaur-feather-fossil-m_n_1403644.html

Considering modern dinosaurs have feathers, as well, it could shed some light on converging the gap between colonial and modern dinosaur attributes.

What is a "modern" dinosaur!?
It is best not to contradict these people on the definition of "dinosaur". They like simple definitions, and "birds are dinosaurs" is as good as any other three word definition can be. As any other three word definition, this one is not very useful, but what can you expect from three words?

Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1743 on: May 06, 2012, 08:35:37 AM »
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.


This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.
"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 #1744 on: May 06, 2012, 08:58:19 AM »
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.


This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.
This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.

?

Thork

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1745 on: May 06, 2012, 10:30:07 AM »
We have a common ancestor with the fish.
This could use a citation.

And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Yeah, more sweeping statements. Could we have something to show you didn't just make this up? Preferably something peer reviewed.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1746 on: May 06, 2012, 11:32:12 AM »
We have a common ancestor with the fish.
This could use a citation.

And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Yeah, more sweeping statements. Could we have something to show you didn't just make this up? Preferably something peer reviewed.
How about this?



Rest assured, Discover is peer reviewed. But more to the point, these "sweeping statements" are elementary information that everyone has received in High School unless you live in the Bible Belt of the United States or some equally fundamentalist Iranian school. Where did you go to High School?

?

Thork

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1747 on: May 06, 2012, 11:43:57 AM »
We have a common ancestor with the fish.
This could use a citation.

And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Yeah, more sweeping statements. Could we have something to show you didn't just make this up? Preferably something peer reviewed.
How about this?



Rest assured, Discover is peer reviewed. But more to the point, these "sweeping statements" are elementary information that everyone has received in High School unless you live in the Bible Belt of the United States or some equally fundamentalist Iranian school. Where did you go to High School?
Oh, how embarrassing for you. You linked me to a wall of text about the theory of evolution. Nothing about hard facts and evidence. Its a theory of course because it is not proved. So then picking out subsections such as hypothetical family trees ... well its as valid as James' theory on dinosaurs.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2012, 11:47:53 AM by Thork »

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1748 on: May 06, 2012, 11:47:48 AM »
We have a common ancestor with the fish.
This could use a citation.

And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Yeah, more sweeping statements. Could we have something to show you didn't just make this up? Preferably something peer reviewed.
How about this?



Rest assured, Discover is peer reviewed. But more to the point, these "sweeping statements" are elementary information that everyone has received in High School unless you live in the Bible Belt of the United States or some equally fundamentalist Iranian school. Where did you go to High School?
Oh, how embarrassing. You linked me to a wall of text about the theory of evolution. Nothing about hard facts and evidence. Its a theory of course because it is not proved. So then picking out subsections such as hypothetical family trees ... well its as valid as James' theory on dinosaurs.

Gotta better alternative?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1749 on: May 06, 2012, 11:49:56 AM »
Gotta better alternative?
Yes, see James' work on birds and dinosaurs.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1750 on: May 06, 2012, 11:52:03 AM »
Gotta better alternative?
Yes, see James' work on birds and dinosaurs.

It's a bit lost in the 88 pages!
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1751 on: May 06, 2012, 11:54:11 AM »
Gotta better alternative?
Yes, see James' work on birds and dinosaurs.

It's a bit lost in the 88 pages!

Allow me to sum up for you. Birds are dinosaurs.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1752 on: May 06, 2012, 11:55:49 AM »
OK.

What's the relevance with "Flat Earth Debate"?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1753 on: May 06, 2012, 12:00:08 PM »
OK.

What's the relevance with "Flat Earth Debate"?
It starts with plate tectonics. James theorises that continents don't move. This gives rise to the question how do dinosaurs of similar genetic likeness turn up in different continents? James answer is "that they build boats". RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
Objection then came "That's a bird, not a dinosaur". As Ichi helpfully pointed out birds are dinosaurs.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2012, 12:03:49 PM by Thork »

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1754 on: May 06, 2012, 12:02:24 PM »
OK.

What's the relevance with "Flat Earth Debate"?
It starts with plate tectonics. James theorises that continents don't move. This gives rise to the question how do dinosaurs of similar genetic likeness turn up in different continents? James answer is "that they build boats". RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
Objection then came "That's a bird, not a dinosaurs". As Ichi helpfully pointed out birds are dinosaurs.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.

Oh! Another hypothesis devoid of scientific grounds.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1755 on: May 06, 2012, 12:08:25 PM »
OK.

What's the relevance with "Flat Earth Debate"?
It starts with plate tectonics. James theorises that continents don't move. This gives rise to the question how do dinosaurs of similar genetic likeness turn up in different continents? James answer is "that they build boats". RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
Objection then came "That's a bird, not a dinosaurs". As Ichi helpfully pointed out birds are dinosaurs.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.

Oh! Another hypothesis devoid of scientific grounds.
??? You can observe boat building dinosaurs for yourself. Its not a hypothesis. Its a fact.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1756 on: May 06, 2012, 12:19:36 PM »
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).

That's science to you. It explains a lot.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1757 on: May 06, 2012, 12:25:07 PM »
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).

That's science to you. It explains a lot.

You will also notice the thread is helpfully titled "James' theory on dinosaurs". Thork's theory is that plate tectonics is equally as valid on a flat earth as a round one and so Thork doesn't need to follow this theory to its logical conclusion. It doesn't however mean I haven't taken the time to read, understand and respect James' theories ... something you seem incapable of doing.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1758 on: May 06, 2012, 12:42:30 PM »
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).

That's science to you. It explains a lot.

You will also notice the thread is helpfully titled "James' theory on dinosaurs". Thork's theory is that plate tectonics is equally as valid on a flat earth as a round one and so Thork doesn't need to follow this theory to its logical conclusion. It doesn't however mean I haven't taken the time to read, understand and respect James' theories ... something you seem incapable of doing.

If it was summerised in the FET wiki or in the Q&A, why not.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8829
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1759 on: May 06, 2012, 01:15:10 PM »
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8829
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1760 on: May 06, 2012, 01:17:02 PM »
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.


This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.
This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.
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 #1761 on: May 06, 2012, 03:15:03 PM »
Have tectonic of plaques been disproved by FET?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1762 on: May 06, 2012, 05:41:15 PM »
Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.


This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.
This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.
Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.
Have you even checked out the definition of clade?

If there is a species that is an ancestor, either extinct or not, of both species you are comparing, they belong to the same clade.

Even wikipedia has this definition nice and simple so you can understand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

And what kind of biologist are you, who does not know that all animals share gene structures? It is by now such common knowledge that the whole tree of evolution of species has been revised based on this scientific evidence. If you want to use the term "clade" with any precision at all you have to mention how far into the tree you want to go looking for that common ancestor. In fact, if you want to go all the way to some time after Abiogenesis, you can consider yourself part of the same clade as a bacteria, a plant or a fungus.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41970
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1763 on: May 06, 2012, 05:51:59 PM »
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.
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.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1764 on: May 06, 2012, 06:00:39 PM »
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.
In fact, it is a dinosaur's nest which may or may not have been designed to float, which may or may not be floating, and which may or may not be capable of withstanding a 5 cm wave. In short, the only detail that is arguably right in the claim is that the bird seen in the photo can be considered a dinosaur.

For all we can see, the bird is a victim of flooding and is trying to save whatever might be saved from her nest before it inevitably sinks.

Here you have the same situation with a different species of animal:

« Last Edit: May 06, 2012, 06:07:17 PM by trig »

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1765 on: May 07, 2012, 06:56:37 AM »
On the question of whether humans are fish:

Humans and fish share a common ancestor, they are both vertebrates.  If you therefore asked me "can you show me a picture of a vertebrate twiddling its thumbs", a valid response would be to show you a picture of a human twiddling its thumbs.  I could not show you a picture of a fish twiddling its thumbs.

Likewise, swans and deinoncyhus share a common ancestor, they are both dinosaurs.  If you therefore asked me "can you show me a picture of a dinosaur using a boat", a valid response would be to show you a picture of a swan using a boat. You might think I could not show you a picture of a deinoychus using a boat, because they did not document their work with cameras.

But in fact I can show you a picture of a deinoychus using a boat.




Do you see how arguments about birds not being dinosaurs are in fact doubly invalid?
"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

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1766 on: May 07, 2012, 07:52:03 AM »
This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.


It is not a question of common ancestry. There are many species with whom we share common ancestry, without sharing the same clade. Please at least read the links you so condescendingly present.


Dinosaurs represent a clade, and birds are part of that clade. Therefore, birds are dinosaurs. Humans and fish, despite distant common ancestry, are nevertheless not the part of the same clade, which is why neither we nor fish are considered fishumans.
"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

?

Thork

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1767 on: May 07, 2012, 10:32:23 AM »
which is why neither we nor fish are considered fishumans
Explain fish fingers.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 10:35:53 AM by Thork »

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35370
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1768 on: May 07, 2012, 10:56:28 AM »
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.

It's both.  I like to think of it as the dinosaur equivalent of a houseboat.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41970
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1769 on: May 07, 2012, 11:10:33 AM »
You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).
Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.
No, it's a dinosaur nest.

It's both.  I like to think of it as the dinosaur equivalent of a houseboat.

Have you ever taken a houseboat on a transoceanic voyage?
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.