James's theory on dinosaurs

OK.

What's the relevance with "Flat Earth Debate"?

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.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on May 06, 2012, 11:55:49 AM

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.

Quote from: Thork on May 06, 2012, 12:00:08 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on May 06, 2012, 11:55:49 AM

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.

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 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.

Quote from: EmperorZhark 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 06, 2012, 08:35:37 AM

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:18:10 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.

Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.

Have tectonic of plaques been disproved by FET?

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:58:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 06, 2012, 08:35:37 AM

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:18:10 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.

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.

Quote from: EmperorZhark 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!).

Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.

No, it's a dinosaur nest.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:15:10 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark 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!).

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:

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?

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.

which is why neither we nor fish are considered fishumans

Explain fish fingers.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:15:10 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark 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!).

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.

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2012, 05:51:59 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:15:10 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark 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!).

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?

In the news today ...

Giant dinosaurs could have warmed the planet with their flatulence, say researchers.

I wonder if this may also have been a form of propulsion for their boats?

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 07, 2012, 10:56:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2012, 05:51:59 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:15:10 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark 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!).

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?

No.  But I'm not saying that a dinosaur would be able to sail across the ocean on a simple nest like that.  They may have collaborated to build larger vessels - larger nests, if you will - for that purpose.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 07, 2012, 10:56:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2012, 05:51:59 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:15:10 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark 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!).

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?

People have taken far less capable ships on transoceanic voyages.

Quote from: markjo on May 07, 2012, 11:10:33 AM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 07, 2012, 10:56:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2012, 05:51:59 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:15:10 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark 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!).

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?

People have taken far less capable ships on transoceanic voyages.

But dinosaurs? Very unlikely.

But dinosaurs? Very unlikely.

An outstanding contribution to the discussion. Truly, you have deployed a weighty argument.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on May 07, 2012, 11:43:15 AM

But dinosaurs? Very unlikely.

An outstanding contribution to the discussion. Truly, you have deployed a weighty argument.

There's obviously a missing link between a contemporary photo and million of years old dinosaurs at the very least.

And tectonics is a reality, measured and proved.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:17:02 PM

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:58:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 06, 2012, 08:35:37 AM

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:18:10 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.

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.

Please stop using faulty examples of clades. I'm happy you can clap your hands are realize some gene sequences are highly conserved (it appears you think this is something new) but do not try and pretend humans can be classified as fish.

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 05:41:15 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:17:02 PM

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:58:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 06, 2012, 08:35:37 AM

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:18:10 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.

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.

Please stop using faulty examples of clades. I'm happy you can clap your hands are realize some gene sequences are highly conserved (it appears you think this is something new) but do not try and pretend humans can be classified as fish.

I am not even interested in classification. My point is that the definition of clade only requires a common ancestor, and therefore the definition of what classifies with what is quite arbitrary. What makes the common ancestor between a dinosaur and a bird "close enough" and the common ancestor between a lizard and a human "not close enough"? There has to be a classification so the living beings can be studied, but the exact place where the divisions are placed is arbitrary.

My point is that the definition of clade only requires a common ancestor

And your 'point' is completely wrong, as I pointed out earlier:

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.

It is a wild guess to imagine what dinosaurs could have done more than 60 million years ago. It canonly be hypothesis, not zetetic work.

Tectonics is much more interesting because the Earth (lands and seas) have been entirely cartographied and we know for sure that the old world and the new world are drifting apart, at a rate of a couple centimetre each year, which gives, if we rewind the clock, a much more plausible theory of a single continent.
Problem solved!

I fail to see why plate tectonics are not compatible with a flat earth. Indeed, the whole idea of Pangea seems to present problems for globularism. Imagine what effect having so much land mass on one side of a spinning, whirling globe would have on it's movement. The wobbling would be alarming. I can't even imagine the stresses on the earth.  Would not the spinning prevent such a lopsided creation to begin with? How did a spinning, accreting globe manage to so unevenly accumulate?

What problems I do have with tectonic theory lie in the details. Again, this is not to say that plate tectonics is not true. I rather think it may be or that something very similar may be. Yet I find the assumptions we make the process ridiculous. It (like so many other things) has become scientific dogma. Scientific Orthodoxy refuses to allow itself to doubt. It must assign an answer to everything and shout down any opposing view. The whole idea is only a few decades old, but the idea is already entrenched. I'm willing to bet that you and most have gone through your entire scholastic career(s) without encountering any of the evidence against the prevailing plate tectonic theory, subduction, sea floor spreading, paleomagnetism, etc., without the hint that such evidence might even exist. 

The issue demonstrates everything wrong with Scientific Orthodoxy today, and the struggles of the many proponents of alternative theories or variations of tectonic-action to tectonic orthodoxy mirror that of the flat earth movement.

I fail to see why plate tectonics are not compatible with a flat earth. Indeed, the whole idea of Pangea seems to present problems for globularism. Imagine what effect having so much land mass on one side of a spinning, whirling globe would have on it's movement. The wobbling would be alarming. I can't even imagine the stresses on the earth.  Would not the spinning prevent such a lopsided creation to begin with? How did a spinning, accreting globe manage to so unevenly accumulate?

Same goes with FET.

What problems I do have with tectonic theory lie in the details. Again, this is not to say that plate tectonics is not true. I rather think it may be or that something very similar may be. Yet I find the assumptions we make the process ridiculous. It (like so many other things) has become scientific dogma. Scientific Orthodoxy refuses to allow itself to doubt. It must assign an answer to everything and shout down any opposing view. The whole idea is only a few decades old, but the idea is already entrenched. I'm willing to bet that you and most have gone through your entire scholastic career(s) without encountering any of the evidence against the prevailing plate tectonic theory, subduction, sea floor spreading, paleomagnetism, etc., without the hint that such evidence might even exist. 

The issue demonstrates everything wrong with Scientific Orthodoxy today, and the struggles of the many proponents of alternative theories or variations of tectonic-action to tectonic orthodoxy mirror that of the flat earth movement.

It is not what you call "Scientific Orthodoxy". Tectonic is the accepted theory until proven otherwise.