The ancestors of Australian aborigines used boats to travel to Australia, yet not a single fossil boat is found from the migrant civilization which made this journey, just 40000 years ago. To expect fossil boats from 65000000 years ago and beyond is to display apparent ignorance over the content of archaeology.
Australian aborigines did not create transoceanic boats capable of transporting hundreds or thousands of huge dinosaurs like the Diplodocus, for example. Your debating strategy is as simple as it is thinly veiled: all or nothing; if a small piece of our civilization does not leave marks in the fossil and geological record, then it is possible that a whole civilization existed and left no sign of it existence at all.
Our test case was the Cretaceous North American Deinonychus, a 70kg dromaeosaur; and its most ubiquitous livestock, the Saurolophus, which we suggested would have been transported as yearlings to conserve space (the weight problem not being an issue with a well-engineered ship the size of the Mayflower, as we have discussed). Diplodocus was extinct by the end of the Late Jurassic, so I am not suggesting that any would have been transported by dromaeosaurs as food. In fact, I do not think I have suggested anywhere that a Diplodocus might have ever set foot on a boat. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I am not aware of any Diplodocus remains outside of the continental United States, suggesting they lived there, although Diplodocus was large enough that it
would not surprise me if isolated samples had swum to outlying islands around the USA, such as the Aleutians or the Bahamas (I'm just covering my back here, I don't know of Diplodocus fossils ever having been found there).
Humanity created cities of more than a million people before being able to construct transoceanic boats. Where are the cities of your intelligent dinosaurs?
Straightforwardly false I'm afraid. Not even disputed by mainstream globularist science.
Which ones can't you imagine? The two types of life form I can conceive of being transported are animals and plants, both of which form integral parts of the infrastructure of agrarian societies.
Even the Spanish explorers, when they carried some farm animals and crop seeds, chose to take a few well selected individuals because they did not have space to carry thousands of species. If your dinosaurs carried livestock (and we are being very credulous here) they certainly did not carry thousands of couples of each kind of animal, as if they were old Noah emulators.
If you could direct me to the place where I claimed anything of the sort, I will glady and immediately recant (hint: I have never suggested anything remotely along those lines).
You seem to have missed the part where I suggested that cretaceous dromaeosaurs were capable whalers and fisher-saurs(?). The fossil record suggests a mercantile society with seafaring capabilities.
How can I forget that hilarious remark? Was it for real?
So you are even considering the possibility that your intelligent dinosaurs carried all those sea animals to places that are now far inland and deposited them on the floor without eating them, just so we can find them many millions of years afterwards? Exactly how does the fossil record suggest intelligent dinosaurs that make museums of sea life on land just so we can study them now?
I don't wish to patronise you here, but what we've found inland are the bones and shells of the aforementioned sea creatures. Which part of this discovery suggests that their flesh wasn't eaten, exactly?
I dispute neither the creation nor destruction of mountains, nor have I ever done so.
Then you do not dispute the fact that geological strata give us information on how those mountains were created and destructed. You want to fish for a few pieces of geological investigation that serve your speculation and throw the rest.
Let me be quite clear on exactly what it is that I do or do not dispute, so that there may be no doubt as to the propositional content of my claims. I specifically dispute that the continents were once a single giant landmass, or that they have to any large degree changed their position relative to one another in the course of natural history (sea-level changes notwithstanding). I do not dispute the creation or destruction of mountains. I do not dispute that geological investigation enlightens us as to the past creation or destruction of these mountains, in fact, it is my sole basis for believing that they
were created or destroyed.
Societies as young as a few thousands years leave at best scant, at worst no evidence of their existence. What exactly should remain of wooden or stone structures from several million years ago?
And how many of those young societies have created seafaring boats? Humanity has had a history of at least three million years, leaving telltale signs of its existence, until finally a few of its individuals ventured into the Atlantic Ocean. When someone looks for traces of our existence in another 80 million years or so they will most certainly not find Erik the Red's boat or Columbus' boats, but they will certainly find ruins of some of the cities we have constructed.
Again, I'm afraid this is false. The most accessible counterexample is Australian pre-Aboriginal society, which necessarily constructed seaworthy boats and had the infrastructures necessary to build those boats. This deductive fact, which is (rightly) upheld by the mainstream anthropological community, is presented as the conclusion of an argument which is structurally similar to my own, with regard to cretaceous dromaeosaurs, and certain other prehistoric species.
It is one thing to say that most of the marks left by the dinosaurs have been destroyed forever. It is a very different thing to say every single trace of every kind of tool, housing, infrastructure, in short, everything that every single intelligent dinosaur created ever has been destroyed. After all, you only leave some 20 kilograms of bone when you die, but leave behind at least ten tons of rock, asphalt, tools, pieces of your house (both wooden and stone and metal), and much more.
I have not expounded the view that any dinosaur ever smelted metal, in fact, I believe I have argued the opposite on a number of occasions. The fact that the ancestors of Australian aborigines possessed a society of sufficient complexity to build intercontinental watercraft, yet left no trace of their civilization (a pair of plain facts which I would be surprised if you were to dispute) discredits the charge you have made here.